The Scatter Technique
by Nicky Palmer
In
an article a few Hannibals back, I argued that Diplomacy zines were too much
weighted in favour of opening articles, and that no attempt had been made to
analyse the middle game. Since then, opening articles have vanished from most
zines, presumably because most people agreed that little more could be said on
the subject, but nothing much else has turned up. Accordingly I offer this as a
middle-game article.
A
standard theory has evolved by the mouth-to-ear method (I never know why people
talk about news being passed from mouth-to-mouth - how can it?) passed on by
experienced players to newcomers and thus perpetuated. This states that the
thing to do is to bunch all your units on one front, leaving a minimum to
enforce your non-aggression pacts on other fronts; you should then try and wipe
out your neighbour on the attacking front before turning to do the same to the
next country - possibly you should stab the next victim slightly before
eliminating your first victim. "Always strike to kill, never to wound"
is the motto. There is a lot in this theory and it should always be followed by
beginners and people without a lot of time for negotiation.
There
are, however, certain drawbacks. While you are murdering X (always assuming that
you are winning that battle), Y on the other border will be tossing up between
stabbing you and obtaining even greater advantage by stabbing someone else. If
he attacks someone else, he will probably do as well as you do against X;
certainly, when you emerge from the X battle, there will (assuming competent
opposition) be another player who is, in size, more or less a match for you. You
may then be able to jockey your way to victory, or you may be willing or
compelled to accept a draw. This will depend not just on your diplomatic
ability, but to quite a large extent upon luck; thus if you are Germany and have
stabbed France, you don't really have much influence upon what happens in the
Balkans, or what the alliance structure there is.
The
alternative approach is what one might call the "scatter technique"; I
have been trying it out in a few games with quite promising results, and it is
worth considering from time to time, if only for a change. In this approach you
give up the attempt to achieve massive superiority in one area, in exchange for
a flexible strategy aimed at gaining smaller amounts of ground in various areas,
and above all steering the whole game in the direction that you want it.
The
most publicised example is the rather embarrassing (for me) NGC Committee game,
run in Dolchstoß, where I have Germany to Sharp's Russia, Scott's England,
Bullock's Austria and Pimley's France. In this, I moved A(Mun)-Sil to parry a
fancied (but non-existent) Russian stab. having got that far, I ;then moved to
Galicia. Galicia is perhaps the most important province on the board, as it
borders four supply centres and is crucial to the Austro-Russian conflict in any
game. In the North, England was pressing me hard, and I badly needed Russia as a
counterweight. My idea was that the A(Gal) would be sufficient to win Sharp
round; if I helped him in the south his Austrian front was secure, but if I
helped Austria then he was in trouble. In the event, the result was not very
satisfactory as England chose to launch a death-or-glory attack against me with
all his units, and Russia's stance continued to be equivocal at best; last turn,
however, Russia threw his weight on my side in return for my taking Rum (with
his support) from Austria. In the meantime, though, I've lost Hol and Kie and
the unit could probably have been better used at home.
But
if the method was a marginal failure in this game, it has been a success in the
NGC International game, against pretty stiff opposition with the otherwise
unsatisfactory country, Italy. Italy is ideally suited to this method because of
its central position. By committing a couple of units to the west, a couple to
the east, and the remainder, mostly fleets, as a mobile reserve, Italy has
gained a sort of casting vote in every conflict area on the board. Thus an
Italian army in Bur, having passed through Mar in a spring turn, and is in
between four French and four German units. Another army is in Rum, between two
Austrian, two Turkish and two Russian units. The action of these units, and
others, is decisive for the outcome of each turn, but by themselves they do not
threaten anyone. Italy is therefore in an ideal negotiating position, courted by
every other country and offered supply centres on every front in return for
help.
Progress
is not spectacular, but gradually Italy has become one of the big three
countries (with Germany and Russia), while maintaining the capacity to prevent
the fast growth of the other big powers, by generally siding with the small
ones, unless very substantial inducements are offered. This is what I mean by
"steering" the game; the scattered units are able to decide the
outcome of each battle, and to encourage attacks in the "right" places
(the most vulnerable parts of the main rivals). I don't know if I'll win that
game, but I think the results so far, by 1905, have justified my strategy; my
units are now beginning to group again as I gradually acquire the numbers to
cover each front with several units, and I am reasonably optimistic about the
position. (But God help me if the other players read Hannibal!)
These
two examples give an idea of the possibilities and the dangers of the approach.
It should NEVER be used unless one is willing to negotiate intensely with every
other player if necessary; nor should one make medium sized stabs (e.g. taking
two centres) under any circumstances - either stab to kill, or make it known
that your units are acting more or less as mercenaries, as above. If the other
players are not the kind to forgive you having aided the enemy last turn, then
forget the whole idea. Most players, however, will try and persuade a single
unit (or two) on their borders to side with them, even if it was hostile last
turn, rather than bear a grudge against self-interest.
It
may be that a combination of the two methods is best. Anyway, give it a try and
write to Hannibal with your experiences...
Reprinted from Hannibal
No. 18 - December 1974
Check
out the follow-up article - Son of Scatter Theory
|
