DP Tool Club 12/CD_ASCQ_12_0294.iso/vrac/diplyvar.zip/DIPLY2.TXT

Text File | 1994-01-13 | 200KB | 4,074 lines

===========================================================================
 BBS: Faster-Than-Light BBS
Date: 01-12-94 (13:04)             Number: 1253
From: [e-mail]      Refer#: NONE
  To: ALL                           Recvd: NO
Subj: VARIANT.AZ 7/11                Conf: (455) RecGamesDi
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 @SUBJECT:VARIANT.AZ 7/11                                             N
 @FROM   :[e-mail]                                     N
 @MSGID  :<[e-mail]>        N
Newsgroups: rec.games.diplomacy
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 1994 18:05:15 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Sender: Discussion Group for the Game of Diplomacy <[e-mail]>
From: [e-mail]
Subject: VARIANT.AZ 7/11

This article split by uuPCB: Part # 1 of 3

Newsgroups: rec.games.diplomacy
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 1994 18:05:15 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Sender: Discussion Group for the Game of Diplomacy <[e-mail]>
From: [e-mail]
Subject: VARIANT.AZ 7/11


** NAPOLEONIC DIPLOMACY II (Gary Gygax).

Rules Originally published in the US in Thangorodrim.

(1) Andrew Poole in Outposts 6, October 1981.

This was an attempt to produce a more acceptable 5-player variant than the
normal 5-player variant which has Italy and Germany unplayed and which was
called Napoleonic Diplomacy in the 1966 rulebook.  Double and Triple armies are
allowed as well as Double fleets.  Loss of a home nations capital causes
automatic civil disorder in that nation, newly captured areas have to be
garrisoned.  A/F are also used.

** NAPOLEON'S EUROPE, 1795 (Gerald Drews and Harry Drews).

(1) Robert Sacks in Lord of Hosts 2, December 1974.

Seven powers (Spain instead of Italy) on a well-designed map.  Victory criteria
is 17 of the 41 centers.  No canals or special point, five double-coasted
provinces.  A perfectly straight-forward game with no special rules.  This is a
very highly recommended game.  I cannot begin to list its features as they are
all on the map.

**                 NATURAL CATASTROPHES By Clause Boursin ??/07

(1) MIGUEL LAMBOTTE in SoL2 (October 1990)

Several catastrophes menace the land Provinces (drought, earthquake) and
sea provinces (tornadoes, icebergs).  They make the affected provinces
impassable.

**                         NECROMANCER By Richard Egan

(1) MARK NELSON in The Mouth of Sauron Volume VII #6 (February 1991)

This is a Third Age non Super-Sauron Tolkien variant.  Due to the
extensive development of Downfall over the years there is little similarity
between the latter marks and Hartley Patterson's original design.  This variant
goes back to the roots; I would classify it as a revised Downfall I.  Applying
some of the better ideas to be found in the latter Downfall designs (Nazgul,
Cavalry units and map change ideas) to Downfall I Richard has produced a game
which adds another angle to Third Age variants.

Richard points his finger at the "Super-Sauron" approach of Downfall (and
most of the other Third Age variants outside of the Middle-Earth series) as
being responsible for many of the balance problems with Downfall.  To avoid
these Richard sets the game in an earlier period (TA 2750) when Sauron was just
another growing power and the Ring unimportant (there is no Ring piece).  This
produces a variant which is more akin to the traditional variant-on-a-new-map
idea.  The only rule I dislike is an optional alignment rule.

One intriguing rule concerns the length of the game.  If Sauron has not
won by 3020 TA (18 turns) then the Ring is destroyed, and he goes into
civil-disorder with the game continuing.  At first sight this would appear to
make Sauron a poor choice of power, in a game with `good' players we expect to
see an anti-Sauron alliance which lasts until he enters civil-disorder.  We'll
have to see what happens in practice.  Sauron's initial set-up is also
interesting.

Anyone thinking of running another Downfall game is advised to run this,
eight player, game to generate some feedback.  One final thought: expect to see
some of Richard's new idea re-incorporated into the Downfall series if they
prove to be worthwhile.

**                      NORMAN EUROPE (Gerlad Drews) ??/??

Rules originally Published in Paroxysm 28.

(1) Robert Sacks in Lord of hosts 10, July 1976.

An interesting seven player variant which needs some work done.  The powers are
arranged intriguingly with the Normans split between England and southern
Italy, the buffer zones between powers are laden with centers.  There is one
triple-coasted province unnoticed in the rules and several unmentioned
double-coasted ones.  I am completely mystified by some of the decisions as to
which provinces are supply centers, but I suspect it has something to do with
consideration of play rather than history.


(2) GORDON McDONALD in AC-MONG 40 (August 1991)

This is a good game.  The rules are simple, although the map isn't too
good and on the face of it some of the powers may have difficulty due to their
positions.

There are Normans in England, and Southern Italy, Norsemen in Norway,
Sweden and Russia, around Moscow, Germany taking in central Germany and the
Germanic part of the Hapsburg Empire, France without Savoy (named Burgundy for
the game?), Islamic Territories taking in north Africa and half the Iberian
peninsula and the Byzantine Empire taking in the Balkans, Cyprus and Trebizond
(an area in northern Turkey with a geographical position similar to Pontus) and
the Crimea.

The victory criterion is 19 centres for a solo victory, 25 for a joint win
and 30 for a 3-way alliance if players so wish, with the game starting in 1101.

Certainly the diplomatic options are greater than 1000AD (qv) making
communication a must and this is particularly necessary for the Normans in
order to retain Southern Italy, but a skillful player can play off the Islamic
Territories and the Byzantine Empire against each other to ensure this area's
safety.

** NORTH AMERICA 2020 (???).

(1) Andrew Poole in Outposts 6, October 1981.

North and Central America have become split into seven separate states.
Players can use limited numbers of Hovercraft, some provinces become frozen in
Winter, and intervention, internal dissension, or raw material shortages can
plague your country.  Also Partisan activity and Severe Weather.  Apart from
the addition of Hovercraft, the main section is a fairly pure variant, the
optional rules however add a completely new dimension.


**                    NUCLEARDIP (Jean-Yvres Cornu) ???/10

(1) MIGUEL LAMBOTTE in SoL 2 (October 1990)

A variant of Ecodip (a variant popular in Switzerland) which runs
simultaneously on the map --- movement of units and nuclear missiles --- and

(continued next message....)
===========================================================================
 BBS: Faster-Than-Light BBS
Date: 01-12-94 (13:05)             Number: 1254
From: [e-mail]      Refer#: NONE
  To: ALL                           Recvd: NO
Subj: VARIANT.AZ 7/11                Conf: (455) RecGamesDi
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 @SUBJECT:VARIANT.AZ 7/11                                             N
 @FROM   :[e-mail]                                     N
 @MSGID  :<[e-mail]>        N

This article split by uuPCB: Part # 2 of 3

Newsgroups: rec.games.diplomacy
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 1994 18:05:15 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Sender: Discussion Group for the Game of Diplomacy <[e-mail]>
From: [e-mail]
Subject: VARIANT.AZ 7/11

off the map with the economic game.  Presence of the UNO.

** NUCLEAR HOLOCAUST: WORLD WAR III (David Grabar).

(1) Robert Sacks in Lord of Hosts 7, September 1975.

Thirteen players, global, economic, differing supply sources, victory by
unanimous consent, each player bids for his country and uses funds left over
from the auction for initial defence, diplomatic movement except for planes and
bombs, substantial air and supply rules, combat is within a space and is
reliant on economic considerations, devastation rules and bankruptcy rules.
It's a bloody wargame masquerading as a Diplomacy variant.

** PACIFICA (Scott Roseburg).

Rules originally Published in The Pocket Armenian 13.

(1) Robert Sacks in Lord of Hosts 5, June 1975.

Eight players (Alaska, Australia, British Empire, Hawaii, Japan, New Zealand,
Philippines, US); ten island centers not considered land spaces.  No relation
to anything.


**                       PARTITION OF THE OTTOMAN EMPIRE

(1) GORDON McDONALD in AC-MONG 43 (February 1992)

A seven player game whose title is self-explanatory, set in 1920.  The
powers are: Armenia, France, Great Britain, Greece, Italy, Turkey and the
USSR.  The fairly good quality map goes as far north as Rumania and Southern
USSR, east as far as central Iran, south as far as Northern Sudan and west to
central Libya and the toe of Italy.

Most forces have their supply centres where one would expect them to be
considering the geography mentioned, with Britain based in Egypt and Kuwait,
France based in Syria and north-east Chad; need I go on?

The game has an unusual order known as "seize".  A nation does not
automatically take a supply centre by occupying it in the autumn but rather
must "seize" it first, and may "seize" it for another nation.  A supply centre
may be designated as a "home centre" if a player has lost all his original home
centres.  An interesting game.

**              PERESTROIKA III By Larry Cronin (Peristroika ???)

(1) MICHAEL LOWREY in Perestroika 29 (February 1992)

The game itself I found rather boring.  Perestroika III should be called
Trade Wars, for that's largely what it is.  Trade is too important, allowing
small powers to generate large amounts of treasury out of any proportion to
their GNPs.  (Assuming no-one is dumb enough to trade with the dominant power.)
This produces a game in which the likely result is a big draw, making the game
not really worth the effort to play.  Possible solutions to this are either
restricting the amount of trade and allowing trade within a country.  (I
thought it was rather abusive that Italy, which only owned part of Turkey,
could trade 50 to Turkey while having a GNP of 2.  Meanwhile, no possibility of
trade existed between my half of Europe simply because it was all owned by the
same country.)

**     PERESTROIKA V By Larry Cronin (Peristroika 14, November 1990) ??/07

(1) LARRY CRONIN in Perestroika 14 (November 1990)

The main improvement with this variant is a simplification of the
accounting rules, blocks only costing one point now.  To prevent runaway
economics an inflation factor has had to be put in, which further complicates
matters.  Finally the cost of military units increases as the game progresses.
To keep this simple, I have tied the cost of military units to the year; e.g.
in 1902 they are two points, 1903 they are three points.  Blocks do not
increase in price.

Probably the most interesting feature of this variant, which radically
departs from all other Diplomacy variants, is that the NEUTRALS have lives of
their own.  Trade may be conducted with NEUTRALS and according to specified
simple rules, the NEUTRALS trade back to the player partner.  This discourages
the wanton conquering of these defenseless nations.  (Credit Will Philips for
the idea.)  Overall this variant is very well balanced between trade,
investment and military concern.

In another area, I have removed the need for a location for treasuries.
This was an unnecessary complication and also prevented a nation from surviving
beyond the capture of all its supply centres.  Now a player can maintain more
units than supply centres, providing the treasury has funds to maintain them.

**            PERESTROIKA VI By Larry Cronin (Perestroika ???, 1991)

(1) MARK NELSON in The Mouth of Sauron Volume VII: #6 (February 1991)

This is an economic design and a comparison with Mini-Economic would be
interesting...  Larry describes the game himself:

"The variant is essentially regular Diplomacy, but an economy has been
added.  It's fairly simple --- blocks exist in supply centres yielding a GNP.
There is enough GNP in 1900 to build the usual number of units but players can
alternatively build further blocks expanding the GNP.  This creates a tension
between the economy and the military.  The variant has undergone innovations
and fine tuning during almost two years of postal play.  It does require
careful gamesmastering."

Players may loan/gift spare points, a common rule in many economic
variants, but there is also a new idea; that of `trade'.  When points given by
one nation to another are *designated* as *trade*, the receiving party obtains
twice the amount sent.  However, trade can only occur if a `trade route'
exists.  (The idea of trading routes is not new.)  The effects of trading
routes is that you commonly only trade with your immediate neighbours, making
trading a risky but potentially highly beneficial activity.  For example, if
Austria trades three to Italy then Italy receives six.  Italy trades the six
back to Austria who receives twelve.  Austria trades the twelve back to Italy
who receives twenty-four.  However, with that many points Italy may decide to
build some units and attack Austria.

To encourage players to respect the rights of neutrals, trading with
neutral supply centres is allowed, so if you can't trust your neighbours but
can keep a SC neutral then you can still trade.  This has an immediate effect
on the power of certain countries: Italy is stronger as he gets more out of
keeping Tun neutral (and continually trading with it) than from capturing it.
Similarly in the first year England can trade with Norway, and France with
Iberia.

I suspect that Austria is weakened as a result of trading.  Austria can't
guarantee to keep any SC neutral and isn't in a position to play short in the

(continued next message....)
===========================================================================
 BBS: Faster-Than-Light BBS
Date: 01-12-94 (13:05)             Number: 1255
From: [e-mail]      Refer#: NONE
  To: ALL                           Recvd: NO
Subj: VARIANT.AZ 7/11                Conf: (455) RecGamesDi
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 @SUBJECT:VARIANT.AZ 7/11                                             N
 @FROM   :[e-mail]                                     N
 @MSGID  :<[e-mail]>        N

This article split by uuPCB: Part # 3 of 3

Newsgroups: rec.games.diplomacy
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 1994 18:05:15 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Sender: Discussion Group for the Game of Diplomacy <[e-mail]>
From: [e-mail]
Subject: VARIANT.AZ 7/11

first season, thus putting it at an immediate economic disadvantage.  For
example, England can afford to build only two units in the first season which
gives it a block to invest in a SC (making that centre a double SC).

In order to prevent ever increasing GNP's, a serious problem, SCs that are
attacked decrease in value.  This means that it's better to trade than to build
up your home economy.  A form of multiple units is used to break up stalemate
lines.

One rule which is *ridiculous* is that draws are not allowed, the game
continues until a player wins; or, as is more likely, until all but one of the
original players drop out.

There are a number of optional rules which enlarge the scope of the game.
I like this variant, I'm not convinced about its balance but there are plenty
of interesting possibilities.  And unlike many variants which increase the
strategic/tactical side of the game and cause a decrease in diplomacy (as
players spend more time working out the best set of moves) this game rewards
those who diplome through the benefits gained from trading.

Overall, some excellent ideas; but the faults need ironing out.

** PERSIAN (Martin Janta-Polezynski).

Rules originally published in Europa 6-8.

(1) Robert Sacks in Lord of Hosts 5, June 1975.

A substantial redesigning of Diplomacy, rather well done.  Many bodies of water
are combined; the North Sea is shrunk to the benefit of the Norwegian and
Channel; the Adriatic reaches Greece; more than one fleet of a given power can
occupy a body of water; Kiel and Constantinople may be skipped by fleets if
unoccupied by a unit that wishes to block it; there are two four-points; fleets
may not retreat from sea to land; convoyed armies have extra strength and
fleets in a coastal province are weaker; there are five more land provinces;
except for Berlin and Kiel, no major power has two adjacent supply centers;
there are several new double coasted provinces that are not supply centers;
every province in Russia has at least one coast; set-up is completely optional;
there is an optional rule to permit builds in non-supply centers; supply center
Venice has been moved to Milan to lessen conflicts, but the new center at
Breslau is adjacent to Warsaw.


**             PERSIAN DIPLOMACY II (Martin Janta-Polczynski) ??/07

(1) STEVE AGAR in ???, circa September 1980

An expanded board variant which keeps the regular seven powers, but
introduces considerable map changes --- introducing the North African coast
whilst reorganizing the province boundaries within the regular countries (30
SCs).  Interesting features include multiple fleets, new rules on canals
(making F(BAL)-NTH legal), an addition to the convoy system (allowing fleets in
coastal provinces to convoy), a hierarchical movement system (whereby equal
forces do not necessarily stand each other off --- consequently an unsupported
fleet in a coastal province will always be displaced by an army and finally the
inertial builds rule module which does away with the necessarily of conditional
builds/retreats.  Fascinating.

** PHILLIES' RULES (George Phillies).

(1) Robert Sacks in Lord of Hosts 3, February 1975.

Examine the 1961 rulebook: "an order to move, with support, against a unit
belonging to the same country as the supporting unit is of no effect; that
is...  may not force...  retreat." In the 1971 rulebook: "an order by one
country which supports an attack by another country against a space occupied by
one of the first country's units does not permit a move dislodging that
unit...".  Phillies holds that the rulebook should be interpreted literally: if
A's units support B's unit against another of A's units, the attack fails
unless the support is cut NO MATTER HOW MANY OTHER SUPPORTS B HAS.  Sounds like
fun -- think about it.

** PLAGUE! (Adam Gruen).

Rules originally published in Urf Durfal 6.

(1) Robert Sacks in Lord of Hosts 8, December 1975.

A random variant, affects land provinces eliminating units in them and negating
supply.  The plagues are voted and spread to adjacent units which CD and die
two turns later.  Sick.

**                        PLUTONOMY (Tom Swider) re09/07

(1) MIGUEL LAMBOTTE in SoL 2 (October 1990)

Based on Bourse, this variant enables the bankers to control the powers.

**                         PRASAD DIPLOMACY (Anshu Prasad) ????/07

(1) MARK NELSON 1/04/1994

A variant posted to rec.games.diplomacy on March 29th 1993.

When a unit moves into a supply center that the occupying power does not
own the player that owns that center loses control of it, but the occupying
player does not gain control of it unless they occupy it at the end of the
Autumn adjudication ( as in regular diplomacy).

The only exception to his occurs when a player writes an order of the form:

U (abc) - def NON-HOSTILE.

In this case ownership of the center def is not effected by the presence
of the occupying unit.

**                         PURE (???) ??/07

(1) taken from the rec.games.diplomacy.FAQ file on 28/1/93.

This is a simple traditional variant of diplomacy. There are the usual
seven countries. There are seven spaces on the board - one corresponding to
each country - its home supply center. These spaces are all connected by land
one with another. Initially, each player begins with one army in his home
supply center.

The objective of the game is to accumulate four supply centers.  See also
Minimalist Diplomacy.

END OF FILE
===========================================================================
 BBS: Faster-Than-Light BBS
Date: 01-12-94 (13:05)             Number: 1256
From: [e-mail]      Refer#: NONE
  To: ALL                           Recvd: NO
Subj: VARIANT AZ 1/11                Conf: (455) RecGamesDi
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 @SUBJECT:VARIANT AZ 1/11                                             N
 @FROM   :[e-mail]                                     N
 @MSGID  :<[e-mail]>        N
Newsgroups: rec.games.diplomacy
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 1994 18:02:16 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Sender: Discussion Group for the Game of Diplomacy <[e-mail]>
From: [e-mail]
Subject: VARIANT AZ 1/11

Actually there were only ten files so I created this bogus file to make the
number
upto 11 8-)

Mark
===========================================================================
 BBS: Faster-Than-Light BBS
Date: 01-12-94 (13:05)             Number: 1257
From: [e-mail]      Refer#: NONE
  To: ALL                           Recvd: NO
Subj: VARIANT.AZ 6/11                Conf: (455) RecGamesDi
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 @SUBJECT:VARIANT.AZ 6/11                                             N
 @FROM   :[e-mail]                                     N
 @MSGID  :<[e-mail]>        N
Newsgroups: rec.games.diplomacy
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 1994 18:04:49 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Sender: Discussion Group for the Game of Diplomacy <[e-mail]>
From: [e-mail]
Subject: VARIANT.AZ 6/11

This article split by uuPCB: Part # 1 of 4

Newsgroups: rec.games.diplomacy
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 1994 18:04:49 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Sender: Discussion Group for the Game of Diplomacy <[e-mail]>
From: [e-mail]
Subject: VARIANT.AZ 6/11


**                     HYPERSPACE DIPLOMACY II (Don Miller)

(1) STEVE AGAR in V&U 4 (September 1990)

One of the many variants that use the regular board, invented in 1972. The
rationale behind this one is that each season a player may order a Link and/or
a Separate order, this will either link the two provinces through hyperspace
(thus allowing A(Lon)-Mun)) or separate them (preventing movement between, say,
Lon and NTH).  The rules seem to be fairly comprehensive, covering every
possible situation that such messing about with the board could entail.
Similar to Geophysical II in many ways.

**             ICE AGE DIPLOMACY (Jim Penman)

(1) ANDREW ENGLAND in Affairs of State (1988)

This is set after a nuclear holocaust which has precipitated a new ice
age. The game map covers the whole world.

** IDEOLOGY (Jeremy Maiden).

Rules originally published in He's Dead, Jim! Volume 3: XVII.

(1) Robert Sacks in Lord of Hosts 10, July 1976.

A political variant allegedly based on Parliament.  Part of the rules is
confused, but basically each player buys popular support in various spaces in
an attempt to gain one half of the population, at which point he can attempt a
successful coup.  The owner of a space can arrest opposition, and can defeat a
coup if he has sufficient men.  Ownership of a space yields revenue, allowing
training of additional men and sending them out to subvert a neighbouring
territory or to defend your own.  Support is an option; popular support is
secret.  Movement of leaders is public; of Agents and Spies secret.  Since
Spies cost less, can do anything an Agent can, and can in addition determine
the number of men in a faction in a space, I suspect more Spies will be trained
than Agents -- especially since the only advantage an Agent has (of not
immediately disappearing after a revolution) is lost if the Agent is captured
or arrested.

** IMPERATOR: See Diadochi V.

** INDONESIAN (Russell Fox).

Rules originally published in Urf Durfal 5.

(1) REVIEW: Robert Sacks in Lord of Hosts 8, December 1975.

Confused, perhaps unplayable.

** INTERPLANETARY WARFARE (Glenn Reed).

(1) Robert Sacks in Lord of Hosts 3, February 1975.

An imaginary solar system with an almost impassable asteroid belt, five
planets, colonizable moons, and meteor showers which run around destroying
units and supply centers on moons.  Depending on where the comma is supposed to
go in the previous sentence, the meteor showers either harass moons or disrupt
the entire game; of course disrupting the game is mild compared to the missiles
which can destroy everything except planets.  There are three unit-types, one
of which can carry missiles, one which can colonize, and one which is double
strength on defense (but not against missiles, sigh).  The game year has twelve
months; every fourth one is for adjustments, perhaps the only feature of
interest in the game.  Victory is obtained by eliminating all the other players
while retaining a supply center; I doubt that there is very much that can be
said in favor of this design.

** INTIMATE (Adrian Baird and Steve Doubleday).

Rules originally published in Dolchstoss XIV.

(1) Robert Sacks in Lord of Hosts 4, March 1975.

A two player game.  After choosing countries, each player gets a certain
initial credit: 22- Germany, 24-Italy or Austria, 20-the others.  Before each
game year both players bid for the services of the non-player countries; the
highest bid for each non-player country wins and the credit is deducted from
the player's Treasury, and that player controls that country for that year (he
must submit builds when possible).  When the bids are equal for a given
country, that country is CD that year.  A player may bid more than his credit,
but if his successful bids exceed his credit, he loses.  At the end of a year,
each player has an income equal to the supply centers his own country has.  A
player wins when one of his own units enters one of his opponent's own home
supply centers; ties are decided by summing credit with the supply center
count.

**             INTIMATE 1A (Adrian Baird & Steve Doubleday) ???/02

(1) STEVE AGAR & JON LOVIBOND in ??? (circa 1979)

This variant has proved popular because of its simplicity and because `ID'
games provide a means whereby two players who have a certain degree of
animosity towards each other can fight it out.  The basic idea is that the
players are allocated one of the seven countries on the regular board, while
the remaining five countries become mercenaries.  The two players receive a
certain number of `credits' depending on the country they are playing, and
every Autumn season they use these credits to bid for the services of the
mercenary countries.  The winner is the first player to put one of his units
(not a mercenary) into one of the home centres of his opponent.

CRAZY MARKIE SAYS: Could easily be moulded into other variants... eg
Abstraction and Stab.

** INTERSTELLAR DIPLOMACY III (Lew Pulsipher) sg03/05

(1) Steve Agar and James Nelson in Spring Offensive 19, January 1994.

This space variant uses a symmetrical three-dimensional board,
permitting horizontal, vertical and diagonal movement to both the
vertical and horizontal.  Players start with 400 credits, receive
20 credits from captured centres and credits can be spent on building
fleets on the home centre or building Industrial Centres which then
permit fleets to be built there.  Fleets cost 8 credits per move to
maintain plus additional credits for specific types of movement, which
means that economics is a very important aspect of the game.
General combat rules are as per Diplomacy save that multiple fleets
are permitted.

**                             JIHAD (Dick Vedder)

(continued next message....)
===========================================================================
 BBS: Faster-Than-Light BBS
Date: 01-12-94 (13:05)             Number: 1258
From: [e-mail]      Refer#: NONE
  To: ALL                           Recvd: NO
Subj: VARIANT.AZ 6/11                Conf: (455) RecGamesDi
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 @SUBJECT:VARIANT.AZ 6/11                                             N
 @FROM   :[e-mail]                                     N
 @MSGID  :<[e-mail]>        N

This article split by uuPCB: Part # 2 of 4

Newsgroups: rec.games.diplomacy
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 1994 18:04:49 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Sender: Discussion Group for the Game of Diplomacy <[e-mail]>
From: [e-mail]
Subject: VARIANT.AZ 6/11


(1) STEVE AGAR in V&U 4 (September 1980)

A European variant, although the board extends as far as India, set in
635AD.  The powers are: (Type A) Arabs, Germans; (TYPE B) Byzantines, Persians,
Franks; (TYPE C) Lombardy, Exarchate of Spain and North Africa.  The powers are
split into three types in order of size and given different victory criteria
accordingly.  A fairly complicated game with hidden movement, as well as a
sense of humour.  If the Arabs lose Mecca, then all Arab units must retreat
towards it until it is recaptured, even if they have no hope of ever reaching
it.  This game has been played postally.

**                       LEBENSRAUM III (McGregor) ??/07

(1) MIGUEL LAMBOTTE in SOL 2 (October 1990)

Based on a world map, World War II with added rules for supply lines and
aircraft.

**                         LEGION (Fl Montauban) ??/07

(1) MIGUEL LAMBOTTE in SoL 2 (October 1990)

The Mediterranean in the era of the Roman Emperors --- six Governors and
the Emperor battle it out.

**             LIMA 2B (Colin Hemming, Michael Jean-Paul Macedoni)

(1) STEVE AGAR in V&U 4 (September 1980)

A variant dating back to 1972.  This game uses a slightly expanded version
of the regular map and incorporates a new type of unit --- the Air Squadron.
Essentially squadrons act as regular units but they have a range of two
provinces, instead of the usual one.  In addition to stand and support,
squadrons can `bomb' and `invade'.  The original game was written in French ---
I believe that the first English version was printed by Colin Hemming in the UK
zine XL (1972).

** LEMURIAN (S Gunnell).

Rules originally published in Tau Ceti 9.

(1) REVIEW: Robert Sacks in Lord of Hosts 10, July 1976.

An economic variant with armies, heroes and magicians; this is *not* a magic
variant -- magicians seem to be heroes of a type who don't allow other
magicians in the same space.  Two of the players cannot communicate with each
prior to initial builds, one of whom may not hire magicians, and the other may
not hire heroes, while the remaining two players are limited to four magicians
at a time.  There are three different types of supply centers with different
incomes and properties -- one, the native centers, are hostile to magicians and
if left alone can build double armies to resist the players.  Perhaps playable.

**               LOEB-9 (Daniel Loeb)

(1) MARK NELSON (15/1/93).

A nine-player variant based on an expanded regular board adding Norway and
Spain as the new powers.  Five new supply centres are added and the victory
criteria is 20.  Has been played by email.  If you have access to email you can
get the rules by sending the command GET INFO.LOEB9 to a judge.

**                    LONDON NIGHTS (Andy Mansfield) pe17/07

(1) MIGUEL LAMBOTTE in SoL 2 (October 1990)

Seven gangs from North London want to take over South London.  Will the
police be able to stop them?

** LUNATIC DIPLOMACY (Thomas Galloway) ug07/02-08

(1) Steve Agar and James Nelson in Spring Offensive 19, January 1994.

A central planet with eight provinces is ringed by six orbits of
satellites, the nearest orbit to the planet containing the smallest number of
satellites with the outmost orbit to the planet containing the most
satellites.  Players may move between orbits.  After every Autumn
move all of the satellites move in their orbit, which results in a gradual
shift in which provinces are adjacent to which.  Whilst this is well
handled, the concept may be a bit perplexing for most players.

**                     MACHIAVELLI (??)

(1) MARK NELSON (28/1/93)

A complex diplomacy variant set in Italy which adds rule for money,
bribes, famines, assassinations and the such like.  The rules, and map, can be
downloaded from a Judge.  Distributed commercially by Avalon Hill.

** MAGIC II (???)

Rules originally published in Valinor 1.

(1) Robert Sacks in Lord of Hosts 8, December 1975.

D&D strikes! Could use a little simplification, but good.  In addition to a
standard set-up, one unit is knighted (double strength -- must be doubly
attacked to totally cut support), and there is a hero and wizard for each
player; heroes may accompany their own forces adding one to their strength, and
travel alone (over land or water) without strength -- if they are unable to
retreat they're annihilated.  Wizards may move invisibly (if an enemy unit is
in the same space it has 50% chance of detecting and capturing the wizard) or
cast one of the fifteen spells in the game.  Spells take effect before movement
(a spell if broken if the wizard is discovered, hit by lighting or fireball, or
attacked).  The wizard starts with only a Learning Spell; certain spells must
be maintained; one spell is Counterspell against several of the other spells;
one spell (Light) may be cast while moving to counter Darkness.

**                      MANICHEION (Claude Bouries) ??/09

(1) MIGUEL LAMBOTTE in SOL 2 (October 1990)

This game adds two new player, God and the Devil who can bless (or curse)
provinces.  A blessing will neutralize a curse (= impassable).  God and the
Devil choose a power which they consider will be the winner.  If they have
guessed correctly they will win the game.

**                       MARCHERVAP (Jon Lovibond) ??/??

(1) GORDON McDONALD in AC-MONG 40 (August 1991)

This game is based on the political situation in Wales as it existed at
the time of the treaty of Aberconway, 1277.

There are a number of additions to the regular game.  Castles, surprise,
garrison armies and two named units: Llewlyn ap Gruffyd and Edward I.  There
are three Welsh players: Gwynedd, Deheubarth and Powys and three English:
Crown, Mortimer and Clare.

There isn't anything to stop the Welsh and or English powers helping each
other, however, Llewlyn and Edward, leader units, in control of Gwynedd and the
Crown respectively, can only be used against opposing nationalities. Llewlyn
when `stacked' with as Welsh unit adds 1 to its strength in attack and 2 in
defence whereas Edwards counts as 1 for both --- this variant has similarities
to many a wargame.  Leader units and garrison armies don't count towards the
===========================================================================
 BBS: Faster-Than-Light BBS
Date: 01-12-94 (13:05)             Number: 1259
From: [e-mail]      Refer#: NONE
  To: ALL                           Recvd: NO
Subj: VARIANT.AZ 6/11                Conf: (455) RecGamesDi
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 @SUBJECT:VARIANT.AZ 6/11                                             N
 @FROM   :[e-mail]                                     N
 @MSGID  :<[e-mail]>        N

This article split by uuPCB: Part # 3 of 4

Newsgroups: rec.games.diplomacy
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 1994 18:04:49 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Sender: Discussion Group for the Game of Diplomacy <[e-mail]>
From: [e-mail]
Subject: VARIANT.AZ 6/11

province controlled by units from another nationality or alter the control of a
supply centre on their own  It is possible for the two leader units to co-exist
in the same province providing no other units are present. Leader units can
only be eliminated if surrounded and on their own their defensive (or attack)
value counts for nothing.

Castles, as would be expected, have a defence value (1) although this only
applies if there is a garrison in residence.  (They count as double supply
centres.)  If they are kept in a state of siege for four consecutive movement
turns i.e. surrounded, all units occupying them are annihilated due to
starvation, but the opposing forces have to wait to the following turn before
moving in.  Retreats into own castle only!

There is also a limit to the number of fleets a power may build and
garrison armies cannot be built even if some are lost.  Turns go July, August,
September, etc with two movement turns followed by a build turn.  There are
varying victory conditions, depending on the power and may include a certain
number of castles or a dead opposing leader.

Certainly an interesting game combining wargaming methods with Dip.
Initially looks complicated, but if you're a wargamer it's easy to grasp and in
reality probably no more complicated than any other variant with additional
unit types.  Indeed easier than Ark Royal Dip (qv).

** THE MAYA (John Boyer).

Rules Originally published as a supplement to Impassable.

(1) Robert Sacks in Lord of Hosts 9, March 1976.

Units serve as both armies and fleets; any number of fleets can be in a sea
space; movement is between cities adjacent by road, each of the eight players
has a single home city.  The home city is the only land space which may have
more than one ordinary unit in it, & only one player's; moves and builds
alternate -- each land space is a city is a supply center.  There is a special,
temple, unit which can not be moved, but may be built in any owned center upon
a net gain in centers owned -- they are built in lieu of ordinary units, but do
not count against subsequent supply -- temples add defensive strength.  The
victory criteria is 15 temples in one or more centers.  Recommended.

**                       MEDIEVAL DIPLOMACY (Andrew England)

(1) ANDREW ENGLAND in Affairs of State (1988)

This variant is loosely based around Feudal Diplomacy (qv) but has several
added features to improve its historicity.  Islam is included as a separate
power with which none of the other players is allowed to negotiate.  To this
end it is run by the GM.  Byzantium is also presented as a separate power to be
run by a player and both the Vikings and Nomads are included as non-aligned
powers which move in a random fashion. Additionally, the Vikings make raids
into various coastal provinces. The importance of land in the medieval world is
presented by making provinces as well as supply centres worth production
points.  The map has been extended to take in all of North Africa and the
middle East hence making the possibility of Crusades a reality.  Otherwise the
variant the same as Feudal.  Time will tell what the strengths and weaknesses
of this game are.

**                       MEDITERRANEAN (Max Feron) ??/10

(1) MIGUEL LAMBOTTE in SoL 2 (October 1990)

The Mediterranean world in 1250BC: in spite of certain events (plague,
famine) and other problems (corruption, rebellion...) the players must conquer
provinces which provide them with money and final victory.

**                       MERCATOR (Doug Wakefield et al)

(1) STEVE AGAR & JON LOVIBOND in ??? (Circa 1979)

This variant is played on a world map with 13 players and a total of 108
supply centres and has been subjected to eleven different revisions, but the
rules for `Definitive Mercator' are now available.  The basic units in Mercator
are armies and fleets, but players my also form Army/Fleet (A/F) units which
enable the combined units to travel together for several moves.

There are four different `time scales' (TS) in use (i.e. certain types of
movement are adjudicated before other types, e.g. armies land from fleets
before normal army movement).  Due to its size Mercator has had troubles with
balance, but the recent revision is claimed to be as near perfect as possible.
You'll have to concentrate to do well.  Several optional rules are provided
that must be decided on before the start of the game.

(2) BRYAN BETTS in MOPSY 18 (December ?? circa 1984/85)

Mercator originated as a variant played on a world map --- a Mercatorial
projection, i.e.  one which wraps around into a cylinder.  Several marks now
exist, and all have certain differences from the regular game; largely in
movement.

In Mercator there are no convoys --- armies cross seas by forming a
combined unit with a fleet.  This A/F can move as a fleet, and can land the
army, rather like an amphibious assault.  Movement is in three phases: PHASE
ONE: Armies may board or land from fleets.  If a fleet gives up its own move
then it may support its army to land.  Since no defensive support is possible
this is a very powerful attack. PHASE TWO: Normal diplomacy moves and
supports.  A/F's can move as a normal fleet. PHASE THREE: Armies may embark
onto or disembark from fleets (without support).  A fleet which
embarks/disembarks an army may then move to a sea space.

An example.  Suppose England has F(ENC) and A(Lon).  He may order: TS1:
A(Lon) BF(ENC), TS2: A/F (ENC)-MAO, TS3 A(MAO) D(NAf), F(MAO)-WMS!  As you can
imagine, Mercator is a fast moving game, with the emphasis very much on
attack.  In addition, the cylindrical map means you can (with careful planning)
attack your enemy simultaneously from both sides!  No sooner does he think he's
stopped your attack in the west then you slam into him from the east!

The final important difference is the use of the `Key Rule', which says
that a unit which fails to move may be dislodged by an UNSUPPORTED ATTACK from
any provinces other than the one it failed to move to.  Example: ENGLISH
F(NTH)-ENC, F(MAO)-Bre, FRENCH: F(Bre)-ENC.  The French fleet is dislodged from
MAO since its move failed.

In short, a great game, with opportunities for all sorts of blitzkriegs
and dirty deeds --- and the chance to play countries like Australia, Brazil and
Japan!

(3) JAMES NELSON in SPRINGY 45 (February 1991)

(continued next message....)
===========================================================================
 BBS: Faster-Than-Light BBS
Date: 01-12-94 (13:05)             Number: 1260
From: [e-mail]      Refer#: NONE
  To: ALL                           Recvd: NO
Subj: VARIANT.AZ 6/11                Conf: (455) RecGamesDi
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 @SUBJECT:VARIANT.AZ 6/11                                             N
 @FROM   :[e-mail]                                     N
 @MSGID  :<[e-mail]>        N

This article split by uuPCB: Part # 4 of 4

Newsgroups: rec.games.diplomacy
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 1994 18:04:49 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Sender: Discussion Group for the Game of Diplomacy <[e-mail]>
From: [e-mail]
Subject: VARIANT.AZ 6/11


This is a global variant of which there are a number of different versions.

All powers have foreign build centres, and the game mechanics ensure that
the game doesn't get bogged down.  This fluidity makes the game a great
tactical and diplomatic game, and it has attracted its own subculture of
hard-core Mercator players within the UK hobby.

The game is quite complicated, and the rules quite lengthy but once the
basic concepts have been understood everything falls into place.  There are a
large number of articles on the game, both on the play and the design.

**                     METEOROLOGICAL DIPLOMACY (???) ??/07

(1) MIGUEL LAMBOTTE in SoL 2 (October 1990)

Weather conditions enable provinces to appear and disappear.

**                 MIDDLE EARTH II (Don Miller) ??? 1965 ??/05

(1) STEVE AGAR in V&U 2 (July 1980)

This is basically a map variant in which the players represent Arnor,
Gondor, Mordor, Rhovanion and Rohan.  The designer overcame the fleet
limitation which is built into Middle-Earth variants by allowing armies to turn
into fleets and vice versa, and outlawing convoys.  There was no attempt to
recreate the book --- Middle Earth was used as a scenario and nothing more.

**             MIDDLE EARTH V (Lew Pulsipher) ??? circa 1975 ???/07

(1) STEVE AGAR in V&U 2 (July 1980)

In many ways this is just a seven player version of Middle Earth II, in
which the players are now Angmar, Dwarves, Elves, Gondor-Rohan, Harad-Ruhn, Men
of the North and Mordor.  The fleet rules were altered to accommodate the
convoy, allowing the fleet to army conversion to happen in any province but
specifying that the army to fleet change could only take place in costal SCs.
In order to improve player-balance Lew introduced Mountain ranges (e.g. to
surround Mordor) which are impassable apart from specifically marked mountain
passes --- the effect of these mountains on the play balance are considerable
(and make it easy to form a North-South stalemate line).

**           MIDDLE EARTH VIII (Lew Pulsipher) ??? circa 1976 ???/08

(1) Robert Sacks in Lord of Hosts 7, September 1975.

Eight players, one move per year, one fortress per home country, army/fleet
conversion, standard Pulsipher victory condition: a majority of units possible
+ one (to guarantee against `false' wins).  The Elves (located in the center of
the board) have a fourth home center and Mordor has one home center in the
center of the board.  The location of the boundaries and fortresses do not make
particular sense, given the Middle Earth setting, and the game lacks magic,
alignment, and mountains; as a Middle Earth variant it is unappealing, although
the design features and concepts would make a good abstract variant.

(2) STEVE AGAR in Variants & Uncles 2 (July 1980)

Really original title, huh?  This is an eight player Middle Earth scenario
(Agnor, Angmar, Elves, Rohan, Gondor, Rhun, Rhovanion and Mordor), designed
primarily as a fast FtF game.  The principal change is the introduction of a
one movement season per game year, to speed up the flow of the game and to
encourage adventurous tactics.  Also, each player is given a home fortress
centre (which adds one to a defensive unit).  The fleet rules are those of ME
II.

**                MINIMALIST DIPLOMACY (Phil Reynolds) vb07/07

(1) MIGUEL LAMBOTTE in SoL 2 (October 1990)

The seven classic powers have one province each.  Each one is adjacent to
at least three others.

** MOOSE (Paul Girsdansky).

Rules originally printed in Magna Avis 2.

(1) Robert Sacks in Lord of Hosts 8, December 1975.

A Scandinavian player and a Pacific theatre are added.  Very confused.

**                     MULTIPLICITY (Richard J.Walkerdine)

(1) STEVE AGAR and JON LOVIBOND in ??? (circa 1979)

Basically exactly as Regular, except that the formation of multiple units
is allowed.  Multiplicity is played to a 3-season year.  This variant doesn't
seem too popular at the moment --- perhaps it is TOO simple for most variant
players.

** MULTIPLICITY PLUS (Richard Walkerdine and Stephen Agar).

(1) Steve Agar in Spring Offensive 11 (April 1993).

This is a new version of Multiplicity II which I have put together to take the
Multiplicity concept to its natural conclusion.  Unlike original Multiplicity
where the ability to merge was seen as an extra type of move, these rules see
merging as the usual state of affairs, reflecting the fact that in real combat
military units of the same nation do not stand each off!  However, as you would
imagine, the death of the self-standoff does make a significant difference to
the tactics of the game.

Another departure from Multiplicity II is that these rules permit the formation
of multinational multiple units, with rules covering the possibility that a
player may wish to stab the player with whom he has joined forces.  This was
always outlawed in Multiplicity presumably because it made everything too
complicated.

Despite having been around since what seems like the beginning of time,
Multiplicity has never proved that popular and few postal games have been
played, which I think is a great shame.

END OF FILE
===========================================================================
 BBS: Faster-Than-Light BBS
Date: 01-12-94 (13:05)             Number: 1261
From: [e-mail]      Refer#: NONE
  To: ALL                           Recvd: NO
Subj: VARIANT AZ 2/11                Conf: (455) RecGamesDi
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 @SUBJECT:VARIANT AZ 2/11                                             N
 @FROM   :[e-mail]                                     N
 @MSGID  :<[e-mail]>        N
Newsgroups: rec.games.diplomacy
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 1994 18:02:49 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Sender: Discussion Group for the Game of Diplomacy <[e-mail]>
From: [e-mail]
Subject: VARIANT AZ 2/11

This article split by uuPCB: Part # 1 of 2

Newsgroups: rec.games.diplomacy
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 1994 18:02:49 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Sender: Discussion Group for the Game of Diplomacy <[e-mail]>
From: [e-mail]
Subject: VARIANT AZ 2/11


Unattributed comments are by Mark Nelson <[e-mail]>

****************************************************************
*  VARIANT  A-Z <VERSION 2.0>   VARIANT  A-Z <VERSION 2.0>     *
****************************************************************

This file is a collection of diplomacy variants reviews.  But before we reach
the reviews: What is a diplomacy variant?

((Reprinted from The Novice Package, 1987.))

THE CHAMELEON GAME
By Steve Doubleday

One of the things that strikes a person new to playing Diplomacy is that,
once the game becomes more than a little familiar, it is rather simple.  The
major part of the interest and the complexities rely on the way in which
alliances are formed and broken.  Mind you, there are still tactical points
which require concentration from even the most experienced players.

After a while, even if no-one's mentioned that the game can be altered to
provide a similar, perhaps, but subtly changed version of the game, the thought
invariably occurs... "What if..."

The simplest variants often come about through necessity; if you can't get
seven players together, then how do you cope with having fewer players?  Some
cursory attention is paid to this problem in the rulebook, but few are
satisfied with the solutions proposed there.

It was precisely in this way that Adrian Baird and myself came to design
probably the most popular variation on the basic game (otherwise known as a
variant), Intimate Diplomacy.  This simple variant allows two players to select
starting counties and then bid for the `non-aligned' countries.  The objective
is simpler than the standard game: merely to take one of your opponent's home
supply centres with one of your own units.  However, the addition to the game,
the bidding for the non-aligned countries alters the game quite substantially,
because it becomes possible to `buy' help; but beware how you bid... you could
end up bankrupt and totally without help.

ID came about because two people wanted to shrink the number of people;
Youngstown came about because more people than the basic seven wanted to play
the game; the board was expanded in this case westward to include China, India
and Japan; the mysteries of the east enter upon the board --- no longer does
Turkey have a corner position and the Russian bear looks even more powerful and
over-extended!

These two give you an idea of some of the simple variation possible.
Further variations come about because people feel that it is possible to create
something out of the standard game which will satisfy something which they want
to achieve; the chameleon game can change its skin to suit its surroundings and
those of us who want to play a game based in the milieu of our choice.

One of the most popular of themes is that of the wonderful story of The
Lord of the Rings.  There have been a large number of variants based on this
book.  These include: Middle Earth, The Downfall of the Lord of the Rings and
the Return of the King, Third Age, Mordor vs the World, The Great Years, Dark
Tower etc... all of which have seen the light of the world in many versions.
This thematic presentation of the standard game includes treatments of Andre
Norton's `Witch World', Ursula LeGuinn's `Wizard of Earthsea', Tolkien's 'The
Silmarillion', Asimov's `Foundation and Empire' and Blish's `Cities in Flight'.
It is no coincidence that many of these are science fictional or fantastic; as
these world's appeal to the games' designers and games' players alike.

There are also many variants which are based on different historical
periods: the fall of the Alexandrian Empire; the Rise and Fall of Rome; the
conflict between the Greeks and the Persians; the English Civil War; the
conquest of the New World; the Second World War (including modern weaponry).

Yet other variants are based upon a quirky idea; the `what if...' idea
taken even further.  For example, what if the land provinces in Diplomacy
gradually get submerged by a second flood? Gradually the land provinces would
become sea provinces... the variant's called Deluge.

Some variants are based on making the original game more complicated. At
one extreme there is the incredible Hypereconomic Diplomacy which encompasses
the whole world with over sixty players taking part, each making important
economic as well as military decisions.  Unfortunately, though a fabulous game
to play, Hyperec has proved too complicated for most GMs who have tried it in
the past.  However there is now the prospect that the game may become feasible
to run using the high powered microcomputers now available at a reasonable
price.  Mercator by contrast is a popular whole-world variant which has been
run to conclusion many times.  There are Mercator enthusiasts who refuse to
play regular Diplomacy because they feel that it is too shallow by comparison.

And there are many more variants besides.  If you want to know more, then
send a stamped addressed envelope to your nearest Variant Bank Custodian and
ask the Custodian to tell you how much their variant catalogue costs.

=============================================================================
SOME COMMENTS ON THE REVIEWS     SOME COMMENTS ON THE REVIEWS
=============================================================================

"This file is a collection of reviews of diplomacy variants."  I know this
because that's what I wrote at the top of the file!  However it is more
accurate to say that this is a *random* collection of reviews.

One ideal form of this file would be a version which contained a review of

(continued next message....)
===========================================================================
 BBS: Faster-Than-Light BBS
Date: 01-12-94 (13:05)             Number: 1262
From: [e-mail]      Refer#: NONE
  To: ALL                           Recvd: NO
Subj: VARIANT AZ 2/11                Conf: (455) RecGamesDi
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 @SUBJECT:VARIANT AZ 2/11                                             N
 @FROM   :[e-mail]                                     N
 @MSGID  :<[e-mail]>        N

This article split by uuPCB: Part # 2 of 2

Newsgroups: rec.games.diplomacy
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 1994 18:02:49 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Sender: Discussion Group for the Game of Diplomacy <[e-mail]>
From: [e-mail]
Subject: VARIANT AZ 2/11

every diplomacy variant every written.  This is not possible.  No-one would
have time to read the rules for these variants and then comment on them.
Another "ideal form" of this file would be if it contained reviews of the "Best
Diplomacy Variants".  The disadvantages of this approach are two-fold:
Determining what the "best" variants are and then finding people to write
reviews of them.

My eventual aim is to make the file as complete as possible.  Ideally this
file would be used by people who are thinking of ordering variants from a
variant bank, or are thinking of running a variant.  Such people would use this
file to find out more about the variants that they are interested in before
either purchasing them or running them.  If you want to know what the "best"
variants are look in the Appendix where you will find some commentary on that
question.

The reviews in this file have mostly been taken from diplomacy fanzines.
Different reviewers have different ideas on what constitutes "good variants"
and so you should take all the comments with a pinch of salt.  The ideal review
tells you what the aim of the variant is, what changes there are between it and
regular, if the game has been run postally, how the variant compares to other
designs using similar ideas and if the variant is any good.  Not many reviews
meet this exacting standard!

Since this file is primarily distributed by email I have tried to ensure
that the file contains reviews on all the games that are runnable through the
Judge program.

=============================================================================
* HISTORY OF THIS FILE *  HISTORY OF THIS FILE * HISTORY OF THIS FILE *
=============================================================================

VERSION 1.0 was compiled by Mark Nelson <[e-mail]> and
proof-read by Harold Reynolds <[e-mail]> and
David Kovar <[e-mail]>.  It was distributed to
rec.games.diplomacy in May 1993.  It contained reviews of 101 diplomacy
variants.

VERSION 2.0 as compiled by Mark Nelson <[e-mail]> and
proof-read by Harold Reynolds <[e-mail]>.
It was distributed to rec.games.diplomacy in January 1994.
It contained reviews of 201 diplomacy variants.

============================================================================
* ENTRY EXPLANATION * ENTRY EXPLANATION * ENTRY EXPLANATION *
===========================================================================

An entry takes the form:

NAME (designer) arda
<reviewer>, zine <date>.

Here NAME is the name of the diplomacy variant, designer is the
designer(s) of the variant, arda is the classification number of the variant
(where known). <reviewer> is the person(s) who reviewed the variant, <date>
is the date when the review was written and <zine> is the zine in which the
review first appeared. If a variant has more than one review then these
are listed in chronological order.

END OF FILE
===========================================================================
 BBS: Faster-Than-Light BBS
Date: 01-12-94 (13:05)             Number: 1263
From: [e-mail]      Refer#: NONE
  To: ALL                           Recvd: NO
Subj: VARIANT.AZ 8/11                Conf: (455) RecGamesDi
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 @SUBJECT:VARIANT.AZ 8/11                                             N
 @FROM   :[e-mail]                                     N
 @MSGID  :<[e-mail]>        N
Newsgroups: rec.games.diplomacy
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 1994 18:05:36 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Sender: Discussion Group for the Game of Diplomacy <[e-mail]>
From: [e-mail]
Subject: VARIANT.AZ 8/11

This article split by uuPCB: Part # 1 of 4

Newsgroups: rec.games.diplomacy
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 1994 18:05:36 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Sender: Discussion Group for the Game of Diplomacy <[e-mail]>
From: [e-mail]
Subject: VARIANT.AZ 8/11


**                          RAIDS (Fl Montauban) ??/07

(1) MIGUEL LAMBOTTE in SoL 2 (October 1990)

Classic rules on a map of Northern Europe in 901AD

** RATHER SILLY DIPLOMACY II1/2 (Jeremy Maiden, Dave Thorby and Peter Sullivan).

(1) Pete Sullivan in C'Est Magnifique 55, July 1988.

Ghod, do I really want my name associated with the likes of Maiden and Thorby?
It is the considered opinion of such hobby luminaries as Richard Walkerdine and
Conrad von Metzke that this variant is unplayable (or, to me more accurate,
un-GMable).  This despite the fact that Brian Creese has a run a game to
conclusion, and mine and several others' games are well on their way.  The
trick is, when you find a rule which makes things awkward to GM, you use GM
fiat to remove it and replace it with an even sillier (but easier to run)
rule.  It also helps if you have players who don't really understand what's
going on (or in extreme cases have never seen the rules) as this means they're
very unlikely to protest about GMing errors.

**                        REPUBLIC I (Der Gravey) ??/05

(1) GORDON McDONALD in AC-MONG 39 (June 1991)

This is a game based on the whole of Ireland with Devon, Cornwall and
south-west Wales thrown in.  It doesn't depict any particular historical event,
but at the same time it is supposed to be representative of all the conflicts
which have taken place in Ireland.

The powers in the game are: Ulster, Munster, Leinster, Connaught and
Britain,  Meath has been left out for playability.  The games takes place after
the death of Brian Boru and starts in Winter 1015.  Players may build armies,
fleets and bridges from supply points, ten points being available from each
on-board supply centre; the British having two off-board centres which provide
twenty-two supply points at the start of the game although this is reduced to
one centre by Autumn 1018 and none by the next year.  Players may also supply
points to each other as part of a deal,  do I get the impression that there are
traces of Diadochi in these rules?  Each unit requires seven supply points to
maintain, whereas bridges need six.

I'm not so keen on the idea of bridges.  Although they did play a part in
military campaigns many of the rivers in Ireland have fordable points.  Indeed,
at the battle of Boyne, 1690, William's main thrust was across a ford a number
of miles west of Grogheda and so not far from the north of the river.

Bridges can be destroyed but a fleet may not travel directly between
territories which are separated by a river unless that river is bridged at that
point!  This is because "guns, men, etc" are assumed to have transferred to the
land.  Apart from the fact that "guns" didn't exist in 1015 and any siege
weaponry available in Europe would not be part of the armoury of the forces
involved in this game, it is highly likely that a force which has disembarked
on one side of the river would find it quite easy to ferry troops to the other
side using the ships available; they wouldn't need something the size of the
Titanic!

A player who builds a bridge stands to lose two supply points permanently
if that bridge is destroyed, presumably to encourage him to retain it rather
than burn it at the first hint of danger.  As in a number of games the fleets
can transform into armies on landing.  The victory condition is 14 supply
centres out of a total of 25.

The map and rules are of good quality and easy enough to understand.
However, I am not overly enthusiastic about the bridge rules and there seems to
be a slight lack of historical research and imagination as regards the names of
the land areas --- Belfast North, Belfast South for North and South Antrim;
Galway West, Galway Central and Galway South etc all remind me of being in a
train station, but then again, if the game is playable, and it looks it, who
can complain --- it may well be a very good variant, after all Lew Pulsipher
did advise the designer.

**                            REVOLUTION (???) ??/08

(1) MIGUEL LAMBOTTE in SoL2 (October 1990)

Revolution takes place in Europe in 1902 when the eighth player appears,
the revolutionary.

** SACRED RHINOCEROS II (Michael Liesnard).

(1) Peter Sullivan in C'Est Magnifique 55, July 1988.

Spotted by yours truly in the darker recesses of the UK Variant Bank, but not
ever played in Britain.  The idea is that each player has an allied African
tribe.  These each have one `tribal symbol' unit (a `Sacred Rhinoceros') in
Africa which supplies an additional native Army for use in Europe.  (Africa is
totally separate from the ordinary board.) If a tribal symbol is dislodged and
disbanded by the other tribes' symbols, then `the Sacred Rhinoceros has lost
his Horn' and the associated army in Europe is destroyed.  A nice `minimal
change' variant with scope for unusual play.


**                   SATRAP (Bob Harris & Steve Dunn) ai01/08

(1) GORDON McDONALD in Ac-Mong 38 (May 1991)

A game set in Ancient Persia.  The eight players represent the Great King
of Persia and the Satraps of Arachosia, Armenia, Egypt, Lydia, Media, Sogdiana
and Syria.  What was a Satrap?  A holder of provincial governorship.

The map goes as far West as Thrace, the Aegean, eastern Med and northern
Egypt; as far south as Saudi Arabia, as far east as the Indus and north to the
Black Sea and the Caspian.  The map isn't of good quality, but this can be
easily rectified.

The game begins in 404BC and if the Great King manages to keep his army on
the board until 397BC he wins.  A Satrap wins if he has 15 pieces on the board
at any time without relying on loans from the Great King.  All players start
with armies, the Great King having one army with the addition of a start

(continued next message....)
===========================================================================
 BBS: Faster-Than-Light BBS
Date: 01-12-94 (13:05)             Number: 1264
From: [e-mail]      Refer#: NONE
  To: ALL                           Recvd: NO
Subj: VARIANT.AZ 8/11                Conf: (455) RecGamesDi
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 @SUBJECT:VARIANT.AZ 8/11                                             N
 @FROM   :[e-mail]                                     N
 @MSGID  :<[e-mail]>        N

This article split by uuPCB: Part # 2 of 4

Newsgroups: rec.games.diplomacy
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 1994 18:05:36 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Sender: Discussion Group for the Game of Diplomacy <[e-mail]>
From: [e-mail]
Subject: VARIANT.AZ 8/11

garrison at Susa.  Susa counts as four supply centres, one of which supplies
the Great King's army.

However, the Great King can only have one army on the board at any one
time and so can use the three additional centres to supply loyal Satraps.  If
Susa is captured by a Satrap he can use it as a triple supply centre.

There is also a more complex version which allows for three loyal Satraps
and four disloyal ones.  The loyal Satraps have certain restrictions imposed on
them and require the permission of the King to carry out some activities.  Only
the GM and the players concerned know if they play the part of a loyal Satrap.

Victory for Satraps is similar to those mentioned previously, although the
Great King wins if no more than 8 centers are in the hands of the disloyal
Satraps.  There are also optional rules for both games where Greek Mercenaries
can be used.  The Satraps of Armenia, Egypt, Lydia and Syria may use them and
these are represented by double armies which require two supply centres to
maintain.

** SCACCHOMACY (Dave Kadlecek).

(1) Robert Sacks, circa 1975.

Seven players on a chess board with chess pieces and chess moves, but with two
types of players: Color (Black and White) and Men (Rook, Knight, Bishop, Queen,
King).  The two types have different victory conditions and different powers.
The colors control the pawns and can only loan supply centers to the other
players.  However the colors can give order for the pieces of the Men players;
in conflict the fewer such orders given, the more likely the Color's orders
have effect.  The differing roles of the two types of players, the loaning of
supply centers and the conflict of orders create an instant and important
reason for having Diplomacy which merely having seven players wouldn't
guarantee.  It might just be playable.

** SCHEISSKOPF (James Fenamore Whyte).

Rules originally published in Janus 20

(1) Robert Sacks in Lord of Hosts 10, July 1976.

Rubbish!

** SCHEISSKOPF II (Donald Wileman).

Rules originally published in Der Fliegende Hollander Volume I: #6

(1) Robert Sacks in Lord of Hosts 12, February 1977.

Yet another unplayable hoax.

**                 SCOTICE SCRIPTI II & III (Peter Combe) ??/08

(1) GORDON McDONALD in AC-MONG 39, June 1991

On first looking at the historical background printed with these two
variants I was slightly impressed.  The designer seems to have done more than
the average homework.

The game begins in 1015AD after Brian Boru has defeated the Danes of
Dublin at Clontarf, in 1014, giving his life in the process.  The eight powers
are; Ulster under Maolrunuaidh of the Ui Nial, King of the Ulaidh with his
capital at Emain, near Armagh; Leinster under Maoilsheachlainn II, son of Brian
Boru, who had been elected Ard-Righ (High King) with his capital at Dind Rig
(near Carlow-on-the-Barrow); Connact under Teige III of the White Steed, of the
Ui Conor, with the capital at Roscommon; Munster, which at this time was
actually divided between Teige, King of Thomod and Munster and Donal, King of
Desmond; Kymru (or North Wales) under the nominal rule of Prince Conan II,
although actually undergoing a Civil War; Scotland under King Malcolm II
(capital Scone); England (capital Winchester) under King Ethelred II (the
Unready) and Orkney, the Norse Earldom of the North, under Thorinn and also
King of Man and the Isles.

With the map taking in all of Ireland, Wales, Scotland and England west of
the Pennines and north of Somerset there are effectively four powers on each
part of the board and so, not surprisingly, the Irish Kingdoms of Meath and the
remaining North Kingdoms at Waterford, Limerick, Wexford and elsewhere have
been excluded.

In Scotice Scripti III more of the powers start with fleets, some of the
supply centers have been changed, a few provinces have been added and the
victory criterion is now 18 centers controlled in an Autumn season for any
power other than the 17 for Irish powers or Kymru and 22 for the others as was
the case in SS II.  Some of the frills such as anchorages and fleet capture
have also been removed.  Both games use the Army/Fleet rules.  A variant with a
difference?

**                  SCRAMBLE FOR AFRICA (David Watts) dc01/08

(1) STEVE AGAR in ??? circa September 1980

This game covers the partition of Africa between the European powers in
the 1880's, the players being England, France, Belgium, Portugal, Spain, Italy,
Boer Republic & Germany.  Optional army/fleet placement is used, while the SCs
are sufficiently mixed up to provide a good opportunity for stabbing (re Game
of Clans).  The eight players do not start the game on a par with each other -
England and France have four units each, while Belgium and the Boers have only
two - however this imbalance is catered for in the SC distribution.  This game
is a new version of David's 1975 variant, which excluded the Boers.

**                SEEING IS BELIEVING By Eric Brosius (rd21/07)

(1) FRED C. DAVIS Jnr in Bushwacker 207 (April 1989)

The heart of the rules are these: 1.  When reporting the results of a
move, the GM never reports the orders submitted, but only the *resulting
position*.  Players may disclose their orders to one another, but need not tell
the truth.

2.  After a Spring or Fall move, the GM lists all dislodged units, but does
*not* list their legal retreat areas...  If the retreat chosen is not legal,
the dislodged unit is annihilated...

This variant gives players more latitude in negotiation.  If a move fails, you
may be able to deny making it.  If my stab fails, you may not know, and I can
try again later. See also Stab and Stab I

** SEISMIC DIPLOMACY (???)

(1) Andrew Poole in Outposts 6, October 1981

First published in French in Vortigern 68, it was translated and published in
Ode 21.  After every two normal turns of a regular game (starting off with the
standard map) + winter adjustments, there is an additional seismic events turn,
in which provinces can be ordered to separate, connect or release, thus
changing the board.  Given time then Vienna can become an island in the
Atlantic and England could gain a land frontier with Turkey.  `Probably a very
good fun variant with lots of scope.'

**                  SHIFT LEFT (Josh Smith, 1992)

(1) JOSH SMITH (31/1/93) An amusing variant using the regular map with an
altered initial setup: each country's units are shifted one power to the left

(continued next message....)
===========================================================================
 BBS: Faster-Than-Light BBS
Date: 01-12-94 (13:05)             Number: 1265
From: [e-mail]      Refer#: NONE
  To: ALL                           Recvd: NO
Subj: VARIANT.AZ 8/11                Conf: (455) RecGamesDi
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 @SUBJECT:VARIANT.AZ 8/11                                             N
 @FROM   :[e-mail]                                     N
 @MSGID  :<[e-mail]>        N

This article split by uuPCB: Part # 3 of 4

Newsgroups: rec.games.diplomacy
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 1994 18:05:36 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Sender: Discussion Group for the Game of Diplomacy <[e-mail]>
From: [e-mail]
Subject: VARIANT.AZ 8/11

or right, starting with the same allocation of units as that of the player
being replaced. That is, Austria starts with F(Lon), F(Edi) and A(Lpl), England
starts with A(Ven), A(Rom) and F(Nap), Italy starts with A(War), A(Mos),
F(StP,nc), F(Sev), and so on. At the start of the game, you own the centers
your units start in, but you can only build in your `traditional' centers. For
example, Austria owns Lpl/Edi/Lon but can only build in Tri/Vie/Bud--which
Austria does not yet control! Hence you, can't build until you recapture at
least one of your `proper' supply centres. SHIFT RIGHT is the same game with
shifts in the opposite direction.

**                SHIFT RIGHT (Josh Smith, 1992)

(1) MARK NELSON (26/1/93) See SHIFT LEFT for a basic description of the game.
The starting positions for Shift-Right Diplomacy are as follows, where A -> B
means "A's units start in country B":

Germany -> Turkey       Turkey -> Germany       Italy -> England    England
-> Austria      Austria -> France       France -> Russia    Russia -> Italy

(Shift-Left Diplomacy shifts everyone in the opposite direction (Germany and
Turkey still just trade); just reverse the arrows to see who starts where (or
interpret A -> B as "B's units start in country A").)

** SIBERIAN-IBERIAN (Paul Girsdansky).

Rules originally published in Magna Avis 1 & 2.

(1) Robert Sacks in Lord of Hosts 8, December 1975.

An Iberian player is added, the Caspian becomes navigable and Switzerland
semi-passable, but fortified.  Poor.

** SLIGHTLY DEMIURGIC DIPLOMACY I (Nick Kinzett).

(1) Pete Sullivan in C'Est Magnifique 55, July 1988.

A.k.a Revenge of the Master Rulechanger.  Quite simply, a game in which the
players can vote to change the rules.  Each turn, each player proposes a rule
change.  These are then voted upon, and any that are passed by a majority vote
become Rules of the Game until further altered or rescinded.  A great deal of
scope for mixing up rules from other variants, or just getting plain silly.
Nick has yet to respond to my suggestion that we should do the voting by proper
multi-member Single Transferable Vote...

** SLIMAK'S RULE (L. Kevin S. Slimak).

(1) Robert Sacks in Lord of Hosts 1, November 1974.

Major rule: While a province with two coasts may have only one unit in it, each
coast is a separate space for naval combat.  Case a) Coastal Crawl allowed.
Case b) (not specified) Coastal crawl might work if one of the units is an
army.  Case c) "Slimak's Rule" A fleet adjacent to a double-coasted province
may only support naval combat (or units) on the coast adjacent to it.  Not
recommended and highly pointless.

** SPQR (Senatus Populusque Romanus), AD 120.  (Michael Homeier).

Rules originally published in The Master Machiavellian.

(1) Robert Sacks in Lord of Hosts 5, June 1975.

Six Roman Prefects fighting for the Imperium, without any outside
interference.  Four moves a year, one double coasted province, three island
centers reachable from land, one island center not reachable from land and
three 4-point junctions which are undefined.  Three of the prefects have their
Trireme Fleets placed strategically, three do not.  Middling.

**                              STAB (Andy Evans)

(1) STEVE AGAR & JON LOVIBOND in ??? (circa 1979)

As far as rules go this is a straight forward variant.  The only
difference from the standard game is that only conflicts are published in the
game report.  It is a kind of hidden movement Diplomacy.  In order to make the
game more fluid players are allowed to pick the components of their forces
within limits (e.g. England can start with three fleets) and their initial
units may start in any home province (sc or not).  Although it may sound as
though a game of this would be completely blind, it's surprising how much you
can find out by noting the various conflicts across the board. See also Seeing
Is Believing and Stab I

**                                    STAB I

(1) JAMES NELSON in SPRINGY 45 (February 1991)

By far the most popular of the stab series.  In this variant only
contested moves are reported.  Some supported orders are listed depending on
the circumstances, and all retreats; builds and disbands are done secretly, you
don't know how many centers your opponents have!!!  Hence you know who the
opposition is, but not how strong they are or where they are. See also Seeing
is Believing and Stab.

** STAB-HAPPY (Diller and Rosenburg).

Rules originally published in The Pocket Armenian 13.

(1) Robert Sacks in Lord of Hosts 5, June 1975.

Switzerland and Caspian passable.  Moscow connects to Syria and Barents Sea.
The Aegean disappears to a canal inside Constantinople and Smyrna which connect
by land to Greece.  The Ionian connects to Syria.  Warsaw absorbs Ukraine, St.
Petersburg, Livonia and Finland.  Baltic Sea absorbs Prussia, Belgium Ruhr,
Vienna Galicia, Greece Albania, Tunis North Africa, Western Mediterranean
Tyrrhenian, Rome Tuscany, Brest Gascony, Paris Picardy, Mid Atlantic Irish,
Wales Yorkshire and North Sea Heligoland Bight and Skagerrak.  Perhaps it's
even worth the space I'm spending describing it.  Probably not.

** THE STAR KINGS (Lew Pulsipher) sg02/02-12

(1) Steve Agar and James Nelson in Spring Offensive 19, January 1994.

This game is played on a hex map containing 83 planetary systems.
Fleets may move to adjacent planetary systems and they may also move up to
three hexes in a straight line (as in Between Galaxies I).  Every
four centres owned also allows a player to build a base which has a
defensive value of one.  Fleets may also be transmitted between bases.
After adjustments all fleets must be able to trace a valid supply line
back to their home centre or face elimination.

** STRIP-DIP (Fred C. Davis Jnr).

Rules originally published in Bushwacker Volume V: VI.

(1) Robert Sacks in Lord of Hosts 10, July 1976.

Rubbish!

**                 SUICIDAL DIP By Michael Hopcroft (rs42/07)

(1) FRED C. DAVIS Jnr in Bushwacker 207 (April 1989)

This is somewhat like `Giveaway Checkers'.  You try to lose your SCs.  The
first player to be eliminated is the winner.  Dislodged units must retreat *on*
the board if there is an available space, and players must build new units if
the Regular rules require a Build.  Voted draws to concessions are not
===========================================================================
 BBS: Faster-Than-Light BBS
Date: 01-12-94 (13:05)             Number: 1266
From: [e-mail]      Refer#: NONE
  To: ALL                           Recvd: NO
Subj: VARIANT.AZ 8/11                Conf: (455) RecGamesDi
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 @SUBJECT:VARIANT.AZ 8/11                                             N
 @FROM   :[e-mail]                                     N
 @MSGID  :<[e-mail]>        N

This article split by uuPCB: Part # 4 of 4

Newsgroups: rec.games.diplomacy
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 1994 18:05:36 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Sender: Discussion Group for the Game of Diplomacy <[e-mail]>
From: [e-mail]
Subject: VARIANT.AZ 8/11

who can read, the game never finishes!  A good strategy is to order 'All units
hold' each season.  Then no-one increased their supply-center and no-one is
eliminated!

(3) Harold Reynolds (1/12/92)

ATTENTION, MARK: If one adds a rule stating no unit may hold, what then?

(4) Mark Nelson (26/1/93) The game is still pointless.  You order your units
our of your supply centres and then you order them back in!  If you don't
attack anyone then you can't eliminate anyone!

** THE SUNDERED WORLDS (Steve Doubleday).

Rules originally published in Darien Settlement 3.

(1) Robert Sacks in Lord of Hosts 9, March 1976.

A purely abstract variant: four players, each with one home center connected to
a fifth space.  Each player may elect to order a unit to alter space instead of
moving by creating/destroying a non-supply center space, changing supply center
status of a space, or altering consecutively, until only one player's home
center exists.  Interesting.

** THE SUN'S NEIGHBOURHOOD (Fred C. Davis Jnr) sg15/07

(1) Steve Agar and James Nelson in Spring Offensive 19, January 1994.

As one would expect from a Fred Davis variant a lot of research has
gone into this design.  In his preface Fred complains that other space
variants are two-dimensional and thus do not recapture the flavour of
space.  This variant is three-dimensional, comprising of five hex
maps placed on top of each other.  The actual rules (maps aside)
are quite simple, fleets moving either by normal space drive (one hex) or
by hyperspace (up to four spaces), but a fleet which is forced to retreat
loses some of its movement capacity and all of its combat capacity
until repaired.  Repairs can be carried out at either home supply
centers or bases (which are scattered around the board and can be
captured like centres).  The idea of a three-dimensional game
may discourage the faint-hearted.

**          SUVOROV DIPLOMACY II (John Norris and Fred C. Davis Jnr)

(1) GORDON McDONALD in AC-MONG 45 (April 1992)

This is a variant designed for the attacking player, Suvorov being a
famous Russian general of the 18th century, who was a strong advocate of the
offensive.  The game has an amended map with only two minor rule changes from
the regular game and so should be attractive to both variant buffs and
enthusiastic dip players alike.

The new provinces and sea area have been added in such a way as to break
up many of the traditional bottlenecks.  Switzerland is now passable, and Italy
has been given the "Milan" redesign to increase its options.  The effect of
these changes generally is to reduce dramatically the number of stalemate lines
on the board.  The increased number of spaces makes it much harder to find
units to block all possible ways into defensive positions; a mobile
counter-attacking defence is preferred to the regular dip's trench warfare.
More fluid tactically, more flexible strategically.

Archangel is added as a build centre, but not a supply centre.  There are
a number of `Moses crossings' enabling armies to cross straits without using
fleets.  Austria has Zara instead of Trieste, and starts with F(ZAR).  Italy
has Milian instead of Venice, and starts with A(Mil).  Russia starts with
F(StP), since that province now has a single coast.  Turkey has Sinope instead
of Ankara, and starts with F(SIN).  Corsica and Sardinia are half supply
centres and if one holds both of them they count as one.  ION touches EMS with
a fleet jump between the Aegean and the Southern Med.

** SWORD & SORCERY (Scott Rich).

(1) Robert Sacks in Lord of Hosts 5, June 1975.

An extraordinarily complicated extension to Dying Earth, or perhaps an
adaptation of the sword and sorcery madness to Diplomacy (or perhaps the other
way round?), this has to be read to be believed.  Principle changes from Dying
Earth; a King, Civil Disorder when a power has no King until a hero is
converted, building heros and wizards in lieu of units, a large list of spells
with each wizard starting with only one, duels and a number of options to
counteract each of the foregoing.  Caveat emptor.  I certainly don't.

END OF FILE
===========================================================================
 BBS: Faster-Than-Light BBS
Date: 01-12-94 (13:05)             Number: 1267
From: [e-mail]      Refer#: NONE
  To: ALL                           Recvd: NO
Subj: VARIANT.AZ 3/11                Conf: (455) RecGamesDi
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 @SUBJECT:VARIANT.AZ 3/11                                             N
 @FROM   :[e-mail]                                     N
 @MSGID  :<[e-mail]>        N
Newsgroups: rec.games.diplomacy
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 1994 18:03:13 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Sender: Discussion Group for the Game of Diplomacy <[e-mail]>
From: [e-mail]
Subject: VARIANT.AZ 3/11

This article split by uuPCB: Part # 1 of 3

Newsgroups: rec.games.diplomacy
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 1994 18:03:13 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Sender: Discussion Group for the Game of Diplomacy <[e-mail]>
From: [e-mail]
Subject: VARIANT.AZ 3/11


**                      ABERRATION III (Rod Walker) ???/09

(1) GORDON McDONALD in AC-MONG 45 (April 1992).

A popular variant a few years back.  This game is a 9 player: Burgundy,
Byzantine Empire, Hungary, Ireland, Israel, Poland, Sicily, Spain and Ukraine.

The map goes east into Iran and south as far as the Sahara with 54 supply
centres and the victory criterion being 28 units on the board at any one time.
Builds may be on any owned supply centre, providing you controls at least one
home centre.  There are also special spaces similar to off-board boxes found in
some other variants and also a number of canals.

Each of the Great Powers is a nation which might have become a Great Power
in history if things had turned out a little differently.  This variant gives
one the chance to play in a large variant without going as far as a giant such
as Mercator and this design was voted higher in the 1988 Variant of the Year
Poll.

**                     ABERRATION IV (Rod Walker).
Review: Mark Nelson, Beowulf 18 (September 1989).

A normal game of Diplomacy with a few extra rules similar to Vain Rats.  Supply
centres entered in a Spring turn become neutral, the Key Rule is used, there
are three movement seasons before builds, variable strength units and a few
other changes.  Some nice ideas, but there are better variants around which use
similar ideas.

**                      ABSTRACTION II (Fred C. Davis Jnr)

(1) STEVE AGAR & JON LOVIBOND in ??? (circa 1979)

This variant is a modified form of regular Diplomacy, the difference being
that the various powers start off with one unit more than in regular Diplomacy
-- the number of provinces on the board is increased by about 30%.  The
expansion of the board includes the complete North African coastline.  In this
variant a new form of convoy is introduced, the A/F.  A/F's make for a faster
and more fluid game -- the dreaded stalemate lines of regular Dip can be
avoided.  The game is played in moves of one month, the first being July 1914.

(2) Pete Sullivan in C'Est Magnifique 55, July 1988.

Quite possibly the best-designed variant of all time.  The basic scenario is
the same --- World War One Europe, seven Great Powers ---- but the redesigned
map and the Davis Army/Fleet rules (which allow fleets to carry armies
`piggy-back', for several turns if required) mean that you have a much more
`open' game, and a better balanced one than with Regular Diplomacy.  The winter
Frozen Regions rule is a right bind when you forget about it (as I did), and as
for the exchange of provinces rule, has anyone ever used this in an actual
game?

(3) JAMES NELSON in SPRINGY 45 (February 1991)

This is one of the best Diplomacy variants and is based on a slightly
altered map.  New provinces and new supply centres are added to make movement
more fluid, remove stalemate lines and improve the positions of the weaker
powers.  The convoy rules are axed in favour of the revolutionary Army/Fleet
rules which enable armies to ride piggy-back on fleets at sea.

This variant also produces a good, if not the best, two-player game based
on the First World War.  This idea is something I'm currently working on -six
playtests have shown that there are some faults which I'm aiming to correct for
an even better two-player game.  However the current game is superior to that
in the rule-book.

**                    ACTIVE NEUTRALS (Robert Sacks) rb01/07

(1) MIGUEL LAMBOTTE in SOL 2 (October 1990)

At the beginning of the game every neutral centre is garrisoned by an army
which is controlled by a major player.

**                    AFRICA (Richard Egan)

(1) Mark Nelson in Beowulf 18, September 1989.

One of the best new variants in recent years.  Basically a simple variant which
recreates superpower politics on the African continent in the 1960's.  The five
powers use their influence to control different States and it's possible to
change which States you play by investing Influence Points.  A game where a
devious nature is required and where tactical skill and diplomacy are also
required.

**                   ALIEN'S DIPLOMACY (Lewis Pulsipher)

(1) ANDREW ENGLAND in Affairs of State (1988)

The world of the 21st century is the topic of this variant.  The European
map is used but the game is based upon various alien powers which invade Earth
via "transmatters" which are used to "jump" units around the board and to bring
on new units.  This should provide for some weird possibilities.

**                   ANARCHIST DIPLOMACY

(1) ANDREW ENGLAND in Affairs of State (1988)

The rules are the same as regular diplomacy except that at the beginning
the players are assigned three centres at random.  What this means is that
negotiations are hectic and of paramount importance; "the ultimate in messy
negotiations" as players struggle to create a little knot from which to
expand.  Good fun.  There are currently two games in progress in The Envoy.

**                   ANARCHY V (Jeremy Tullett)

(1) Mark Nelson in Beowulf 18, September 1989.

A game played on the regular Dip map with between 2 and 34 players.  Each
player receives 34/n supply centres at the start of the game which are
determined randomly such that none of his starting centres are within three
moves of another one.  For instance, a player might be given Con, StP and Lpl!
Thus the starting units are mixed up, an attempt to encourage diplomacy between
all players in the game.


**                        ANCIENT EMPIRES I (John Boyer)

(1) Robert Sacks in Lord of Hosts 5, June 1975.

Rules originally published in Impassable 3rd Anniversary issue.

John Boyer has done a beautiful job of cutting up and flattening a sphere.  A

(continued next message....)
===========================================================================
 BBS: Faster-Than-Light BBS
Date: 01-12-94 (13:05)             Number: 1268
From: [e-mail]      Refer#: NONE
  To: ALL                           Recvd: NO
Subj: VARIANT.AZ 3/11                Conf: (455) RecGamesDi
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 @SUBJECT:VARIANT.AZ 3/11                                             N
 @FROM   :[e-mail]                                     N
 @MSGID  :<[e-mail]>        N

This article split by uuPCB: Part # 2 of 3

Newsgroups: rec.games.diplomacy
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 1994 18:03:13 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Sender: Discussion Group for the Game of Diplomacy <[e-mail]>
From: [e-mail]
Subject: VARIANT.AZ 3/11

game for five or seven players, each player begins with a fleet in a fortified
center; which has an intrinsic defence of one unit.  One may build fleets in
any center, but armies may only be built in fortified centers.  There is also a
name box between spaces 2,3,10,11,12 and 14 which I suppose is impassable, but
I suggest that it should be omitted and boundaries extended to fill it in, by
absorbing it into space 12.  Good and solid.


(2) STEVE AGAR in V&U 4 (September 1980)

This is a small world variant (units can move off one side of the map and
reappear on the other side) set in an invented geographical scenario, the only
familiar aspect of which is that the name of ancient empires (Rome, Carthage,
Athens etc) are used for home centres.  It's a small game as there are only 17
centers, 9 of which are required for victory.  As it only takes five players it
could prove to be okay for small FTF meetings.

**                  ANCIENT EMPIRES III (John Lipscomb) ac/07

(1) GORDON McDONALD in AC-MONG 41 (December 1991)

Originally designed by John Lipscomb with map supplied by Fred C. Davis
Jnr.  The game starts in 300BC although it is stated that for historical
accuracy the start date should be 246BC, the beginning of the First Punic War.
One can see some similarities in the map with `The Conquerors' (qv), although
map quality isn't as good.  Some historical licence has been used in creating
the seven powers that play a part in the game; Carthage, New Carthage, Rome,
Macedonia, Ptolemy (Egypt), Antigonus and Seleucus (Persia).

There are differences in some of the basic moves such as a unit being
dislodged if attacked when it is attempting to move and the ability of friendly
forces to exchange provinces by moving through each other etc.

Optional rules are also available, bringing Barbarians into play in Gaul,
Danubia and Scythia (running from Brittany to the Crimea) and/or a Winter 301BC
season so that players can alter their initial unit deployment.  Again, Rome is
on a par with the rest.

**                 APPOSITION (Paul Willey) sg08/05

(1) Mark Nelson in Beowulf 18, September 1989.

A neat five-player space variant.  As the planets move around the sun their
relative positions change and so the location of one's home supply centres move
relative to the other players'.

A D This set-up changes to B D and there are four different set-ups.
B C                        A C

The fifth player is an alien who enters the top of the board and tries to sweep
all before him; it isn't able to communicate with the other players except
through the press.

(2) Steve Agar and James Nelson in Spring Offensive 19, January 1994.

This is not only a very simple variant but it is also a very
elegant one as well.  Four of the players represent each of the four life
supporting planets in our solar system (Earth, Mars, Venus & Mercury) and
the fifth player represents an invading alien force whose units have a strength
of 1X ((2X? or 1.5X? MN)).  The four planetary powers do not know the identity
of the alien player and vice versa, effectively limiting the alien to press
releases as a means of diploming.  What makes this variant so beautiful
is that the four planetary systems (which comprise of three home centers and
two noncentres on the home planet, a neutral centre and six `space' provinces)
rotate around the solar system, effectively changing places with each other.
This adds an extra dimension to the tactics of the game as an astute player will
be able to slip units behind enemy lines.




**                 ATLANTICA III (Fred Davis Jnr)

(1) Pete Sullivan in C'Est Magnifique 55, July 1988.

Map centered on the Atlantic Ocean, which means that Army/Fleet rules are a
must.  Noticeable for its assumptions that the South won the Civil War, with
both the United States and the Confederate States as Great Powers.  But what
makes the game for me are the rules for `discovering' Atlantis (an additional
neutral supply centre) in one of the six possible locations in the middle of
the Atlantic.  A game I'd like to see tried again in the British postal hobby.

(2) Bill O'Neil in Moonlighting 9, June 1980.

This is primarily a map change variant.  Allan Calhamer has said that Diplomacy
itself was inspired by a thesis on the importance of `strategic zones', which
could best be dominated by *either* sea or land forces.

The game's aim was that the `importance' of the two zones should be roughly
equal and that powers relying on only one zone would find it difficult to win.
In Diplomacy there is a central land mass with sea areas around the edge.  In
Atlantica there is a `central' ocean with land at the edges.  Both games have
problems with the `real-world' maps they have to use.

Atlantica has Canada, USA and the Confederacy in the west, all of which are
coastal; and England, France, Germany and Italy in the east.  The problem here
is that Germany and Italy are cut off from the Atlantic by England and France.
The map tries to alleviate this by using wrap-around boxes joined to a few
areas on each edge, (Suez, Siberia, Panama and Alaska).  I feel these are too
slow for opening moves.  By the time you have gotten to the other side of the
board, you will be left behind in the grab for neutrals.

This restricts east-west relations in Europe.  If the western power refuses to
let an eastern power out into the Atlantic then the eastern power *must* attack
it, (each power gets a fresh `high seas fleet' mortgaged to one of the
neutrals, and through placement of this is restricted, it can help with a
break-out).  If the western power *does* allow a corridor, it becomes highly
vulnerable to a stab from the east.

To balance the enhanced sea-zone, Abstraction (A/F) convoys are used instead of
the normal `multiple fast ferry'.  The chrome includes `frozen polar regions'
and `the lost centre of Atlantis'.  All together a good and fun variant!

(3) STEVE AGAR in Spring Offensive 8 (January 1993)

A transatlantic variant with the various powers on each side of the
Atlantic fighting each other for dominance.  Atlantica III is a seven player
variant with England, France, Germany, Italy, Canada, USA and Confederates,
while Atlantic IV adds an eighth player --- Mexico. Atlantica also uses Fred's
A/F rules to allow players to cross the oceans quickly.

**                   BALKAN WARS (David Schwartz).


(continued next message....)
===========================================================================
 BBS: Faster-Than-Light BBS
Date: 01-12-94 (13:05)             Number: 1269
From: [e-mail]      Refer#: NONE
  To: ALL                           Recvd: NO
Subj: VARIANT.AZ 3/11                Conf: (455) RecGamesDi
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 @SUBJECT:VARIANT.AZ 3/11                                             N
 @FROM   :[e-mail]                                     N
 @MSGID  :<[e-mail]>        N

This article split by uuPCB: Part # 3 of 3

Newsgroups: rec.games.diplomacy
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 1994 18:03:13 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Sender: Discussion Group for the Game of Diplomacy <[e-mail]>
From: [e-mail]
Subject: VARIANT.AZ 3/11

(1) Robert Sacks in Lord of Hosts 10, July 1976.

Rules originally published in Asmodeus! 2.

A seven-player farce among the mini-powers who gave us WWI, not quite ready for
play as it lacks rules regarding landlocked powers, the various canals and
straits.  There are 19 land provinces and 19 of them are supply centers;
victory criteria is to control seven of them for two consecutive turns.

**                   BALKAN WARS R (David Schwartz)

(1) Robert Sacks in Lord of Hosts 11, November 1976.

Rules originally published in Asmodeus! 4.

This version *is* playable.  Serbia is still land-locked (perhaps no problem)
and there are two four-points.  There are five players with three centers each,
two minor centers on land, and one island center; victory criterion is nine
centers.  Fleet transit through the Sea of Marmora is by permission of the
power controlling the entrance.

**                     BARBARIA (???)

(1) Andrew Poole in Outposts 6, October 1981.

Rules originally published in Thangorodrim in 1969.

8 players represent the major powers in the middle ages (Anglo-Saxons, Avars,
Byzantine Empire, Franks, Lombards, Ostrogoths, Vandals and Visigoths) making
it look like a very interesting variant.

** BAWTINHIMER (Bob Bawtinhimer)

(1) Robert Sacks in Lord of Hosts 5, June 1975.

Rules originally published in Runestone 71.

Add Spain (actually Iberia), Warsaw is neutral, Russia starts with an army StP,
four additional supply centers, sixteen new or substitute provinces and Syria
connects to Sevastopol.  It appears to have one four-point.


** BETWEEN GALAXIES I (Lew Pulsipher) sg01/05-07

(1) Steve Agar and James Nelson in Spring Offensive 19, January 1994.

This variant is played on a hex map which represents a cluster
of 24 galaxies of various types --- regular and barred spirals,
elliptical and irregular.  Fleets may move in a straight line up
to three empty hexes in length.  There are no supply centres as such,
hexes with galaxies in them have an economic value between 1 and 7, a fleet
requiring five economic points to build or maintain.  Fleets of the same
power may co-exist in the same hex.


**                       BHEARNA BAOGHAIL (Michael Mills)
Published in Emhain Macha 2 (?? 1979)

(1) STEVE AGAR ??? circa September 1980

The game covers Strongbow's invasion of Ireland in 1171, the English
player having to cope with six Irish Clans.  The only significant rule change
is the introduction of three move seasons between builds (presumably because of
the relatively small size of the board).

** BIG BROTHER'S EXPANDED WW III GAME FOR EIGHT PLAYERS (Charles Reinsel).

(1) Robert Sacks in Lord of Hosts 9, March 1976.

Originally published in Command 1.

Many additional spaces including North America; some half centers; Bermuda,
Cuba and Puerto Rico are spaces controlled by England, Russia and the US.  Each
major power starts with two atomic bombs and one anti-missile, and Switzerland
and Canada each have a bomb for the first occupier.  Several good features.

**                      BIOPLOMACY (Al and Tom Buracki).

(1) Robert Sacks in Lord of Hosts 4, March 1975.

Rules originally published in Ragweed 12.

Without doubt one of the most complicated variants published, it actually
resembles more of a wargame.  Nine or ten players; five baboons, reptiles,
insects, canines, felines and birds.  3-D movement.  Separate types of unit for
each species; economics, and units have multiple and half values.  Optional
rules include Monsoons and Hidden Movement Underground.  There are Mountains,
Rivers and a Swamp with special rules for each.  I somehow do not think that it
will serve as a diplomatic simulation of ecological competition.

**                    BRITAIN (Danny Loeb?) ??/07

(1) (review taken from the rec.games.diplomacy.FAQ file on 28/1/93)

In the Great Britain variant each English province is a supply center and
England starts with six armies.  Thus, England is the "strongest" country, but
can't do anything until another player agrees to convoy one of his armies (or
he is forced to debuild one of his units and then builds a fleet after retaking
the supply center).

The victory conditions are 19 centers.  This variant has been run over
internet, although why anyone would want to play in it...

END OF FILE
===========================================================================
 BBS: Faster-Than-Light BBS
Date: 01-12-94 (13:05)             Number: 1270
From: [e-mail]      Refer#: NONE
  To: ALL                           Recvd: NO
Subj: VARIANT.AZ 4/11                Conf: (455) RecGamesDi
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 @SUBJECT:VARIANT.AZ 4/11                                             N
 @FROM   :[e-mail]                                     N
 @MSGID  :<[e-mail]>        N
Newsgroups: rec.games.diplomacy
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 1994 18:03:53 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Sender: Discussion Group for the Game of Diplomacy <[e-mail]>
From: [e-mail]
Subject: VARIANT.AZ 4/11

This article split by uuPCB: Part # 1 of 5

Newsgroups: rec.games.diplomacy
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 1994 18:03:53 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Sender: Discussion Group for the Game of Diplomacy <[e-mail]>
From: [e-mail]
Subject: VARIANT.AZ 4/11


**                    CANNIBALISM (Jeremy Maiden)

Rules originally published in He's Dead, Jim! Volume III: XV.

(1) Robert Sacks in Lord of Hosts 10, July 1976.  A group of people are
stranded on a desert island which can support only one person, so
during the game they kill and eat each other until the winner is left.
Three moves out of six are at night, and therefore secret, and there
are rules governing a secret knife and secret caves, combat, food value
and division of spoils.  It should be highly amusing, especially as
stabs are rather final!

(2) Mark Nelson, Beowulf 18 (September 1989).

A wacky idea with great press possibilities.  Seven players are
marooned on a desert island which will only support one player.  Food
is provided by the one coconut tree, or by eating the other players...
Players who don't eat DIE!  So the players go around ganging up on each
other and eating the losers until only one player remains.

**                 CATSPAW (Ron Melton, Mike Ritter and Kevin Rowland).

(1) Robert Sacks in Lord of Hosts 2, December 1974.

Take any game of Diplomacy or any variant where you don't have enough
players.  Allow each player (including those eliminated) to write extra
orders proportional to the number of centers they need to win for the
unordered units, with repeated orders allowed and invalid orders
forbidden; each unit follows its most popular order.  Each player may
write exactly one extra build order; retreats and removals for the
unordered countries are handled in the same manner as NMR would be.
Try it next time you're short of players.

**                     CHAOS II (Michel Ferion) ??/34

(1) All of us have our dark secrets.  Yes, I was the man who introduced
Martin Lewis to Chaos II.  I was in temporary charge of the Variant
Bank between rescuing it from Geoff Kemp and handing it on to Steve
Doubleday.  Martin asked if I knew any interesting variants, and I told
him about this one reasoning that if any zine could get 34 players for
a game _Vienna_ could.  The rest, as they say, is history.  For the
uninitiated, this game starts each player off with one supply centre
(and hence one unit) on the regular board.  There is also provision for
nominating home supply centres and joint wins.

(2) MARK NELSON (28/1/93)

Played on the regular diplomacy board.  Each of the 34 players
starts with one unit occupying one of the 34 centres.  In the
first season players elect what unit type they wish.  Some people don't
have much choice (A(Ser)!), others do, it is traditional for Tun to
build A(Tun).  There are extra rules detailing which centers you can
build in as the game progresses.

Has been played postally, via email and even face-to-face.  The
largest (in terms of the number of players) diplomacy variant to
have been played to completion and, possible, the most playable large
variant.

The rules can be downloaded from a Judge.

** CHINESE (Tom A. McCloud.)

Rules originally published in Speculum 24.

(1) Robert Sacks in Lord of Hosts 8, December 1975.

There are six powers and three random Chinese factions.  Three
staging areas with unlimited stacking for the powers --- Siberia for
Russia, Indo-China and the Pacific for the other five.  Annual moves
--- no seasons.  Imperials disappear in 1911; Kuomintang have one army
for every three years 1911 to 1928 and adjust for supply centers
thereafter; Communists have ten armies every thirteen years starting
1927.  Chinese builds are random, but they annihilate units in the
build centers.  It costs to bring in and maintain armies (there are no
fleets) and to have units annihilated; revenue comes from supply
centers and should a power go too deeply in debt the player is deposed
and replaced.

** CITIES IN FLIGHT I (Thomas Galloway) sb01/03-07

(1) Steve Agar and James Nelson in Spring Offensive 19, January 1994.

This variant is based on the Spindizzy novels by James Blish
and is fought on map containing 21 planetary systems which contain
between one and eight planets.  Some planets are regular supply centres,
others can only support half a unit.  Movement between planetary
systems is made by way of an interstellar flight order, this move
must specify the date of arrival and may be of any distance, taking a
single move to go to an adjacent planetary system, two moves for one two
systems away, etc.  Once a unit is in interstellar flight its order
cannot be changed.  There are two versions of this game both for
between three and seven players: in the first all players start in the Sol
system, in others the players start in their own planetary systems.

COMPILER'S NOTE: There are two different variants called CITIES IN FLIGHT III
Mark Nelson 11th January 94.

** CITIES IN FLIGHT III (Thomas Galloway) sb02/nn

(1) Steve Agar and James Nelson in Spring Offensive 19 (January 1994).

Whilst the basic game mechanics remain the same as Cities in Flight I,
this version can accommodate an unlimited number of players and seeks
to combine the elements of a Diplomacy variant with a fully fledged
roleplaying game.  Initially players must bid for ships of three types
and then equip them with labourers and food.  The number of labourers
a player has determines the number of specialists and genii a player
has.  These different classifications of people must be fed or they
starve and also have a productive life span, although they can reproduce
(with the exception of genii who can be kept alive through life enhancing
drugs).  The players then have to bid for contracts which will be for
a set time and require a set number of labourers, specialists etc.
One player controls the Police forces and if the laws are not obeyed
(these may be changed during the course of the game) then the Police

(continued next message....)
===========================================================================
 BBS: Faster-Than-Light BBS
Date: 01-12-94 (13:05)             Number: 1271
From: [e-mail]      Refer#: NONE
  To: ALL                           Recvd: NO
Subj: VARIANT.AZ 4/11                Conf: (455) RecGamesDi
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 @SUBJECT:VARIANT.AZ 4/11                                             N
 @FROM   :[e-mail]                                     N
 @MSGID  :<[e-mail]>        N

This article split by uuPCB: Part # 2 of 5

Newsgroups: rec.games.diplomacy
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 1994 18:03:53 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Sender: Discussion Group for the Game of Diplomacy <[e-mail]>
From: [e-mail]
Subject: VARIANT.AZ 4/11

can try and enforce the law, with or without the help of the other
players who may (or may not) be rewarded for their public spirit.
This variant has a lot of potential for being developed into a campaign
style management game, although the rules are not yet polished.

**          CITIES IN FLIGHT III (Jeremy Maiden).

Rules originally published in He's Dead, Jim! Volume III: XVIII.

(1) Robert Sacks in Lord of Hosts 10, July 1976.

A monstrosity.  Perhaps playable? I suspect a game would go on forever
except that every space (or planet) the Oakies visited would become
depleted pretty rapidly, and (unless there is a conversion rate between
raw materials and currency that is missing) without any benefit, so
that without a constant introduction of new planets the game will
mercifully run down.  Perhaps, with much work, a semi-decent space
wargame might be developed along these lines.

**                     CITY STATE (Hartley Patterson) ??/07

(1) GORDON McDONALD in AC-MONG 40 (August 1991)

Is situated in Italy in the 1300's with the powers being Venice,
Genoa, Milan, Mantua, Florence, Pope and Emperor (the Holy one).
A simple version of Machiavelli.  This is apparently the second version
of the game, the original one including France and having Naples
instead of Mantua; I suppose the idea being to prevent a bottle-neck
further down the peninsula.

Venice and Genoa being trading partners have double supply centres
which are reduced to a single one if a line of supply cannot be
traced to the southern end of the board.  These with Naples and Pisa
are the only ports for the purpose of fleet building.  As in
Machiavelli cities within provinces are separate from the provinces
themselves and a unit `behind the walls' controls the supply centre of
that province but not the province itself, although, if the province
falls vacant than that unit can re-occupy the province.  A unit `behind
the walls' for two successive seasons is disbanded - starvation having
eliminated it.  A fleet may only be `behind the walls' in a port.
Indeed units `behind the walls' cannot support attacks or be supported,
but friendly units can be ordered to raise the siege --which means if
their attack succeeds they do not move into that province but rather
the unit `behind the walls' can move out.

Other characteristics of the game include double armies for the
Emperor at the start but only being able to build single armies
for every two centres gained and losing all his double armies means
elimination from the game.  There are also boxes for movement with 18
centres for victory.  A nice map and looks good!

**                         CLINE-9 MAN (R.Cline et al)

(1) JAMES NELSON in SPRINGY 45 (February 1991).

This is a series of games which adds two powers, the Barbary
States and Persia to the southern end of the board and a few
additional provinces, including the Volga Canal (which is hardly ever
used).  There are currently at least eight versions, of which V and VII
are the best.

**     CLINE 9-MAN V (Bob Cline, Fred C. Davis Jnr and Andrew Poole).

(1) Mark Nelson in Beowulf 18, September 1989.

In an attempt to round off the regular game two players are added in
the south:  the Barbary States in the south-west and Persia in the
south-east.  Off-board boxes enable players to move around the bottom
of the map.  A number of map changes are made to incorporate these new
powers and to get rid of some of the problems in the regular map.  One
of the most popular variants designed having seen 8 revisions in over
twenty years and countless games.

**             COLONIA (Fred Hyatt).

(1) Robert Sacks in Lord of Hosts 2, December 1974.

Eight powers (Netherlands, Portugal and Spain instead of Italy and
Germany) on a cylindrical map of the world.  For the colonizing powers,
half of the `home' supply centers are `colonial' centers which serve as
`home' centers for whoever controls them.  There are two special
centers which if taken can be used as `home' centers by Russia, one of
which can also be so used by the Ottoman Empire.  There are also four
centers in the Pacific which are `impassable' to armies.  No special
rules.  The only questions are size (50 centers needed for victory) and
possible problems with the map.  This variant looks good.

**                        COLONIA VI (Fred Hyatt) ??/09

(1) BOB OLSEN in MOD

This is a global variant which has a truly massive map.  It is
very much in the tradition of monster variants (such as
Youngstown) that were popular in the early years of postal diplomacy.
A unique aspect of Colonia VI is that each power begins the game with
overseas colonies which can serve as building centers for whichever
power controls them.

**          COLONIAL (Glen Reed & Peter Bergren).

(1)  Robert Sacks in Lord of hosts 1, November 1974.

An abstract map/game, which is not very well done.  Seven powers with
varying victory conditions (which is the most noticeable thing in its
favor).  Two types of supply center (permanent and colonial) with rules
for conversion.  Army/Fleets are used in lieu of convoys and there is a
special type of `transport fleet' which are built in addition to, not
instead of, armies and ordinary fleets.  There are off-board boxes and
optional coastal-crawl provinces and canaled provinces.  Not
particularly recommended, although it shows promises of becoming
worthwhile after play-testing.

** COLUMBUS (??)

(1) James Nelson in Variants & Uncles...NOT! 1 (January 1993)

This is still in an experimental stage and is a hybrid of 1492 and
Conquest of the New World III (qv).  The layout of the provinces in the
New World is known but not their type, e.g. sea, land, centre,
non-centre etc, which is determined at random (urgh!)  The players'
home centres are in the old World and are garrisoned, thus making it
possible for conflict in the old as well as New World.

**                   COMBAT for HEGEMONY IN EUROPE ???? ??/07

(1) MIGUEL LAMBOTTE in SOL 2 (October 1990)

Europe in 1814, with provinces in revolt, the possibility to
create minor powers and aims which are either hegemonic or
neutral.  The rules for "Hegemony in Europe" are required.

**                     COMPLOT (Evan Jones).

Rules originally published in Carn Dum 9, 10 & 12.
===========================================================================
 BBS: Faster-Than-Light BBS
Date: 01-12-94 (13:05)             Number: 1272
From: [e-mail]      Refer#: NONE
  To: ALL                           Recvd: NO
Subj: VARIANT.AZ 4/11                Conf: (455) RecGamesDi
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 @SUBJECT:VARIANT.AZ 4/11                                             N
 @FROM   :[e-mail]                                     N
 @MSGID  :<[e-mail]>        N

This article split by uuPCB: Part # 3 of 5

Newsgroups: rec.games.diplomacy
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 1994 18:03:53 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Sender: Discussion Group for the Game of Diplomacy <[e-mail]>
From: [e-mail]
Subject: VARIANT.AZ 4/11

minor powers' bourse and revolts, four seasons a year, movement
factors, fortifications, stacking rules, economic victory conditions,
optional combat, battle plan matrix, troop quality chart, combat takes
place in a space, no supports, weak fleets, separate builds and
maintenance charts, complex control rules, blockades and complex supply
calculations.  I'd sooner play a wargame --- something simple like
Strategy One.

**                     THE CONQUERORS (Lew Pulsipher) ??/04

(1) GORDON McDONALD (?) in Ac-Mon ?? (?)

The historical background for this game has been twisted in order
that the game should be more playable.  The four powers are
Carthage, Macedon, Persia and Rome.  The eastern part of the map
depicts the situation prior to the battle of Issus, 334BC, when
Alexander defeated the Persians, while the Western part is based on the
situation just prior to the First Punic War, 264BC.  This probably
explains why the year 300BC has been chosen as the gamestart, being
between the two dates already mentioned.

There are 29 supply centres, with a victory criterion of 13 units
on the board, deviating from standard victory criterion; this is
an attempt to force players to consider the whole board when forming
strategies rather than just their own segment which can occur in many
games.  Thus it is hoped that it is less likely that two 1 against 1
conflicts will occur.

Another deviation from history is the strength of the individual
forces, all having two armies and two fleets each, this combined
with the fact that it is a four player game makes it more a game of
tactics than strategy.

The map, of fairly good quality, takes in North Africa, most of
mainland Europe and the eastern part of the Middle East.  It
avoids the clutter and imposed geographical restrictions that are
apparent in many of the Diadochi variants.  On first inspection one may
get the impression that, as in Diadochi V, Carthage and Rome are likely
to become mortal enemies.  Yet, this may not be the case as a pact
between Persia and Macedon may prove too much to ignore; indeed these
two powers have as much chance of conflict as the other two.

The rules are simplicity itself, the only addition to the regular
rules being unit placement, the year start, the map and the
victory criterion. If one was looking for an easy to play historical
variant, with limited diplomacy and without having to wait ages for a
waiting list to fill, this game could fit the bill, thus overcoming
many of the problems variant players face.

**               CONQUEST OF THE NEW WORLD II (Fred C. Davis Jnr)

(1) STEVE AGAR in ??? circa September 1980

A revision of Lew Pulsipher's COTNW I.  There are five European
powers (England, France, Holland, Spain and Portugal) whose units
are initially Off-The-Board and proceed to colonize the New World.
Each power may use one of its newly established colonies as a home sc.
The revision introduces more SCs, two Indian defensive armies and a few
other change chances and clarifications.  An interesting game which is
similar in some ways to Excalibur.

**               CONQUEST OF THE NEW WORLD III (wc03/02-05)

(1) James Nelson in Variants & Uncles...NOT! 1 (January 1993)

This variant is similar to 1492 in that conflict does not occur in the
Old World but at this the similarities end.  The New World is known in
that players have a map of it prior to starting.  Each power starts
with units in off-board boxes, where conflict cannot occur, and these
move onto the board in conventional fashion.  The off-board centres
gradually decrease but to compensate powers are allowed to build in
certain owned New World centres (e.g.  England in Nova Scotia or
Virginia).

**     CORNER DIPLOMACY (Eric Brosius) rb61/07

Rules originally published in Bushwacker 207, April 1989

(1) MARK NELSON (1/8/92)

This is a minor-map change variant.  Where three areas on the
regular map meet, the junction is called a corner and a new
province is created there.  These new provinces never speed up movement
between regular areas, and units in corner positions have fewer
movement options than in regular areas.  Their only conceivable use is
either towards the end of the game when they *might* be used to attack
stalemate lines or in giving units an extra province to retreat to. I
can see no reason why anyone in their right mind would want to either
run this or play in it.

**                COURIER (Jeremy Maiden).

Rules originally Published in He's Dead, Jim! Volume III: XVIII.

(1) Robert Sacks in Lord of Hosts 10, July 1976.

An extraordinary variant, even if he doesn't like it himself.  Instead
of an ordinary build, four couriers with double-speed but no combat
value may be built.  Each player has a leader who has no combat value
but may give orders to couriers and units in his space, or adjacent to
him, and couriers and units may relate orders and messages to other
leaders.  Couriers and messages (and perhaps leaders?) may be
captured.  A player only knows what happens in his leader's immediate
vicinity, or what information gets back to him.

**               DEADLY DIRTY (Michael Lind).

(1) Robert Sacks in Lord of Hosts 3, February 1975.

A combination of Black Angels (Lew Pulsipher) and Ghods of Diplomacy
(Peter Aronson).  There are two spaces, Heaven and Hell, adjacent to
every space on the board; there is mock money earned each turn, and by
gambling; the mock money can be used to bribe other players, the Ghods,
or the GM.  The bribes are such that GM errors are undetectable.  To
quote the rules "if YOU are crazy enough to try this variant, you're on
your own --- GOOD LUCK, you'll need it!"


**                        DELUGE (Tim Sharrock) ru02/07

Rules originally Published in He's Dead, Jim! Volume II: XVII.

(1) Robert Sacks in Lord of Hosts 10, July 1976.

As Europe sinks slowly into the sea, province by province, the
population (and hence supply centres?) move inland.  The schedule seems
a little strange, perhaps incomplete, as the game does not seem to
match its description.  Why do we need another board changing variant?

(2) Pete Sullivan in C'Est Magnifique 55, July 1988.

A simple enough concept --- Europe gradually floods every year until
only Switzerland remains above ground by 1908.  The winner is the only
player with a unit left at the end.  It features the inevitable
Army/Fleet rules, as well as allowing units to convert from Armies to
===========================================================================
 BBS: Faster-Than-Light BBS
Date: 01-12-94 (13:05)             Number: 1273
From: [e-mail]      Refer#: NONE
  To: ALL                           Recvd: NO
Subj: VARIANT.AZ 4/11                Conf: (455) RecGamesDi
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 @SUBJECT:VARIANT.AZ 4/11                                             N
 @FROM   :[e-mail]                                     N
 @MSGID  :<[e-mail]>        N

This article split by uuPCB: Part # 4 of 5

Newsgroups: rec.games.diplomacy
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 1994 18:03:53 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Sender: Discussion Group for the Game of Diplomacy <[e-mail]>
From: [e-mail]
Subject: VARIANT.AZ 4/11

Fleets under certain conditions.  As the board gets increasingly
flooded, this can be very useful! A very paranoid game at the end, as
often a player will have to decide who to throw the game to.  Andrew
Poole has produced a series of maps showing the state of the board at
the end of each year, which is a very useful player (and GM!) aid.

(3) JAMES NELSON in SPRINGY 45 (February 1991)

This is a fun and very simple variant.  Each year land-provinces
sink, becoming sea-provinces, and supply centres are therefore
gradually lost (a few new centres are also created in the first few
years).  The effect of this is that each game year the number of supply
centres decreases and fleets become more and more important.  After
eight game years only Switzerland, which becomes passable during the
course of the game, remains.  The winner is the sole survivor.  With
the rules you get a complete set of maps showing the effects of the
deluge on Europe.

**        DIADOCHI V/Triumverate/Imperator (Dick Vedder).

Rules originally Published in Quo Vadis 57-58.

(1) Robert Sacks in Lord of Hosts 10, July 1976.

One map, one game system and three scenarios and very well done.
Standard Vedder map; double, triple (Rome) and special home centers,
loans, limitation on building more than two fleets at a time, bridges
across certain straits, special political and pure rules for the last
two scenarios and Barbarian and Persian rules.

**         DILATORY (Scott Rosenburg).

Rules originally published in The Pocket Armenian 13.

(1) Robert Sacks in Lord of Hosts 5, June 1975.

Every move a space changes center to non-center or non-center to
center.

**          DILUVIAN (Matthew Diller).

Rules originally published in The Pocket Armenian 13.

(1) Robert Sacks in Lord of Hosts 5, June 1975.

Every move a land space changes to sea or sea to land.  Armies on
coasts that become sea become Fleets; Fleets in sea that become coast
become Armies; Armies inland that become sea are annihilated, as are
Fleets in sea that become inland; no specification for fleets on coasts
which become inland, for creation of canals or straits, or which coast
of a newly split coast a fleet is located on.  Each player has one
unchangeable home center; centers which change cease being centers.
Due to the existence of the GIGATON BOMB VARIANT, this is not the worst
variant in existence; it comes close, though.

**                 DIPLOCHESS (Edi Birsan).

(1) Robert Sacks in Lord of Hosts 2, December 1974.

Two players on a chess board with chess pieces and chess moves, but
with simultaneous movement as in Diplomacy.  Each chessman has a
strength equivalent to its chess point value.

**                 DIPLOMACY-CLUEDO (Fred C. Davis Jnr).

(1) Andrew Poole in Outposts 6, October 1981.

This variant was designed in 1980 and is a game of normal diplomacy
played in parallel with a game of Cluedo.  Victory in the game of
Cluedo gives the player three extra off-board supply centres (which
cannot be destroyed) at the next winter adjustment.  Armies supplied by
these can be built in any of the supply centres that the Cluedo winner
owns or even in Special Areas (Crete, Iceland, Ireland, Sardinia,
Sicily, Switzerland, or Siberia).  The rest of the variant covers
special rules relating to these procedures, and also the full rules for
Postal Cluedo.

**                DIPLOMAFIA (Evan Jones).

Rules originally published in Urf Durfal 2.

(1) Robert Sacks in Lord of Hosts 7, September 1975.

Five gangsters in Manhattan run the rackets and control short and long
range influence/political pressure units.  The value of rackets is
determined randomly for each player each turn.  The game is strongly
reminiscent of other economic games such as Brotherhood and Organized
Crime, but not as good as they are, so I do not see any particular
value to this variant.

**             DIPLOMATIC (Martin Janta-Polcznski).

Rules originally published in Bushwacker Volume V: VI.

(1) Robert Sacks in Lord of Hosts 10, July 1976.

A player does not own (for purpose of builds, victory condition, or
recognition) a captured supply center until a majority of the players
*owning* a majority of the supply centers (double majorities) send in
recognition orders in a winter season.  The effects on the former owner
of the supply center were not specified.

**                                   DOWNFALL

(1) JAMES NELSON in SPRINGY 45 (February 1991)

This is a series of games based on J.R.R. Tolkien's "Lord of the
Rings" trilogy.  Downfall, collectively, is probably the most
popular variant in the UK.  At first sight the later versions appear to
be amongst the most complicated variants.  These try to emulate the
book in fine detail, including pieces representing Gandalf, the
Rangers, the Nazgul, Faramir etc.

Of the various designs DOWNFALL III (little chrome ... more of a
wargame than a simulation), Definitive Downfall and Hardbop
Downfall are probably the best.  The latter two are examples of the
more popular book-emulating designs.

**          DOWNFALL I (Hartley Patterson) ??/08

Rules originally published in War Bulletin ?? circa 1974)

(1) STEVE AGAR in V&U 2 (July 1980)

Hartley unashamedly set out to recreate the book, removing the
anomalies in Third Age (qv).  The players are: Dwarves, Gondor,
Rohan, Sauron, Saruman, Umbar and Gandalf.  Gandalf is a single unit,
which is only reported in conflicts.  To prevent unlikely alliances,
Hartley adopted the idea of Good, Neutral and Evil alignments to
prevent alliances untrue to the spirit of the book -- hence Gondor can
not ally with Saruman.

Besides Gandalf, the Nazgul appears as a special unit controlled
by Sauron (or a power using the ring), the Balrog protects Moria,
and Ents and Hobbits are accounted for.  Fortresses and mountains are
===========================================================================
 BBS: Faster-Than-Light BBS
Date: 01-12-94 (13:05)             Number: 1274
From: [e-mail]      Refer#: NONE
  To: ALL                           Recvd: NO
Subj: VARIANT.AZ 4/11                Conf: (455) RecGamesDi
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 @SUBJECT:VARIANT.AZ 4/11                                             N
 @FROM   :[e-mail]                                     N
 @MSGID  :<[e-mail]>        N

This article split by uuPCB: Part # 5 of 5

Newsgroups: rec.games.diplomacy
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 1994 18:03:53 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Sender: Discussion Group for the Game of Diplomacy <[e-mail]>
From: [e-mail]
Subject: VARIANT.AZ 4/11

the game, but the Hobbit heroes have been included in a minor way.  Due to all
the special rules (and the stacking permitted) the playtesters feel that the
diplomacy of the War of the Ring is adequately simulated.

**                  DOWNFALL IX ts21 (Richard Egan, Martin Lewis et al)

(1) Tim Collier in Moonlighting 8, June 1990.

Downfall IX has many new challenges.  True to the book, it has the perfect
combination of `Chrome', `Special Units' and a skillfully designed map.  From
Saruman's crows to the `Riders of Rohan' with a potentially potent impulse
move, you have a wide variety of features to add spice to the frantic
Diplomacy.  The predetermined battle lines leave the neutral powers being
lusted after by both sides.  The race for the Ring and the flight of the
fellowship skillfully sustain suitable suspense against the wider backdrop of
the `War of the Ring'.  All in all, my favourite version of Downfall, allowing
you to live as well as play the game.

**          DOWNFALL X (Richard Egan and Martin Lewis).

(1) Pete Sullivan in C'Est Magnifique 55, July 1988.

In the beginning, there was Hartley Patterson who designed a Tolkien variant
called `Downfall of the Lord of the Rings and the Return of the King'.  There
were a couple of other versions, but it was not until the Viennamob hit the
hobby that Downfall re-designing became the `in' thing for all hip and dudey
variant fans.  This tenth version is probably one of the best, if only because
it has the potential for solving the in-built imbalance of any Tolkien
scenario.  It uses different `victory points' for each power, which can be
fine-tuned in the light of further games.  It also features somewhat less of
the atmospheric but fiddly `chrome' which afflicted `Definitive' Downfall and
Downfall IX.

**               DUDLAND (Greg Costikyan and Scott Rosenburg).

Rules originally Published in Urf Durfal 11.

(1) Robert Sacks in Lord of Hosts 12, February 1977.

A rather atrocious variant, based on a rather atrocious press series.  The
lists of double coasted provinces and four point provinces in the rules do not
match the map, there is some confusion as to the rights of the `Custodian of
the Dudness' with respect to dudded supply centers, and it is not made clear if
sea spaces or provinces on the other continent can be dudded and whether armies
can be dudded out to sea or fleets onto land.  There are rules for government-
in-exile and anti-dud units.  One player can send annual letters of attack
which forces a unit to hold.  Needs work to make it worth playing.  For those
unfamiliar with the atrocious NY'ism `dud', any unit in a dudded province
except those of the Custodian and anti-dud (or `dud-out') is transported to a
province of the Custodian's choice, though a `dud-out' unit unduds a dudded
province.  Definitely needs work.

** THE DYING EARTH (10,000 AD) (Lewis Pulsipher).

(1) Robert Sacks in Lord of Hosts 5, June 1975.

Each player receives, stacked, two armies, one hero and one wizard; thereafter
armies may not be stacked.  Builds occur in any owned center.  A hero adds one
in support of units it is accompanying.  Each wizard has a choice of three
spells from the seven available, and may use one each turn (in the same or
adjacent space) before moving.  Highly recommended.

END OF FILE
===========================================================================
 BBS: Faster-Than-Light BBS
Date: 01-12-94 (13:05)             Number: 1275
From: [e-mail]      Refer#: NONE
  To: ALL                           Recvd: NO
Subj: VARIANT.AZ 10/11               Conf: (455) RecGamesDi
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 @SUBJECT:VARIANT.AZ 10/11                                            N
 @FROM   :[e-mail]                                     N
 @MSGID  :<[e-mail]>        N
Newsgroups: rec.games.diplomacy
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 1994 18:06:52 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Sender: Discussion Group for the Game of Diplomacy <[e-mail]>
From: [e-mail]
Subject: VARIANT.AZ 10/11

This article split by uuPCB: Part # 1 of 2

Newsgroups: rec.games.diplomacy
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 1994 18:06:52 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Sender: Discussion Group for the Game of Diplomacy <[e-mail]>
From: [e-mail]
Subject: VARIANT.AZ 10/11


APPENDIX ONE: WHAT ARE THE BEST DIPLOMACY VARIANTS?

We reprint answers given by some prominent variant fans.

(a)            GLENN OVERBY'S 10.5 BEST VARIANTS

((Originally appeared in ZINE of LISTS 1981, details reprinted from BUSHWACKER
VOL XI #1 (January 1982).  Comments inside (()) are by Fred C. Davis Jnr, other
comments are Overby's.  Unfortunately I do not have a complete list of Overby's
selection of variants.))

1. MERCATOR (Doug Wakefield)  ``It's interesting to note that Wakefield
acknowledges this game's ancestry --- sort of a cross between Abstraction's
fluidity and Youngstown's size.  This British design has surpassed both of its
`parents' --- no doubt due to seven years of continuous development by its
designer and a cast of thousands.''

2. SONG OF THE NIGHT (Lewis Pulsipher) ``This incredibly complex variant is
the best design of one of the hobby's top designers.'' ((It may be too
difficult for some people.))

3. ABSTRACTION II (Fred C. Davis Jnr)

4. YOUNGSTOWN  ((I suspect that it is the game's great popularity that earns
it this rating.  There is no great spark of originality here...  In North
America we normally play mark IV; in the UK they play VI.  Another version adds
the Transvaal in Africa as a Great power, and there is also a global variant
known as XII which has 12 powers including the USA.))  ``Its only major fault
is lack of fluidity in the midgame... and large draws are not uncommon.''

5. ATLANTICA (Fred C. Davis Jnr)

6. ???

7. ???

8. HOLOCAUST (Steve McLendon) ((The amazing thing is that Steve designed this
while I was designing SMALL WORLD.  Neither of us knew of the other's
existence, and both were printed within weeks of each other without the other's
knowledge (SW may have come out something like four weeks earlier), and they
are virtually twins!  (SW has 8 powers; Holocaust 9, with a few more SCs)...
They avoid the stalemate lines found in Youngstown.  My only suggestion to
Steve was that his name is a misnomer.  This HOLOCAUST has nothing to do with
either the Third Reich or atomic annihilation.  These designs show how great
minds (ahem) solve similar problems in the same way.))

9. ???

10. ???

10.5 WOOLWORTH I (Glenn Overby)

(b) FRED DAVIS' PERSONAL LIST OF MOST ENJOYABLE AND MOST PLAYABLE VARIANTS

((Reprinted from Bushwacker Vol XI:I, January 1982.))

((All comments by Fred C. Davis Jnr.))

None of these games contain any extremely difficult concepts.  If you know
the basic rules for Diplomacy, you can play any of these games with no trouble,
provided you read the rules (and keep them handy).  I also think these variants
are enjoyable. The maps are good, and the stalemate lines are few and far
between.  Except for Mercator, none has over 55 SCs, and most have less then
50.  (As a rule of thumb, the larger a game, the less likelihood that it will
be played to completion.)

All except Woolworth can be played FTF, although I think that Mercator is
too big to do so.

1. ABSTRACTION II (Fred Davis) -- 7 players, Europe extended. 46 centers.
2. MERCATOR (Doug Wakefield) -- 13 players (varies from 5 to 24 in
other scenarios, but most cater for either 13 or 14).  Global, very
large number of SCs.
3. ATLANTICA IIR/III (Fred Davis) -- 7 players, 3 in North America and 4 in
Europe with play centering on the Atlantic Ocean.  47 or 48 centers.
4. HOLOCAUST (Steve McLendon) -- 9 players, 55 SCs, Global.
SMALL WORLD IIR (Fred Davis) -- 7 or 8 players, 48 SCs, Global.
(These two are nearly twins.)
5. DUAL SPACE (Fred Davis) -- 7 players, Europe extended, several sea
spaces overlap, giving fleets greater mobility.  (Another version,
called `Overlapping Spaces', has been designed by Martin Janta-Polcyznski.)
6. WOOLWORTH II-A (Glen Overby) -- 5 players, but 10 Powers, five of
which operate secretly on a map of Europe.  39 centers.
7. MIDDLE EARTH VIII (Lewis Pulsipher) -- 7 players, Tolkien variant.
One of the better balanced ones.  Double and triple armies.
8. DIADOCHI, IMPERATOR I, TRIUMVERATE (Dick Vedder) --- 3 games played
on essentially the same map, which is basically a map of the Roman
Empire.  5 or 7 players, some Double centers.  Imperator rules
don't work, but others are excellent.
9. CLINE 9-MAN (Robert Cline et al) --- 9 players, Europe extended
to include Barbary States and Persia.
10. ABERRATION III (Rod Walker) -- 9 players in Europe, using completely
different Powers.  54 centers.  You can build in any center you own.

Apologies for including so many of my own designs, but I do know them
better than many of the others.  To quote an old Russian proverb, ``When you
die, the man who blows your horn is buried with you.''

(c) VARIATION'S ON A THEME: By Pete Sullivan.

((Reprinted from C'Est Magnifique 55, July 1988.))

In the January 1982 issue of _Bushwacker_, Fred C. Davis Jnr. published
a list of his `top ten' Diplomacy variants.  This list was later picked up
by Andrew Poole, who published the rules for all ten of Fred's choices
(with the exception of Mercator) as the UKVB Variant Package II.

Inevitably, however, Fred's choices don't all gel with me; I suspect
every variant fan's choices would be different.  Not that that's going to stop
me inflicting my top ten on you all.  My own tastes tend towards variants
with one simply key concept, or to `silly' variants.  So, in no particular
order (apart from alphabetical):

ABSTRACTION II (Fred C. Davis Jnr).  Quite possible the best-designed
variant of all time.  The basic scenario is the same --- World War One Europe,
seven Great Powers ---- but the redesigned map and the Davis Army/Fleet rules
(which allow fleets to carry armies `piggy-back', for several turns if
(continued next message....)
===========================================================================
 BBS: Faster-Than-Light BBS
Date: 01-12-94 (13:05)             Number: 1276
From: [e-mail]      Refer#: NONE
  To: ALL                           Recvd: NO
Subj: VARIANT.AZ 10/11               Conf: (455) RecGamesDi
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 @SUBJECT:VARIANT.AZ 10/11                                            N
 @FROM   :[e-mail]                                     N
 @MSGID  :<[e-mail]>        N

This article split by uuPCB: Part # 2 of 2

Newsgroups: rec.games.diplomacy
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 1994 18:06:52 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Sender: Discussion Group for the Game of Diplomacy <[e-mail]>
From: [e-mail]
Subject: VARIANT.AZ 10/11

required) mean that you have a much more `open' game, and a better balanced one
than with Regular Diplomacy.  The winter Frozen Regions rule is a right
bind when you forget about it(as I did), and as for the exchange of provinces
rule, has anyone ever used this in an actual game?

ATLANTICA III (Fred C. Davis Jnr).  Map centred on the Atlantic Ocean, which
means that Army/Fleet rules are a must.  Noticeable for its assumptions that
the South won the Civil War. with both the United States and the Confederate
States
as Great Powers.  But what makes the game for me are the rules for
`discovering' Atlantic (an additional neutral supply centre) in one of the six
possible locations in the middle of the Atlantic.  A game I'd like to see
tried again in the British postal hobby.

CHAOS II (Michael Feron).  All of us have our dark secrets.  Yes, I was the man
who introduced Martin Lewis to Chaos II.  I was in temporary charge of
the Variant Bank between rescuing it from Geoff Kemp and handing it on to
Steve Doubleday.  Martin asked if I knew any interesting variants, and I
told him about this one reasoning that if any zine could get 34  players for a
game _Vienna_ could.  The rest, as they say, is history.
For the uniniated, this game starts each player off with one supply centre
(and hence one unit) on the regular board.  There is also provision for
nominating home supply centres and joint wins.

DELUGE (Tim Sharrock).  Once again, a simple enough concept --- Europe
gradually floods every year until only Switzerland remains above ground by
1908.  The winner is the only player with a unit left at the end.  It features
the inevitable Army/Fleet rules, as well as allowing units to convert from
Armies to Fleets under certain conditions.  As the board gets increasingly
flooded, this can be very useful!  A very paranoid game at the end, as
often a player will have to decide who to throw the game to.  Andrew Poole
has produced a series of maps showing the state of the board at the end of
each year, which is a very useful player (and GM!) aid.

DOWNFALL X (Richard Egan and Martin Lewis).  In the beginning, there was
Hartley Patterson who designed a Tolkien variant called `Downfall of the Lord of
the Rings and the Return of the King'.  There were a couple of other versions,
but
it was not until the Viennamob hit the hobby that Downfall re-designing became
the `in' thing for all hip and dudey variant fans.
This tenth version is probably one of the best, if only because it has the
potential for solving the inbuilt imbalance of ay Tolkien scenario.  It
uses different `victory points' for each power, which can be fine-tuned in
the light of further games.  It also features somewhat less of the atmospheric
but fiddly `chrome' which afflicted `Definitive' Downfall and Downfall IX.

RATHER SILLY DIPLOMACY II1/2 (Jeremy Maiden, Dave Thorby and Peter
Sullivan.)
Ghod, do I really want my name associated with the likes of Maiden and Thorby?
It is the considered opinion of such hobby luminaries as Richard Walkerdine
and Conrad von Metzke that this variant is unplayable (or, to me more
accurate, un-gmable).  This despite the fact that Brian Creese has a run
a game to conclusion, and mine and several others' games are well on
their way.
The trick is, when you find a rule which makes things awkward to gm, you
use gm fiat to remove it and replace it with an even sillier (but easier
to run) rule.  It also helps if you have players who don't really
understand what's going on (or in extreme cases have never seen the rules)
as this means they're very unlikely to protest about gming errors.

SACRED RHINOCEROS II (Michael Liesnard).

Spotted by yours truely in the darker recesses of the UK Variant Bank,
but not ever played in Britain.  The idea is that each player has an allied
African tribe.  These each have one `tribal symbol' unit (a `Sacred
Rhinocerous') in Africa which supplies an additional native Army for use
in Europe.  (Africa is totally separate from the ordinary board.) If a
tribal symbol is dislodged and disbanded by the other tribes' symbols, then
`the Sacred Rhinocerous has lost his Horn' and the associated army in
Europe is destroyed.  A nice `minimal change' variant with scope for
unusual play.

SLIGHTLY DEMIURGIC DIPLOMACY I (Nick Kinzett).

A.K.A Revenge of the Master Rulechanger.  Quite simply, a game in which the
players can vote to change the rules.  Each turn, each player proposes
a rule change.  These are then voted upon, and any that are passed by
a majority vote become Rules of the Game until further altered or
rescinded.  A great deal of scope for mixing up rules from other variants,
or just getting plain silly.  Nick has yet to respond to my suggestion
that we should do the voting by proper multi-member Single Transferable
Vote...

VAIN RATS (Richard Sharp and Steve Doubleday).

So called because it's a mixture of variants.  Each player has one (or, in
most versions, two) special powers chosen from a list at the start.
These vary from version to version, but normally include things like
Petrol Rationing (allows multiple moves), Evil Eye (may re-order
another player's unit), Leper (can give `leprosy' to units it meets,
killing them), Double Armies and so on.  Usually won by the player who
chooses the best special powers at the start and makes the best use of
them.

WOOLWORTH II-D (Glen Overby and Fred C. Davis Jnr).

Ten Great Powers (Regular plus Spain, Scandinavia and the Balkans)
but only five players.  Each player controls one `public' power and one
`private'
power, which gives lots of scope for double-dealing as well as the problem
of how closely to co-ordinate your two powers (too much and you'll give
the game away!).  An increasingly popular variant over the past few years, and
rightly so.  The name arises becauses when the Woolworth stores were
originally founded in the USA. all their goods were sold at either 5c or
10c.


END OF FILE
===========================================================================
 BBS: Faster-Than-Light BBS
Date: 01-12-94 (13:05)             Number: 1277
From: [e-mail]      Refer#: NONE
  To: ALL                           Recvd: NO
Subj: VARIANT.AZ 9/11                Conf: (455) RecGamesDi
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 @SUBJECT:VARIANT.AZ 9/11                                             N
 @FROM   :[e-mail]                                     N
 @MSGID  :<[e-mail]>        N
Newsgroups: rec.games.diplomacy
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 1994 18:06:10 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Sender: Discussion Group for the Game of Diplomacy <[e-mail]>
From: [e-mail]
Subject: VARIANT.AZ 9/11

This article split by uuPCB: Part # 1 of 4

Newsgroups: rec.games.diplomacy
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 1994 18:06:10 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Sender: Discussion Group for the Game of Diplomacy <[e-mail]>
From: [e-mail]
Subject: VARIANT.AZ 9/11


** WAR OF THE RING (Lew Pulsipher).

(1) Robert Sacks in Lord of Hosts 7, September 1975.

Not so much a game as a game system.  Various scenarios, between two and seven
players.  There are forts, equivalent to stationary units without capability to
support external action, multiple units, army/fleet conversion, Gondor and
Rohan usually linked, only one scenario uses mountains, centers depending on
scenario for value and strength, one scenario uses Downfall-type rules for Ring
and Nazgul.  A must for Tolkien variant players and designers.

**                                   WARWICK

(1) GORDON McDONALD in AC-MONG 43 (February 1992)

The Scenario is England in 1470.  King Edward IV faces a rebellion by
Warwick, who acts in the pretense of regaining the throne for Henry VI.  There
are nine players in the game, all of which start with one unit on each of their
home supply centres.

These players are: Edward IV, Richard of Gloucester, Duke of Norfolk and
Lord Hastings all under the Yorkist banner, while the Earl of Warwick, Duke of
Exeter, Duke of Somerset and the Earl of Northumberland are fighting the
Lancastrian cause with the Duke of Clarence as a neutral.  The Lancastrians
support Henry VI, who is a non-player unit in the control of Warwick and is
assigned secretly to one of his units.

Players may change their political alignment, either as a claimant to the
throne, support someone else in their claim to the throne or declare their
neutrality, as long as the GM is informed.  Once a player has declared himself
a contender to the throne, he may never ally with another claimant, even if one
party renounces his claims.  If at any time there is only one claimant to the
throne for two consecutive seasons, that player becomes King.

Units can act as fleets by moving from a port to a sea province and any
number can occupy the same one; nor can they be dislodged from a sea province.
London confers a garrison strength of one, to any unit occupying it.

The rules seem straight forward enough, although map quality could be better.

** WESTPHALIA VIII (Howard Mahler).

(1) Robert Sacks in Lord of Hosts 1, November 1974.

This is a revision of Westphalia VI and includes many minor map changes; the
principle changes are that a Spanish center and space Milan are created, Spain
begins a unit short, and all initial set ups are discretionary.  There are more
Spanish centers outside of Spain than inside.  There are several double-coasted
and canaled provinces, and one province (Andalusia) separates the Atlantic from
the Mediterranean.

** WITCH WORLD II (Lewis Pulsipher).

(1) Robert Sacks in Lord of Hosts 1, November 1974.

There are almost as many double-coasted, special provinces and special rules as
there are ordinary supply centers, which might be necessary to simulate the
special properties in this five player fantasy.  (I do, however, miss the
actual magic that is to be found in the books; in Warlock for instance an
entire army is wiped out by magic in a minute.)  Coastal Crawl and Crawling
retreats are used.  In spite of everything, the game appears rather simple and
should generate interesting press, especially if the players have read any of
the books.


**                  WOOLWORTH II-D (Glen Overby and Fred C. Davis Jnr).

(1) Ten Great Powers (Regular plus Spain, Scandinavia and the Balkans) but only
five players.  Each player controls one `public' power and one `private' power,
which gives lots of scope for double-dealing as well as the problem of how
closely to co-ordinate your two powers (too much and you'll give the game
away!).  An increasingly popular variant over the past few years, and rightly
so.  The name arises because when the Woolworth stores were originally founded
in the USA, all their goods were sold at either 5c or 10c.

(2) JAMES NELSON in SPRINGY 45 (February 1991)

This variant uses a slightly modified map.  There are five players, each
controlling one public power and one secret power, which player runs which
secret power is, at the start of the game, known only to the GM.  With ten
powers on a small map there is immediate conflict!  The secret powers make it
easier to start wars and makes for colourful press.  The secret powers need to
played carefully so as to avoid giving away the identities of the controlling
player.  There are sudden shifts in alliance structures as players try to find
out who their opponents really are.  With two powers for each player,
elimination from the game is rare.  A fun game.

**                           WORLD DIPLOMACY (DW 39)

(1) BOB OLSEN in MOD

This is superficially similar to FINAL CONFLICT (qv), but the two were
developed independently and have very different styles of play.  Like FC, World
Dip is played on a world map.  It has eight players and the basic version,
which includes armies, fleets and air forces, is closer to the regular game
then Final Conflict.  There are optional rules for nuclear forces.

** WORLD DOMINATION I & II gp26 & gp27 (Richard Egan).

(1) Eric Instone in Moonlighting 8, April 1990.

Playing standard DIPLOMACY, I often felt restricted by both the limited extent
of the board and by the almost inevitable stalemate line.  World Domination
gets over these problems and a lot more.  Whereas in standard DIPLOMACY France
will normally go for Iberia, the southern powers will squabble over the
Balkans, and England will set out to control everything around the North Sea,
in World Domination things tend to be a little more varied as there are a lot
more options.  It's a big game, covering the entire world, and normally
everyone will be engaged in actions in several different pies, and if one gets
hurt it's still not necessarily the end of your game.  As for Europe, the
(continued next message....)
===========================================================================
 BBS: Faster-Than-Light BBS
Date: 01-12-94 (13:05)             Number: 1278
From: [e-mail]      Refer#: NONE
  To: ALL                           Recvd: NO
Subj: VARIANT.AZ 9/11                Conf: (455) RecGamesDi
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 @SUBJECT:VARIANT.AZ 9/11                                             N
 @FROM   :[e-mail]                                     N
 @MSGID  :<[e-mail]>        N

This article split by uuPCB: Part # 2 of 4

Newsgroups: rec.games.diplomacy
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 1994 18:06:10 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Sender: Discussion Group for the Game of Diplomacy <[e-mail]>
From: [e-mail]
Subject: VARIANT.AZ 9/11

standard board is used (the game is an *extension* of the standard board), and
is still prone to the odd stalemate.  However, with action elsewhere remaining
fluid, Europe snarling up actually adds to the game, providing an interesting
contrast.  Game balance between powers is deliberately uneven, but again this
adds rather than detracts to the design.  If there is one fault, however, it
would be the weakness of Russia, which World Domination II went some way to
rectify (World Domination I was really no more than a draft version, which
somehow found its way into the variant banks of the world).  Finally, the
chrome (gas warfare, submarines and more) is almost all optional, and is both
simple and works well.  It gives yet more variety to the variant.  To sum up,
World Domination is not overtly complex, and is tried and tested.  Games are
both big and varied.

** WORLD POWERS (Richard Ware).

Rules originally Published in Voinskij Doklad 1.

(1) Robert Sacks in Lord of Hosts 8, December 1975.

A simple map extension covering the entire world; each of the powers has an
additional center with Japan and US added with four centers; there is a canal
through Egypt and between Mexico and Columbia.  Some merit.


**                      WORLD WAR TWO DIPLOMACY (Chris Edwards)

(1) ANDREW ENGLAND in Affairs of State (1988)

This variant is based around Lew Pulsipher's 1939 Diplomacy (qv) but
provides for more options.  The system is the same as Pulsipher's.  The changes
come in the form of an expanded European map which takes in all of North Africa
and the Middle East and units for most of the neutral countries.  These
neutrals may be converted to the use of the major powers (now including the
U.S.A) by expending those centre points.  Moreover, the game allows players to
indulge in technological research again by spending these points.  Through this
the players can gain better tanks, armies and bombers and, of course, the
"Bomb".  Overall this variant has proved very popular with at least three games
in progress in Australian zines.  If there is a flaw it is that the German
player is slightly disadvantaged.  He starts off strong and so there is a
tendency for the other players to "gang up" on him.  But as more games are
played this tendency may be disproved.

** WORLD WAR III (Scot Rosenburg).

Rules originally Published in The Pocket Armenian 19 & 20

(1) Robert Sacks in Lord of Hosts 8 December 1975.

Confused and unnecessarily complicated --- uses nuclear and alignment rules.

**                            YOUNGSTOWN

(1) Pete Birks, Greatest Hits 126 (January 1986)

It is amazing that Youngstown attained any popularity with a glaring
design fault of a chronically easy stalemae line in about four different
places.  One of Diplomacy's strengths is that although it is possible to
set up lines, it is never easy and usually requires close co-operation
(in other words, if you set one up, you probably deserve the draw).
In Youngstown, Russia and/or China could set up one on their own. Apart
from drop-outs, I cannot think of a Youngstown game which ended in an
outright win.

**                            YOUNGSTOWN (Judge version)

(1) JOSH SMITH (1992)

The popular Youngstown variant altered the basic Diplomacy game in a
number of significant ways. It introduced Off Board boxes, allowing a form of
wrap- around movement from one edge of the board to the other. It redrew the
European map to allow Germany, Austria, and Turkey to start with four units
each, and created several additional neutral centers in Europe. It gave England
and France home supply centers in Asia, and Italy a home center in Africa. It
added several islands, which bordered only sea spaces. It made the map
non-planar in the African Off Board and the Suez region.  It added three
players to the original seven, but more than doubled the number of supply
centers on the board to 72; the victory criterion is 37 centers. The rules and
a postscript map can be downloaded from any of the on-line Judges.

** 260AD (Scott Rosenburg).

(1) Robert Sacks in Lord of Hosts 1, November 1974.

Six powers (three `Roman Empires', three invaders).  Europe without
Scandinavia, North Africa, and Asia north of Arabia and the Persian Gulf.  Six
double-coasted provinces, one canaled province, Alps and Pyrenees impassable as
are the North and Caspian Seas, the Persian Gulf and Arabia, one special build
centre.  Worth playtesting.

**                      1000AD III (John Lovibond) ???/07

(1) GORDON McDONALD in AC-MONG 40 <August 1991>

The powers in this game include British, Franks, Moors, Byzantines,
Vikings, Maygars/Polacks and Polotjans/Dregovites.  The British and Franks are
situated in the usual places with the Moors occupying North Africa and the
Iberian peninsula as far north as Madrid.  The Byzantines as well as
controlling the Balkans occupy southern Italy with the Maygar/Polacks contained
in eastern Austria, Hungary and Czechoslovakia and the Polotjans/Dregovites
situated in the Baltic states, northeast Poland and White Russia.  The
Vikings?  Well, they're in Norway and Denmark!

The powers vary in strength from 4 to 5 units/centres and orders are
submitted for Winter 999AD; these orders containing initial placement of units
within the home borders, fleets or armies being up to the owning player.  The
total number doesn't have to be positioned at the start, some can be retained
for later build seasons, although I would say it doesn't happen too often. The
Magyar/Polack player doesn't have a coastal area within his/her boundaries and
so is allowed to use Lombardy for such.

The A/F system is available with the victory criterion varied depending
upon power.  British, Franks, Polotjans/Dregovites -25; Vikings, Moors,
Magyars/Polacks -28 and the Byzantines - 31.

Historical accuracy may not be total (British including Britons,
Anglo-Saxons and Norsemen etc) but the game does seem to have a balance about
it.  No player is in the middle of the board and everyone is faced by two
opposing powers which creates options for alliances and strategy.  I think I
would have the Moors at the top of my preference list followed by the British.
The map is of good quality and the rules simple to follow.

** 1066 (Ken Clarke).

Rules originally Printed in Darien Settlement 3.

(1) Robert Sacks in Lord of Hosts 9, March 1976.

Another good Ancient England variant, with a noticeable flaw in that one

(continued next message....)
===========================================================================
 BBS: Faster-Than-Light BBS
Date: 01-12-94 (13:05)             Number: 1279
From: [e-mail]      Refer#: NONE
  To: ALL                           Recvd: NO
Subj: VARIANT.AZ 9/11                Conf: (455) RecGamesDi
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 @SUBJECT:VARIANT.AZ 9/11                                             N
 @FROM   :[e-mail]                                     N
 @MSGID  :<[e-mail]>        N

This article split by uuPCB: Part # 3 of 4

Newsgroups: rec.games.diplomacy
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 1994 18:06:10 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Sender: Discussion Group for the Game of Diplomacy <[e-mail]>
From: [e-mail]
Subject: VARIANT.AZ 9/11

non-home supply center is labelled as a home center with two names.  Two
players have units that are either armies or fleets, and two players have units
which begin off-board and the right to build in their first three captured
centers.  It is not clear if the variant is balanced, as three of the seven
players have corner positions, two have near-corner positions, and two have
inside positions -- it is unclear that playing the last four positions would be
any fun at all; one of the corner positions is rather isolated so the two
near-corner positions are better, but the positions of the Northern Earls and
Harold Godwinson are still not very enviable.

** 1492 (Edwin Godfrey).

(1) Mark Nelson in Beowulf 18, September 1989.

The four players are England, France, Portugal and Spain and the aim of the
variant is to recreate the voyages of discovery.  At the start of the game the
GM draws up a map of the world centered on Europe.  The players then send their
units off the board in an attempt to discover where the supply centres are!
The GM tells each player what he has discovered separately so we have an
interesting situation where different players can know different parts of the
map but no player knows all the map.  This is a good idea and has the potential
to be a fun game... although there may not be too much diplomacy in it.

** 1618 (Scott Rosenburg).

(1) Robert Sacks in Lord of Hosts 1, November 1974.

A ten player game set around the Holy Roman Empire.  No double-coasted or
canaled provinces, one off-board supply centre and three special build
provinces.  The game is designed to show the immediate theatre of the Thirty
Years War.  There is one obvious typographical error in the rules: "If Austria
occupies Prague after Fall 1618, it becomes an Austrian home center in all
ways..." should read something like "If Austria occupies Prague on or
before...".  The map might be a problem, but a game should prove interesting if
it doesn't bog down due to its size.

** 1648: The Thirty Years War (IV) (Greg DeCesare).

Rules originally Published in Novgorod 12.

(1) Robert Sacks in Lord of Hosts 5, June 1975.

Eight powers (Spain, Sweden and Poland for Italy and Germany), Russia and
Poland have four centers, Ottoman Empire has five as well as five neutrals to
others or reclaimable by him if he loses any home centers.  Two fleets per
build limitation on each power.  Spain may start an army in the Netherlands
instead of Leon.  Fleets can convert to armies.  Neutral centers can be
converted.  There are mercenaries (half armies) which cannot attack.  There are
two four-point junctions and many more spaces, both land and sea.  The game
uses a twelve month year with frozen Winters.  Loanable supple centers.  Worth
looking at.

**                           1885 (Fred C. Davis Jnr)

(1) Robert Sacks in Lord of Hosts 1, November 1974.

Nine powers (add Spain and Sweden) on a slightly expanded map, rather
beautifully done.  Only one double coasted province, which is rather
unimportant, with the obvious benefits that result.  Twelve month year with
quarterly adjustments.  Certain provinces may be used for builds without being
centers.  Army/Fleets are used in lieu of extended convoys.  Retreats are
mandatory.  Turkey begins one unit short, and Italy begins with a discretionary
army or fleet in Rome.  It is a very beautiful variant and highly recommended.

(2) STEVE AGAR in ??? circa September 1980

An expanded board variant, which adds two new powers in the shape of Spain
and Sweden.  There are 46 SCs of which 24 are needed for victory.  The Davis
A/F rules are used.

**                       1898 (??) ??/07

(1) MARK NELSON (28/1/93) A development of Winter 1900 in which the players
start with one unit in one of their home centres in Winter 1898.  They
must recapture their home centres in the standard way before they can build
in them.  Rules are available from the Judge.

**                        1914 DIPLOMACY (Lewis Pulsipher)

(1) ANDREW ENGLAND in Affaits of State (1988).

This variant attempts to provide a realistic basis for simulating the
Great War but with an open ended alliance system (as per the regular game).
Supply centres are assigned point values which must be used not only to build
units but also to convert neutrals (which have their own armies) and to pay for
attacks.  This latter rule really makes players think about what they do.
Another interesting feature is the alliance system which is based around
written agreements which can only be broken with one season's notice.  This
makes alliances more secure and tends to channel the emphasis more onto
combat.  Overall the game provides a good simulation of World War One.

**                          1939 DIPLOMACY (Lewis Pulsipher)

(1) ANDREW ENGLAND in Affairs of State (1988).

This game uses the standard rules but with some important variations.  The
map is of Europe but the provinces and supply centres are changed to reflect
the political geography of the time.  In addition two new unit types are added,
the tank and the bomber.  The tank is worth two units and the bomber may stack
with other units and `fly' to provide support for certain orders.  Each supply
centre on the board is worth a certain number of points which are then used to
build and maintain units.  The major problem with the game is that it doesn't
provide for the effect that the United States had on the war.  This variant has
been made redundant by Chris Edward's World War Two Diplomacy (qv).  This was
the first real variant run by mail in Australia through *Austral View*
beginning in 1984.

** 1939 III (Neil Duncan and Dave Newnham).

Based upon 1939 II By Lew Pulsipher

(1) REVIEW: Steve Agar in Spring Offensive 11 (April 1993)

1939 III is a World War II variant for six players, which has been developed
from 1939 II which originally appeared in Lew Pulsipher's slim volume on
Diplomacy variants in the 1970's.  In addition to the usual Armies and Fleets
there are also Tanks and Bombers which have additional powers but cost more to
build.

Tanks are in effect double armies which can either move a single province at
double strength or move two spaces with single strength.  Bombers are single
units which can move long distances and offer support to units some distance
away or `bomb' supply centres.  Although some of the rules are perhaps
over-complex, especially the Tank movement rules, it should make the game far

(continued next message....)
===========================================================================
 BBS: Faster-Than-Light BBS
Date: 01-12-94 (13:05)             Number: 1280
From: [e-mail]      Refer#: NONE
  To: ALL                           Recvd: NO
Subj: VARIANT.AZ 9/11                Conf: (455) RecGamesDi
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 @SUBJECT:VARIANT.AZ 9/11                                             N
 @FROM   :[e-mail]                                     N
 @MSGID  :<[e-mail]>        N

This article split by uuPCB: Part # 4 of 4

Newsgroups: rec.games.diplomacy
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 1994 18:06:10 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Sender: Discussion Group for the Game of Diplomacy <[e-mail]>
From: [e-mail]
Subject: VARIANT.AZ 9/11

more interesting from a strategic point of view.

The only real weakness this variant has is that you can only build a Tank after
every two regular Army units and the number of Bombers can never exceed the
number of regular Armies.  Tying the number of special units to the number of
Armies places England at a *massive* disadvantage as a Power can only build a
Tank at the beginning of the game if they refrain from building fleets (yet if
England does that her units are land-locked).  Furthermore, Russia can
guarantee that England cannot take Norway in the first year, yet England has no
other compensating neutrals around (how about a neutral SC in Eire?).  I think
a better and simpler rule would to say that special units can never exceed 1/3
(rounded up) of a Power's forces at the time they are built and/or to prohibit
the building of special units until after the first game year.

A list of Powers and home SCs would also help -- from the map Germany appears
to have four home SCs to everyone else's three, but that isn't mentioned
anywhere in the rules.  The absence of a SC in Tunis may make the Mediterranean
quite empty early on, while putting a garrison in every neutral SC will really
slow the game up and drastically reduce the options open to the various powers
at the beginning of the game.

**                        1958 DIPLOMACY (Alan Calhamer)

(1) MARK NELSON (26th April 1992)

The first version of Diplomacy to be commercially distributed --- Alan
Calhamer paid for 500 sets to be made and sold them through small ads.  None of
the people who were involved in the setting up of Diplomacy fandom in the early
1960's were aware of the existence of this game --- they had all found
Diplomacy through the 1959 and 1962 releases which were a significant revision
to the 1958 game.  (There is no distinction between the 1959 and 1962 games).
Diplomacy fans were not aware of their favourite game's older relative until
Rod Walker reprinted the rules in an one-off publication, QUARMILL, in 1971.

There are a number of differences between 1958 Diplomacy and the Diplomacy
game of today.  The main differences are: Build Rules, Convoy Rules and the
map.  In addition minor differences are that the costal crawl was allowed and
the rules for games with less than 7 players are different.

Players may only build armies in their `capital' and fleets in their
`naval base'.  Players may have more than one unit in these provinces, although
the presence of multiple units does not increase your defensive strength - they
have a total defensive value of one.  These stacked units may not support each
other nor support the same unit outside the stacked province.  If a player
loses his capital he may designate one of his other home supply centres as a
new Capital, where he may build armies.  However if you lose your naval base
then you can only build new fleets if you recapture it.

There are no convoy rules.  Instead an army and fleet may combine to form
a stacked A/F under certain circumstances.  This A/F unit then moves as a
normal fleet unit.  If the A/F fleet unit is in a coastal province then the
Army may attempt to disembark.

Tunis is not a supply centre, but Switzerland and Albania are.  Home
supply centres in Germany and Turkey are different and there are more provinces
on the board.

The 1958 game is inferior to the 1959 revision as it is neither as dynamic
nor as flexible as the modern game.  It takes longer to play to completion
because there are no convoys and there are more provinces.  However, this
hasn't prevented a number of enthusiastic variant fans from running several
postal games.

There are actually two different forms of the 1958 game, because the
released version had an error on the map --- one of the provinces was omitted.
There is also an earlier version, the 1953 game which has several differences
in the map; but this was never distributed.

END OF FILE
===========================================================================
 BBS: Faster-Than-Light BBS
Date: 01-12-94 (13:05)             Number: 1281
From: [e-mail]      Refer#: NONE
  To: ALL                           Recvd: NO
Subj: VARIANT.AZ 11/11               Conf: (455) RecGamesDi
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 @SUBJECT:VARIANT.AZ 11/11                                            N
 @FROM   :[e-mail]                                     N
 @MSGID  :<[e-mail]>        N
Newsgroups: rec.games.diplomacy
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 1994 18:09:10 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Sender: Discussion Group for the Game of Diplomacy <[e-mail]>
From: [e-mail]
Subject: VARIANT.AZ 11/11

This article split by uuPCB: Part # 1 of 3

Newsgroups: rec.games.diplomacy
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 1994 18:09:10 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Sender: Discussion Group for the Game of Diplomacy <[e-mail]>
From: [e-mail]
Subject: VARIANT.AZ 11/11


** TELSTAR (Gil Neiger).

Rules originally published in The Pouch Volume II: XXII.

(1) REVIEW: Robert Sacks in Lord of Hosts 4, March 1975.

This variant is identical to regular Diplomacy except that only the GM knows
the orders; the players are only told the positions.  Now while this is
supposed to heighten the intrigue, it also makes GM errors undetectable.
Fortunately, each turn each player can ask for complete information about a
particular space and receive all moves (including retreats) from, to, or
through that space.  This variant is supposed to simulate myopic commanders
using space-age technology; actually it simulates a lazy GM.

**               TENFOLD DIPLOMACY By Josh Smith (1992)

(1) MARK NELSON (26/1/93)

An expanded map variant adding China, India and Japan which is an
`anti-Youngstown' game.  There are no Off Board Boxes, the European map is the
same as in regular diplomacy, there are no island provinces and the map is
completely planar.  Seventeen supply centres are added.  Probably slightly
inferior to Youngstown in terms of playability because there are *no* Off Board
Boxes. (This means that convoy routes will be longer, it will be slower to move
fleets across the map etc.)

(2) JOSH SMITH (31/1/93)

This last criticism may actually be invalid. I wish I had a decent copy of
that map to show you, since this would be a lot easier to explain if you could
look at it. The board is a _lot_ "smaller", in spaces, than the Youngstown map,
though.  Some statistics:

Number of players:         D:  7   Y:  10   T:  10
Number of supply centers:  D: 34   Y:  72   T:  51
Number of land spaces:     D: 56   Y: 130   T:  92
Number of sea spaces:      D: 19   Y:  50   T:  29
Total number of spaces:    D: 75   Y: 180   T: 121

Centers per player:      D:  4.9   Y:  7.2   T:  5.1
Spaces per player:       D: 10.7   Y: 18.0   T: 12.1
Sea percentage of map:   D:  25%   Y:  28%   T:  24%

In my experience, I've found that fleet mobility is significantly lowered
on the Youngstown map, especially in Asia, and these numbers bear this out: the
Youngstown map adds 4 water spaces in Europe, 17 in Asia, and 9 between Asia
and Europe, while the Tenfold map adds no water spaces to Europe, puts 2
between Europe and Asia, and adds only 8 in Asia itself. Moving from Canton to
Smyrna via boat takes 11 moves in Youngstown (by off-board or not); the same
move takes 7 moves in Tenfold (as many as Smyrna to St. Pete, as it turns out).
Convoying from Japan to England takes more fleets in Tenfold than in
Youngstown, but the bottleneck of the Off Board Boxes make convoys to England
nearly impossible in any event. I have yet to see a player force his way into
another section of the map through the Off Board--it takes too long, is too
slow to develop, and gives the defender plenty of time to prepare his lines.

Another big flaw of the Youngstown map is its set of trivial stalemate
lines between Asia and Europe.  Rick Desper and I have both commented on this
in the past, and in our opinions, it makes Youngstown literally unwinnable for
an Asian power except in the face of sheer idiocy on the part of Turkey or
England. The problem seems to be centered in the fact that Asia contains many
small spaces, which are time consuming to move through, but is bordered by
several large spaces, which serve as a bottleneck to an invading force.

This makes it very difficult for an Asian power to invade a European one
by surprise. India's home centers are three moves away from the closest Turkish
home center, and four from the second; in standard Diplomacy, every power but
England and Turkey has at least one home center within two moves of every one
of their neighbors, and every power has two centers within three moves of _all_
of their neighbors. Everyone is nearby in standard Diplomacy; in the Asian
corner of Youngstown, the map is huge.

Tenfold's map is much smaller, and not by accident: the map was modeled on
a graph of the E/F/G triangle, casting Japan as England, China as Germany, and
India as France. As a result, the three are in close proximity to each other,
and like Austria/Germany and France/Italy, the border between China/Russia and
India/Turkey can be quickly crossed.  Playtesting is still essential, and I
have no doubt that the map will change as a result of it-- looking at it now,
it seems that the border between East and Asia is still too wide.  However, the
intention is to drastically improve the mobility of both fleets and armies, a
factor that Youngstown destroyed entirely in Asia.

I'm wondering if Tenfold should even be included in the variant list at
this point, since it has never been played, not even once.  It seems somewhat
difficult to review it under such circumstances; its goals certainly sound good
(make a 10-player game that has the same feel as the standard 7-player
Diplomacy), but a review should discuss whether it achieves those goals, and
this isn't really clear in the absence of any testing.

**               THIEF By Toby Harris (Smodnoc 34, October 1991)

(1) MARK NELSON in The Mouth of Sauron Volume VII: #6 (February 1991).

This is a minor change variant using the regular board.  It illustrates
why a rule which works well in one game may not work well in another and why
variant designers should give some thought to the implications of rule changes
before publication of their brand new game.

The rule change comes from the VAIN RATS series of games.  Each Spring
season, except for Spring 1901, any power with at least one unit on the board
may order any unit to be removed from the board; this removal occurs before
(continued next message....)
===========================================================================
 BBS: Faster-Than-Light BBS
Date: 01-12-94 (13:06)             Number: 1282
From: [e-mail]      Refer#: NONE
  To: ALL                           Recvd: NO
Subj: VARIANT.AZ 11/11               Conf: (455) RecGamesDi
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 @SUBJECT:VARIANT.AZ 11/11                                            N
 @FROM   :[e-mail]                                     N
 @MSGID  :<[e-mail]>        N

This article split by uuPCB: Part # 2 of 3

Newsgroups: rec.games.diplomacy
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 1994 18:09:10 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Sender: Discussion Group for the Game of Diplomacy <[e-mail]>
From: [e-mail]
Subject: VARIANT.AZ 11/11

adjudication.  This rule works well amidst the anarchy of the typical Vain Rats
game (when it is only used by one power and restrictions prevent repeated use
of this power on a particular enemy), but I have doubts about the playability
of a variant based on this idea.

This rule change increases the power of large alliances, and as a
consequence it will be very hard to win a game--as soon as one player is in a
position to mount a winning attack, the remaining players co-ordinate removals.

**       THIRD AGE II (Brian Libby, Duncan Morris & Richard Sharp) ??/06

(1) STEVE AGAR in V&U 2 (July 1980)

This was a step forward in Tolkien designs in that it attempted to cover
the same ground as the book.  The six powers are: Eriador, Rhovanion, Gondor,
Rohan, Umbar and Mordor.  Multiple units were introduced, all powers receive a
2A whilst Mordor receives a 3A, four 2A's and four single armies!  Neutral
armies act as garrisons for some neutral SCs and The Ring was created.

The Ring is hidden randomly in one of the provinces (but away from
Mordor), if worn it turns a player's 2A into a 3A (and a 4A against Mordor);
but if left on that player's unit becomes a 3A permanently and he can only win
by controlling all the SCs (in effect he becomes a second Mordor).

Mordor wins by capturing all the SCs or if his 3A wears the Ring, other
powers win by either being the largest power on the board when Mordor's 3A is
destroyed or by taking the ring to Barad-dur and destroying it.

The fleet problem was overcome by giving Umbar two fleets, Eriador one
fleet and allowing any power to build fleets in the City of the Corsairs.  A
simple form of A/F rules were introduced.

This has proved a popular postal variant, despite the superiority of
Mordor, probably owing to the "realistic" effect that the game tries to create.

** TRADER (Matt Diller).

Rules originally published in The Pocket Armenian 23.

(1) Robert Sacks in Lord of Hosts 8, March 1976.

A purposeless joke: five players; one island supply center each and one sea
space.


**                        TREATY DIPLOMACY (Rod Walker)

(1) STEVE AGAR in V&U 4 (September 1980)

I've always liked the idea behind this one, that various powers are not
allowed to support or convoy each other unless a written treaty is drawn up
between the powers concerned allowing such action.  Such a treaty can include
clauses concerning other aspects of the game, it can be kept secret or made
public.  Apart from this, the game is as regular.

** TRIUMVERATE See Diadochi V

** TUNNEL (Jeremy Maiden).

Rules originally published in He's Dead, Jim! Volume III: 17.

(1) REVIEW: Robert Sacks in Lord of Hosts 10, July 1976.

An economic variant, where money has to moved to the supported unit; money can
also be used to build and maintain shafts and tunnels, through which money and
armies can be moved, the latter at double speed.  Shows prospects of being
highly amusing.

** UNITED STATES III (Fred C. Davis Jnr).

Rules originally published in Bushwacker Volume V: III.

(1) Robert Sacks in Lord of Hosts 9, March 1976.

A revision of United States II, allowing for fleets and convoys: the map from
US II is modified, mainly by the addition of sea and river spaces; optional
starting positions are allowed for three of the seven powers which, unlike US
II, have fixed starting boundaries.  Rivers run between certain provinces
without hindering armies crossing them; at the same time armies may be convoyed
by fleets on rivers.  Fleets may move between land spaces adjacent or opposite
by river; there are many special rules relating to fleet and army movement in
the presence of water.  While it is not one of his best variants, it is highly
developed and worth studying; of course I am probably prejudiced against any
variant or wargame played on a map of the US.

**                          UPPSALA VARIANT (Unknown) ????/07

(1) MARK NELSON (26/1/93)

Designed in Sweden or quick FtF games and used in at least one Swedish
Diplomacy Tournament.  The rules are as regular except:

1) Votes on draws are not allowed.
2) The game stops when a player after Fall owns nine centers.
3) The player who owns most centers is the winner.
4) If one or more players reach nine centers the same year, and they own the
same number of centers, there is a draw between those players.

**                          UTRECHT III ????? hc08/05

(1) FRED C. DAVIS JNR in Bushwacker 207 (April 1989)

This scenario begins in 1739, and parallels the War of the Austrian
Succession.  There are several Neutral Powers, which are controlled by the
placing of Influence Points.  However, the game involves quite a bit of
paperwork for all parties.

** UTTER CHAOS (Scott Rosenburg).

(1) Robert Sacks in Lord of Hosts 7, September 1975.

Without doubt, the frontrunner for the 1976 Gemignani Award for Worst Variant
Design.  Technically it combines Twin-Earth, Anarchy, two varieties of
Black-Hole, Schizo, Diluvian, Dilatory and Dud Diplomacy.  It can be best
described by stating that every turn the GM randomly redraws the (double) board
and reshuffles the units, and the GM has a unit of his own!  Sigh!!  The first
postal game was abandoned as unplayable, and a revision, Near Utter Chaos
(Rosenburg, Urf Durfal 3) has been started which combines two varieties of
Black-Hole, Schizo, Diluvian, Dilatory, Aquash, Blob and Mobile Center
Diplomacy.


**                     VAIN RATS (Richard Sharp and others)

(1) Pete Sullivan in C'Est Magnifique 55, July 1988.

So called because it's a mixture of variants.  Each player has one (or, in most
versions, two) special powers chosen from a list at the start.  These vary from
version to version, but normally include things like Petrol Rationing (allows
multiple moves), Evil Eye (may re-order another player's unit), Leper (can give
`leprosy' to units it meets, killing them), Double Armies and so on.  Usually
won by the player who chooses the best special powers at the start and makes
the best use of them.
===========================================================================
 BBS: Faster-Than-Light BBS
Date: 01-12-94 (13:06)             Number: 1283
From: [e-mail]      Refer#: NONE
  To: ALL                           Recvd: NO
Subj: VARIANT.AZ 11/11               Conf: (455) RecGamesDi
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 @SUBJECT:VARIANT.AZ 11/11                                            N
 @FROM   :[e-mail]                                     N
 @MSGID  :<[e-mail]>        N

This article split by uuPCB: Part # 3 of 3

Newsgroups: rec.games.diplomacy
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 1994 18:09:10 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Sender: Discussion Group for the Game of Diplomacy <[e-mail]>
From: [e-mail]
Subject: VARIANT.AZ 11/11

one unit of any other power), etc.

The difference between versions is in which powers are available, how
they're allocated and how many are given.  In some versions, each player has
one power for the whole game which many be used once per season.  In other
versions each power has a stockpile of powers and may use them whenever desired
(although no more than one power per season), once used the power is lost for
ever.

**                         VAIN RATS II (Richard Sharp)

(1) STEVE AGAR and JON LOVIBOND in ??? (circa 1979)

This is one of the `silly' variants that are played for fun.  It is played
on the regular board with all the regular rules.  The amendments consist of a
list of 12 or so special powers --- the players send in a preference list
saying which of these powers they would like to have.  An example of a Special
Power is the `Spring Raid': This player establishes ownership of a supply
centre by occupation in any season; he may build after the Spring moves for any
centers gained.  Also, every power has a `hyperspace' joker --- this enables
him to connect any two provinces on the Diplomacy board for one season,
although the GM must be informed the season before the link is made.  A
`different' game.

**               VOTE (Steve Doubleday) Gallimaufry ??? (29/4/78)

(1) STEVE AGAR in ??? circa September 1980

The principle behind Vote is that everyone receiving the zine is assigned
to a team which plays one of the seven powers in a Diplomacy game.  All members
of the various teams are invited to vote on which moves their units will take,
points being awarded to the team members depending on how accurate their
votes/prediction were --- pure democracy between team members being used to
determine the real moves.

Alternatively, players can subvert (vote for) a foreign unit; gaining
points if their vote/prediction takes place and giving them an opportunity to
switch to a more successful team.

The game works quite well if some of the players can muster up a bit of
enthusiasm.  A revised edition appeared in Gallimaufry ??? (3/11/78).

END OF FILE