This is intended to be official report of the first Diplomacy by national team tournament, by the Tournament Director himself. I could not resist adding a bit of my life so that reader could now II fell into all this.
1992. I got my first job as a computer engineer, in Defence Electronics. Several young colleagues, like myself, knew of the game of Diplomacy, so I offered to master a game. I started writing a little adjudicator “just to save time”. At this time the “Minitel” was very popular in France. It was a little device with 40 column text, that served as the internet of today (text only) in France. So a server to play Diplomacy on the Internet was operational in 1994. I got a contract with a French company selling the “Diplomatie” game in French, but the project stalled after Avalon Hill never gave Jeux Descartes the authorization to start (anyway this project was more for rich people or people who had the opportunity to use the Mintel without paying, because it would have been very expensive to spend hours writing messages at a per minute cost basis.) And is it really playing Dip if not spending hours writing and exchanging messages ?
So there was a pause for Diplomacy for me.
2003. I was asked to be a replacement in a game with French tournament set up by Gabriel Lecointre named “Interzines”, for a French speaking team named “Vopaliec”, a French paper zine I was member of. As a player, I started thinking (a lot) about tournament structures and regulations. I also had some free time then (as a contract isolated me during the week alone in a city 250 miles away from home and family) to build a few more Diplomatic tools (mapping mainly).
2005. The tools got gathered in a website, the “stabbeurfou”. That site hosted the Interzines II tournament which was a gathering of 10 French speaking teams (diplomatic communities).
At that time, negotiations were not possible on the site, so one had to use the traditional emails. The only real incident in this event was the “false start”. A bug (my mistake) in the system allowed for a couple of days to see all orders of all other players. It was detected between Spring and Autumn 1901, so the decision was made to completely restart the whole event.
The funny part about the result was that the three first teams in the second edition were exactly the same as in first edition.
2006. Gabriel brought to my attention an attempt to run an adaptation of the world soccer cup so I joined the fun. It took me three months to get the site bilingual, and an additional two to have a decent bid (mainly writing and adapting rules and regulations for all aspects of this special tournament).
2007. Most of first semester was spent advertising for that D(N)WC., and a lot of spamming. (I remember getting kicked out of the DipAI mailing list for that, although being a very modest AI builder myself.) We had more than a majority of American players registered, so a great effort was made in splitting the nationals in subgroups. In September the event could start, and despite all my efforts I never managed to get teams from Spain, Belgium, Netherlands, Switzerland; places I knew that had potential for at least a single team. The sad part of the experience was about Scotland, since decision at council (which I voted as well) was to have Scotland play as part of UK (and not separated) – which about half of the Scottish refused to accept and left the tournament. The funniest part of this experience was realizing there was such an antagonism between the south and north states of Australia. We have the same in France between Marseilles and Paris !
The start of the tournament was a real rush.; mainly with all the questions from the participants, with the late replacements, players not understanding the site features or forgetting their password.
But it worked.
More and more software was added to ease the work of the tournament director and to try to get the interface as clear as possible. Since the programmer and the TD were the same person, that was much easier.
You have to be patient to be a TD1.
A tournament organizer is like a plumber, filling the leaks (players leaving) with players willing to join the fun, introducing them to their new team.
At that time all adjudications on site had to be pushed manually. The only real incident in this round came from a player from team “Ohio10” who got most of the players in his table upset against him. Since this was getting more than unhealthy, I made a decision to have him replaced (and not by his 10 years old son !)
The two major points about the results of round one were the poor performance of USA teams (the 5 of them were eliminated) and the outstanding performance of the French teams (First, Third and
Last).
In parallel of this I made an attempt to host an adaptation of famous “World Masters” on the site. The original “owners” of the WM rejected my offer for reasons the remain still unclear to me today. Yet the event did actually start with a different name (“Wonderful Mansion” as a wink) and was quite successful, even if the 500 players goal I had hoped for was not reached. This event is still ongoing, round two (semi final) will start next September.
2008. In September round two of D(N)WC started with the magnificent seven : France (three teams had mixed) , Argentina, Italy, Russia, Germany (two teams had mixed), Australia (two teams had mixed) and China. The number of N.M.R – already very low – dropped dramatically, and this was a real pleasure. My experience tells me that more than half of the drop outs occur during the first Diplomatic year.
The only real incident in D(N)WC round two was internal to French team. It seems the French captain, had very high expectations for his players. So he used his right to remove a player from a game for another which he had hoped would fare better. Needless to say, the original player was not too happy to leave the game. Life is tough sometimes ! Still France won the event, but that is another story...
Now to the results !
For those who have not figured out the acronym, D(N)WC stands for Diplomacy World Cup. The “N” for national, i.e. national teams. First successful attempt (from what I know), it took place between September 2007 and May 2008, (you can see the report of round one in DW issue #102.) The second round had the seven best, in a classical 7x7 fashion. Winner was France, led by captain Gwen Maggi. French victory was confirmed by solo from French lieutenant Fabrice Essner. This was the only solo in round two, but the second of Fabrice, because he did the same trick on first round.
Since the three sub tournaments of round one were named after three schools of the Harry Potter books and film plot, the final round was named after the fourth school “Gryffindor”. Each game received the name of the most famous (kid) characters.
Note you may get full results directly on the site there : http://www.stabbeurfou.org/Tournoi.php?nom=Gryffindor
Games end
|
Draco |
Stop voted before 1908 adjustments by all players still in the game |
|
Neville |
|
|
Hermione |
Normal end before 1909 adjustments |
|
Luna |
|
|
Ron |
|
|
Ginny |
|
|
Harry |
Solo at end 1909 (on the finishing line) |
Team rating
|
Rank |
Team |
Solos |
Alone victories |
Shared victories |
Total points |
Total centres |
|
1 |
France |
1 |
1 |
1 |
254 |
75 |
|
2 |
Italy |
|
1 |
|
147 |
40 |
|
3 |
Argentina |
|
1 |
|
112 |
24 |
|
4 |
Germany |
|
1 |
|
103 |
27 |
|
5 |
Australia |
|
|
|
103 |
32 |
|
6 |
China |
|
1 |
|
93 |
26 |
|
7 |
Russia |
|
|
1 |
62 |
14 |
Comment : So why did Germany finish before Australia ? Because of tie breaker #1 : “Biggest number of victories (excluding shared victories)”. Note that Australia has more homogeneous result (fifth with no victory at all).
Best powers
|
Best England |
Londa Li (team China) for a victory alone on game Neville for 66 points |
|
Best France |
Leonardo Colangelo (team Argentina) for a second place on game Hermione for 36 points |
|
Best Germany |
Gwen Maggi (team France) for a victory alone on game Ron for 68 points |
|
Best Italy |
Ruben Sanchez (team France) for a victory alone on game Draco for 47 points |
|
Best Austria |
Tom Tian (team Australia) for a second place on game Luna for 38 points (Austria did not fare very well on this round) |
|
Best Russia |
Fabrice Essner (team France) with a solo on game Harry for 73 points. |
|
Best Turkey |
Martin Kaplan (team Argentina) for a victory alone on game Ginny for 61 points |
Board details
The board detail :
Points from C−Diplo system plus Survivalist syst. (NAMUR).
then team rating
then harder country
then fewer centres (more ranking points)
Draco end 09
1 Ruben Sanchez Garcia France_f Italy 47.0 P 8 C (te. 1)
2 Alex Lebedev Russia_f Turkey 47.0 P 8 C (te. 7)
3 bill brown Australia_f England 27.0 P 7 C (te. 5)
4 Fang Zhang China_f Germany 19.0 P 6 C (te. 6)
5 Marco Noseda Pedragl Italy_f Austria 15.0 P 4 C (te. 2)
6 Marcelo Larroque Argentina_f Russia 6.0 P 1 C (te. 3)
7 Ulrich Degwitz Germany_f France 1.0 P 0 C (te. 4)
Ginny end 09
1 Martin Kaplan Argentina_f Turkey 61.0 P 10 C (te. 3)
2 Markus Paeuser Germany_f Germany 36.0 P 9 C (te. 4)
3 Jean−Pierre MAULION France_f Austria 27.0 P 7 C (te. 1)
4 Filippo Lucchini Italy_f Russia 17.0 P 5 C (te. 2)
5 Brian Shelden Australia_f France 13.0 P 3 C (te. 5)
6 Mingfei Nie China_f Italy 1.0 P 0 C (te. 6)
7 Mitya Kletka Russia_f England 1.0 P 0 C (te. 7)
Harry end 09
1 Fabrice Essner France_f Russia 73.0 P 18 C (te. 1)
2 Giovanni Cesarini Italy_f Turkey −15.0 P 3 C (te. 2)
3 Ismael Puga Argentina_f England −15.0 P 0 C (te. 3)
4 Marco Hopp Germany_f Italy −15.0 P 3 C (te. 4)
5 Mark Oakwood Australia_f Germany −15.0 P 0 C (te. 5)
6 Zhong Yuncheng China_f Austria −15.0 P 6 C (te. 6)
7 Yuri Hryniv Russia_f France −15.0 P 4 C (te. 7)
Hermione end 09
1 Luca Pazzaglia Italy_f England 65.0 P 14 C (te. 2)
2 Leonardo Colangelo Argentina_f France 36.0 P 9 C (te. 3)
3 Cyrille SEVIN France_f Turkey 27.0 P 7 C (te. 1)
4 Qi Worden China_f Russia 15.0 P 4 C (te. 6)
5 Arne Senftleben Germany_f Austria 1.0 P 0 C (te. 4)
6 Craig Purcell Australia_f Italy 1.0 P 0 C (te. 5)
7 Deep Walia Russia_f Germany 1.0 P 0 C (te. 7)
Luna end 09
1 Bjorn Becker Germany_f Russia 66.0 P 15 C (te. 4)
2 Tom Tian Australia_f Austria 38.0 P 11 C (te. 5)
3 Andrea Ziffer Italy_f France 26.0 P 6 C (te. 2)
4 Nicolas Sahuguet France_f England 6.0 P 1 C (te. 1)
5 Hao Mi China_f Turkey 6.0 P 1 C (te. 6)
6 Mike Goldfeld Argentina_f Germany 1.0 P 0 C (te. 3)
7 ilya guzman Russia_f Italy 1.0 P 0 C (te. 7)
Neville end 09
1 Londa Li China_f England 66.0 P 15 C (te. 6)
2 Alan Gee Australia_f Russia 38.0 P 11 C (te. 5)
3 Pablo Echevarria Argentina_f Italy 22.0 P 4 C (te. 3)
4 Michael Pock Germany_f Turkey 13.0 P 3 C (te. 4)
5 Emmanuel du PONTAVIC France_f France 6.0 P 1 C (te. 1)
6 Leonardo Quirini Italy_f Germany 1.0 P 0 C (te. 2)
7 Eugene Bikkinin Russia_f Austria 1.0 P 0 C (te. 7)
Ron end 09
1 Gwen Maggi France_f Germany 68.0 P 17 C (te. 1)
2 Alessio Cei Italy_f Italy 38.0 P 11 C (te. 2)
3 Victor Saburoff Russia_f Russia 26.0 P 6 C (te. 7)
4 Ariel Max Sanchez Ro Argentina_f Austria 1.0 P 0 C (te. 3)
5 Fabian Straub Germany_f England 1.0 P 0 C (te. 4)
6 Doug Melville Australia_f Turkey 1.0 P 0 C (te. 5)
7 Hohn Cho China_f France 1.0 P 0 C (te. 6)
Comment
: system was Namur with aggravated solo. Team rank is a tie breaker.
Some miscellaneous stats
|
Average number of message sent by player |
179.52 (previous round : 183, 184, 101) |
|
Average number of replacement by game |
1,85 (previous round : 1.77, 1.37, 2)2. |
|
Details of Civil Disorders |
Russia : 1 (previous round Brazil : 1; Australia2 : 1; Sweden : 4 and France1 : 1) |
Comment : not so many changes there.
Teams that sent the most messages
|
Team |
# messages sent |
# average messages sent per player |
ranking |
|
France |
2330 |
332,85 |
1 |
|
Italy |
1844 |
263,42 |
2 |
|
China |
1723 |
246,14 |
6 |
|
Germany |
1478 |
211,14 |
4 |
|
Australia |
1166 |
166,57 |
5 |
|
Argentina |
1150 |
164,28 |
3 |
|
Russia |
874 |
124,85 |
7 |
Comment : France wins and sends the most messages, Russia looses and sends the fewest messages.
Players that sent the most messages
|
Player |
# messages sent |
Individual ranking |
|
Fabrice ESSNER (DLD) |
819 |
1 |
|
Zhong YUNCHENG (Zhong) |
687 |
48 |
|
Bjorn BECKER (Rinzputin) |
443 |
3 |
|
Tom TIAN (Tom) |
409 |
10 |
|
Fang ZHANG (airworthiness) |
404 |
29 |
|
Marco NOSEDA PEDRAGLIO (hokahey) |
324 |
22 |
|
Mike GOLDFELD (Mike) |
323 |
32 |
|
Cyrille SEVIN (Cyrille) |
313 |
15 |
|
Giovanni CESARINI (kaesar) |
311 |
44 |
|
Ruben SANCHEZ GARCIA LUENGO DE MADRID (Rubanovish) |
308 |
7 |
|
Gwen MAGGI (Edmond Dantès) |
300 |
2 |
Comment : Fabrice is far ahead for results and number of messages. Zhong has the worst ratio. Still, it pays to talk : the three best individuals are amongst the 11 that sent the most messages.
Awards
|
Name of trophy |
Definition |
Allotted |
|
“Boulanger” |
(From the name of a popular French general) : player you enjoyed the most to play with, of that you look the most forward to play against again. |
Not alloted (tied between China and Italy) |
|
“Napoleon” |
(Everyone knows who Napoleon is) . Players who impressed you the most with strategic and/or tactical skills. |
France (11 votes, next has 3) |
|
“Machiavelli” |
Worst stabber, least reliable player or whatever. |
France (8 votes, next has 4) |
|
“Balzac” |
(From the name of a popular French prolific writer) : player that writes the most, the longest and the most numerous messages. |
France (9 votes, next has 7) |
|
Huygens |
From a famous clock maker : fewest incidents (NMR, CD...) |
Italy (same stats with Argentina but Italy has fewer captain intereferences) |
Comment : The idea is to give the awards to teams by adding the votes received by the team players.
Opening stats by power
|
Number of cases |
Ratio |
Set of orders |
Average number of centres at present time |
|
3 |
42.86 % |
F EDI - NRG; F LON - NTH; A LVP - YOR |
2.67 |
|
2 |
28.57 % |
F EDI - NTH; F LON - ENG; A LVP - WAL |
7.00 |
|
1 |
14.29 % |
F EDI - NRG; F LON - NTH; A LVP - EDI |
15.00 |
|
1 |
14.29 % |
F EDI - NTH; F LON - ENG; A LVP - YOR |
0.00 |
|
Number of cases |
Ratio |
Set of orders |
Average number of centres at present time |
|
2 |
28.57 % |
F BRE - MID; A MAR - SPA; A PAR - BUR |
5.00 |
|
1 |
14.29 % |
F BRE - MID; A MAR - SPA; A PAR - PIC |
6.00 |
|
1 |
14.29 % |
F BRE - MID; A MAR H; A PAR - BUR |
4.00 |
|
1 |
14.29 % |
F BRE - ENG; A MAR - SPA; A PAR - GAS |
3.00 |
|
1 |
14.29 % |
F BRE - MID; A MAR S A PAR - BUR; A PAR - BUR |
0.00 |
|
1 |
14.29 % |
F BRE - MID; A MAR - SPA; A PAR - GAS |
0.00 |
|
Number of cases |
Ratio |
Set of orders |
Average number of centres at present time |
|
3 |
42.86 % |
A BER - KIE; F KIE - DEN; A MUN - RUH |
3.00 |
|
2 |
28.57 % |
A BER - KIE; F KIE - HOL; A MUN - RUH |
11.50 |
|
1 |
14.29 % |
A BER - KIE; F KIE - DEN; A MUN - BUR |
0.00 |
|
1 |
14.29 % |
A BER - KIE; F KIE - HEL; A MUN - RUH |
0.00 |
|
Number of cases |
Ratio |
Set of orders |
Average number of centres at present time |
|
2 |
28.57 % |
F NAP - ION; A ROM - APU; A VEN H |
7.00 |
|
1 |
14.29 % |
F NAP - ION; A ROM - APU; A VEN - TRI |
8.00 |
|
1 |
14.29 % |
F NAP - ION; A ROM - APU; A VEN - TYR |
4.00 |
|
1 |
14.29 % |
F NAP - ION; A ROM - VEN; A VEN - TYR |
0.00 |
|
1 |
14.29 % |
F NAP - ION; A ROM - VEN; A VEN - PIE |
0.00 |
|
1 |
14.29 % |
F NAP - ION; A ROM H; A VEN H |
0.00 |
|
Number of cases |
Ratio |
Set of orders |
Average number of centres at present time |
|
3 |
42.86 % |
A BUD - SER; F TRI - ALB; A VIE - GAL |
1.33 |
|
1 |
14.29 % |
A BUD - SER; F TRI - ALB; A VIE H |
11.00 |
|
1 |
14.29 % |
A BUD - SER; F TRI - ALB; A VIE - TYR |
7.00 |
|
1 |
14.29 % |
A BUD - SER; F TRI - ALB; A VIE - BUD |
6.00 |
|
1 |
14.29 % |
A BUD - SER; F TRI - ALB; A VIE - TRI |
0.00 |
|
Number of cases |
Ratio |
Set of orders |
Average number of centres at present time |
|
4 |
57.14 % |
A MOS - UKR; F SEV - BLA; F STPsc - BOT; A WAR - GAL |
4.00 |
|
1 |
14.29 % |
A MOS - UKR; F SEV - BLA; F STPsc - BOT; A WAR H |
18.00 |
|
1 |
14.29 % |
A MOS - STP; F SEV - BLA; F STPsc - BOT; A WAR - GAL |
15.00 |
|
1 |
14.29 % |
A MOS - UKR; F SEV - ARM; F STPsc - BOT; A WAR - GAL |
11.00 |
|
Number of cases |
Ratio |
Set of orders |
Average number of centres at present time |
|
3 |
42.86 % |
F ANK - BLA; A CON - BUL; A SMY - ARM |
5.67 |
|
2 |
28.57 % |
F ANK - BLA; A CON - BUL; A SMY - CON |
2.00 |
|
1 |
14.29 % |
F ANK - BLA; A CON - BUL; A SMY H |
8.00 |
|
1 |
14.29 % |
F ANK - CON; A CON - BUL; A SMY - ARM |
3.00 |
Overall comment for openings : quite often best opening includes a hold order : Austria : A Vie H; Russia : A War H; Turkey : A Smy H.
Summary of all EOGS (“End Of Game Statements”) as published on site nave been collected and gathered in another article in DW edition # 109.
Conclusion.
What changes do I foresee for next edition ? The main change that was considered was inserting a first individual round. From this round the best individuals from every country may be determined, and then form a team in the same manner as in edition one (vote for a captain, then figure out which player plays which power).
Less important changes being considered are :
scoring system to switch to more consensual “Manorcon” square,
game duration extended from 1909 to 1911,
structure of team round to be in a single tournament with interaction between teams made as small as possible3,
list of allowed countries to be made more flexible to allow “countries” such as Scotland, instead of just ONU
a TD to be distinct from TO, and not French.
Of course these are only suggestions that my experience allow me to make. Many details remain currently unclear for next edition although a start no sooner than September 2010 is likely, because I very much doubt another site could be fully ready for next September (and there seems to be a preference in changing the site to host the event, or at least giving any other site or whatever a chance to bid.)
Stay tuned !
1Not because of questions from players, but because of time spent to repeatedly explain to tournament chairman you did not make any mistakes when he seems to be soooo ready to think the opposite :-).
2First month not considered for first round
3For this please refer to some other article from author to in DW # 109.