There are a number of differences between 1958 Diplomacy and the Diplomacy game of today. The main differences are in (1) Build Rules, (2) Convoy Rules and (3) the map. In addition minor differences are that the coastal crawl was allowed and the rules for games with less than 7 players are different.
A player may only build armies in his "capital" and fleets in his "naval base". Players may have more than one unit in these provinces, although 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 quick convoys and there are more provinces. However, this hasn't prevented a number of enthusiastic variant fans from playing in 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.
1958 Diplomacy is sometimes called Classic Diplomacy. See Variant (KW).
[SS:Dec02]I happened to notice that the description of 1958 Diplomacy in A-Z is incorrect. The 1958 version was only a prototype. It is true that the 1958 edition had different rules and map. But the first set that Calhammer published on his own in a batch of 500 sets was the 1959 edition, which used the same map still used today. You can find more details on the 1958 and 1959 editions (and much more) in the Diplomacy Boardgame Compendium.
Speaking of going in circles ... the aforementioned Jerry Pournelle and Dan Alderson played Diplomacy in the early years. Neither published. Jerry, whose drug of choice was peppermint schnapps, is better known as a SF writer of moderate note and a rightwinger of the most determined disposition. Not of course the usual religious nut we get nowadays but a genuine Goldwater man. Dan, whose home town rejoices in the name of Tujunga, waw an engineer at JPL -- which (if you knew Dan) rather explained some things about that place. Dan was a Collector (note capital "C"; imagine it's in red). He collected SF/fantasy 'zines and various games (also Dipzines). He got 2 of everything -- one for him to look at, play with, and so on -- the other sealed (SEALED, not just wrapped) in plastic and stored. In addition to his own house and garage, which were stuffed to the gills, Dan rented 3 other garages in his neighborhood. He was a great host and a great conversationalist ... knew all sorts of interesting people. Conrad and I used to go up to visit to play Diplomacy and go on Toad's Wild Rides with Pournelle and his schnapps.
My point here the early Diplomacy crowd was very different from the people who came to dominate the hobby during the 1970s. We weren't gamers. Most were SF/fantasy fans, well educated (graduate degrees and all that), and more than usually literate. Not to mention more than usually eccentric. Way more. This made the first decade of postal diplomacy unique and fascinating. Of course even after that there were some members of the old guard around, and some new people like them (including some really fun Brits), so that there were still some flashes of what the early years were like. From your description of the "Great Feud" (I'm going to have to get Conrad to tell me about it), I would guess it represents a terminus a quo for Postal Diplomacy As It Had Been.
(1) Points awarded for type of finish.
WIN 75 pts. 5-way Draw 20 pts. 2-way Draw 50 pts. 6-way Draw 15 pts. 3-way Draw 35 pts. 7-way Draw 10 pts. 4-way Draw 25 pts. Surv or Elim 0 pts.
(2) Add 1 point per center owned at the end of the game.
(3) Add points according to rank by centers within the game. Eliminated players receive 0 pts. 1st 7 points 5th 3 points 2nd 6 points 6th 2 points 3rd 5 points 7th 1 point 4th 4 points Ties split points (ie a two way tie for 2nd splits 11 points).
DIPCON XXVI RATING SYSTEM (1) [MN:Aug93] Don del Grande's rating system for DipCon XXVI. Concession and draw votes could include modifications to the final SC counts for the players in that game (rather than making them go through the motions to get everyone a SC count that they agree to beforehand).
WIN: 125 points regardless of number of SCs (no SC points)
2-WAY DRAW: 45 + SC points
3-WAY DRAW: 30 + SC points
4-WAY DRAW: 22.5 + SC points
5-WAY DRAW: 18 + SC points
6-WAY DRAW: 15 + SC points
7-WAY DRAW: 12.8 + SC points
(if the 7-way draw was voted rather than forced, SC points only)
SC POINTS:
17 SCs - 23 points 16 SCs - 21 points 15 SCs - 19 points
14 SCs - 17 points 13 SCs - 15 points 12 SCs - 13 points
11 SCs - 11 points 10 SCs - 9 points 9 SCs - 7 points
8 SCs - 6 points 7 SCs - 5 points 6 SCs - 4 points
5 SCs - 3 points 4 SCs - 2 points 3 SCs - 1 point
0-2 SCs - no points
A player's tournament score is the sum of his/her top two game scores.
TIEBREAKERS
Suggested reasoning, in brief.
Note distinct positions, so winner must have 7 at least, so Russia won. All active in the subsequent winter means nobody finished with 3 centres, so 654210 centres for the others.
Examine England's position. To satisfy conditisions EA(Lpl)-Edi and convoyed next turn. This leads to England did not swap capitals, and a little later to the fact that the capital swap must be between Germany and Italy. They are 5th and 6th. This requires a convoy round Spain for a G army, which helps to fix the moves of IF, FF and 1x EF.
This determines that neither France nor England can be eliminated, nor can they get to 6 centres, placing Turkey and Austria 2nd and last --- we do not yet know which way round.
Point (2) and the fact that 3 countries lost all their home centres means Germany and Italy lose all their home centres. Consideration of who took Naples leads to Austria being identified (I used the wine information of he 2nd place taking a centre from the last place, but I suspect that information is not necessary if you're thorough). So Austria got to 6 centres, and Turkey finished with 0.
The unwanted convoy can now be placed as RF(Swe) and EF(NTH) combining against GF(SKA). The GF retreat will be to a supply centre, so Germany finishes on 2, Italy on 1. Further England can get to 4 at best, so that's it and France finishes on 5 --- both her armies must gain a centre.
Then construct a matrix of what centres had to be captured and what was available to capture them, and it falls out.
So the ANSWER then: Russia took 1 from Germany and 2 from Turkey. Austria took 2 from Italy and 1 from Turkey. France took 1 from Germany. Germany took 1 from Italy. Italy took 1 from Germany.
The whole A-Z, in pdf format, is HERE
This page last updated .
| Next: A entries | Previous: Introduction | A to Z Table of Contents | Home Page |