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)
SC POINTS:
A player's tournament score is the sum of his/her top two game scores
TIEBREAKERS
Suggested reasoning, in brief.
The whole A-Z, in pdf format, is HERE
APPENDIX ONE: Summary of Rating Systems used at DipCon
DIPCON XXI RATING SYSTEM (1) [MN:Jun93] Scoring system used at DipCon XXI.
To qualify for the awards, players had to play two, or more, games. Any player
playing in three, or more, games had their worst result dropped. Games ended
in either a concession to a single player or as DIAS. The winner was
determined by highest average score of games counted.
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)
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
APPENDIX TWO: Solutions to THE TWISTER.
THE 1993 TWISTER. Solution appeared in _Dolchstoss_
182, Febuary 1994.
This page last updated .
| Next: A entries | Previous: Introduction | A to Z Table of Contents | Home Page |