Game: Colonial Diplomacy

Thread: Re: Request - please confirm the inventory

Prodromoi — 2008-06-28T19:31:22+00:00

Thanks for the info, it's all been very helpful.

I've swapped a few e-mails with the seller and it seems that they've mixed up the pieces from a 'normal' Diplomacy set (probably the 1976 edition as illustrated by Joe) and the Colonial Diplomacy set.

I say 'seems' since I'm not convinced it was accidental... I won't bore you with all the details but the wooden Colonial Diplomacy pieces appear to be approximately six pieces short in one colour, which would of course have been immediately obvious. So I suspect the seller swapped the pieces - possibly with good intentions not realising they were different, possibly knowing the numbers differed but hoping the buyer would not realise. (There's no way of knowing for sure, but the tone of some of the e-mails rang alarm bells...)

Theoretically they're going to be sending me the wooden CD pieces, whereafter I'm going to return the plastic Diplomacy pieces. Which will of course leave me looking for wooden replacement pieces to make the number up, but that's a different matter...

Thread: Re: Request - please confirm the inventory

RedShark92 — 2008-06-28T18:58:46+00:00

Pokke wrote:
I just checked.

Wooden blocks, no plastic.
Each color has 12 big blocks for armies and 8 for fleets.

Almost, but not quite.

Some of the powers have 12 armies and 8 fleets and some have 8 armies and 12 fleets. The difference is in whether it's primarily a land power or a sea power. For instance, Japan will have more fleets, China will have more armies.

Your photo matches the style of pieces in my set.

Prodromoi wrote:
Puzzling... I remember regular Diplomacy having plastic pieces way back - rather shabbily moulded artillery shells and blocks with a point at one end that represented the fleets. I've never seen one with stars and anchors, not even in photos.

My set has stars and anchors, exactly as you've pictured. The box art is

]]>

with a copyright date of 1976.

There are eight stars (armies) and eight anchors (fleets) per colour. The seven colours do actually match the seven colours referred to in the rulebook.

As I recall the 7 colors were identical between the Avalon Hill version of Diplomacy (I also have a British set that uses different colors) and Colonial, though the colors used for the powers that appear in both games are not necessarily consistent.

Eight of each will probably NOT be enough for Colonial - as some powers can get pretty large and the early elimination of a power (so that you can use their pieces if needed) is less likely.

Thread: Re: Request - please confirm the inventory

Prodromoi — 2008-06-23T13:48:10+00:00

Puzzling... I remember regular Diplomacy having plastic pieces way back - rather shabbily moulded artillery shells and blocks with a point at one end that represented the fleets. I've never seen one with stars and anchors, not even in photos.

These are the pieces that came in the one that I've just bought:
]]>
There are eight stars (armies) and eight anchors (fleets) per colour. The seven colours do actually match the seven colours referred to in the rulebook.

Thread: Re: Request - please confirm the inventory

Pokke — 2008-06-23T13:20:29+00:00

I just checked.

Wooden blocks, no plastic.
Each color has 12 big blocks for armies and 8 for fleets.

Edit: see this image for what is in my copy of the game. ]]>

Thread: Re: Request - please confirm the inventory

gamesgroove — 2008-06-23T12:35:23+00:00

Alex-
Those sound like the plastic pieces from regular Diplomacy. I bought my copy in the early 80's and that's what came in it. I don't have Colonial Diplomacy handy here at work though, so I can't tell you what's in that one. If I recall, CD came with wood pieces.

Thread: Request - please confirm the inventory

Prodromoi — 2008-06-23T09:42:38+00:00

I've just received a copy of this that I bought on eBay, and having inventoried the parts I'm not sure if I'm missing some pieces.

Q1. The box contains seven sets of pieces: eight armies and eight navies each. But according to the rule book (section 2.0 Game Components) the game should include:
"seven sets of 20 army and fleet units". I've only got sixteen in each colour. Is the rulebook wrong, or am I missing two armies and two fleets in each colour?

Q2. The army & fleet pieces in this copy are plastic; five-pointed stars for armies and anchors for navies (I'll post photos later). However, since all the photos here show "old style" wooden cubes and blocks, I have to wonder whether these are pieces from a totally different game. Has anyone heard of pieces like this before?

Thanks in anticipation.
A

PS. I've already checked the errata document here, and that doesn't cover this discrepancy.

Image

t_s_sullivan — 2008-05-06T22:23:10+00:00

Full-page ad from 1994 issue of The General

Image

Thaadd — 2008-01-09T23:25:34+00:00

Orders Being Read, backs being stabbed.

Image

Randy Cox — 2007-04-16T23:40:04+00:00

The rare box back for the first 100 or so released (at an AvalonCon)

Image

itiswon — 2007-04-12T17:22:30+00:00

Army and Navy figures

Image

itiswon — 2007-04-12T17:20:42+00:00

wooden figures represented forces

Image

itiswon — 2007-04-12T17:19:18+00:00

strategy map

Image

itiswon — 2007-04-12T17:16:24+00:00

rule book

Image

itiswon — 2007-04-12T17:15:30+00:00

back side of the box

Image

talrich — 2007-03-09T03:29:52+00:00

Colonial Diplomacy has a sturdy and colorful gameboard. If only it got on the table more.

Image

Archilochus — 2006-12-03T17:26:44+00:00

An Error on the board-Turkey should possess Istanbul (or is it Constantinople)

Thread: The Union Jack Rules!!!

catosulla — 2006-05-25T22:36:53+00:00

This is a session report from our friendly, middle school gaming club. I taught the original Diplomacy to the club and then expanded to the Colonial Diplomacy with a group of kids who grasped the rules readily. The kids often want me to play games with them and I am certain that part of it is the temptation to defeat me! So here is the report from our last session for this year. We drew powers blindly and I drew the UK. Our game only lasted until the 1888 turn.
Opening moves: Negotiations began fast and furious. I discussed things with Turkey and she and I drew up a plan to carve up the Middle East. Russia was planning to make a move on China with Holland grabbing usual real estate (like New Guinea and Davao). Franc moved west into SE Asia while Japan made some jabs at Russia in Vladivostock and the Korean Peninsula. I made a quick deal with Holland not to attack each others home resource centers and began expanding eastward into SE Asia as well.
Middle Moves: After several turns, I had amassed a number of fleets and armies, but I had to be careful since Turkey and Holland were my only reliable allies. Then, China began to negotiate with many people and tried to manipulate several people into conflicts (he tried to get Japan to attack Russia and me to attack France, even offering to carve up SE Asia between us ) I then resorted to my strategy of diplomacy being the art of letting someone else have your way. I managed to convince Russia, Japan, and France that China was going to come after them at some point and that China was just trying to get others to do their dirty work. I was convincing (granted, it did not take much to convince Russia who felt that Japan had attacked her in Vladivostock at Chinese behest already Thus, the grand alliance began to be formed and a hammer blow was about to be delivered on China in the 1880 turn. When the moves were revealed, China was visably shocked! I moved into Canton, Japan into Shanghai and Russia into Mongolia. China had to removed three pieces during the builds, which left it effectively crippled.
End game: at this point, it was infortunate that Turkey had to leave the game Still, she left one last set of moves written, moves which tied down Russia and even caused the Czarina to lose a piece! While this was going on, China tried to fight gamely with my forces moving into Tibet and Assam. France and Holland began to "butt heads" in SE Asia, trying both of them down and wearing each other out. Along a simliar vein, Russia and Japan began to pound each other in the Vladivostock, Manchuria, Seoul, Fusan, Peking, Shanghai region. I quietly moved my forces into the Middle East, making another pact (this time with Russia) to divide the now defunct Turkish empire. I also began to stealthily move my fleets into the Philippines region, preparing for my next move against Japan, a move I had promised Russia I would do so as to keep the area North and Northwest of India quiet. In the final round I gobbled up Cebu, Davao, and Formosa.
I finished with 19 resource centers, by far the most, thus winning the game. We all had a lot of fun and should be able to do it again next year since most of the students in this game will be back for next school year.
PS- For those of you who read my other session report on the orginal Diplomacy game, I am Russia in the new one....and I think I am about to bit hit by A-H, Germany, and England all at once. Sometimes you eat the bear and sometimes the bear eats you!

Thread: Re: Colonial Diplomacy: a review

Andy Icarn — 2006-03-15T07:19:12+00:00

Colonial Diplomacy:

It's a great game. Much more strategic and varied than the ever annoying Risk and its die rolling. The only major problem I've seen is after awhile at borders between powers it can get a bit confusing with so many units pushing on each other and breaking support as to who is succeeding where. But it does a good job balancing powers (with the possible acception of China) while keeping every nation unique and challenging, just be ready to be allied against.
The game is very simple on the face of it with only two pieces on the board for each player: fleets and armies. Gameplay is 100% skill and 0% chance. The only chance to it is whether you've guessed what your opponent will do or not. Nobody is winning because they have better pieces or have bought ridiculous amounts of card packs or clix models etc etc.

I'd give it a 9/10.

Victory Conditions:

To win the game you don't need 29 "colonies" (supply centers, cities, etc). There are 3 choices for colonies needed to win the game. At least in my (USA) version of the game.

Short Game: 16
Standard Game: 24
Long Game: 30

So the time needed to complete the game is variable. Or the rules state the players can all choose by mutual agreement to end the game early with most colonies as victor.

Length of the game relies mostly on how confident players are in their moves (all moves are made at once in secret) and how much diplomacy people wish to employ.

Imbalance?:

I have so far, playing both with vets and new people, that a tactically skilled player can completely destroy a less skilled player and that nations play a much smaller role in victory. However, many less skilled players who are being outsmarted can always ally against the vet, so never fear!

This is in large part due to the fact the game is about strategically outthinking the opponent rather than outnumbering them. No dice means chance is gone and only your ability to anticipate your opponent remains.

I'll write about this supposed "weakness" of France and supposed "strength" of Britain.

France:

- In scenarios with 2-5 players anyone who has France also has at least one other country.
- France starts east of several easily capturable cities (Mandalay, Upper Burma, Rangoon, Bankok, Malaya) and can also take their local sea territory to protect their east for awhile pretty easily. To the southwest more territories can be taken by france. If I play as France I can have five or more cities by the end of the second turn (armies gained from new cities are only counted every 2 turns).
- If France (or Britain or both) fights Holland it can cause major problems by slipping a fleet into the Java Sea. The Java Sea is rarely protected as well as it should be as Holland races to aquire territories and can be an achilles heel for France or British Singapore to exploit.
- France is very well positioned to ally with Britain as Hong Kong is only connected by land to Canton. So it is much more likely that during crutial early stages when France needs to grow it will find a willing ally in Britain who may be only too happy to gain an ally to help keep their Hong Kong and Singapore possessions. Meanwhile China has just one southern army in Canton (vs 3 french units just south of there at game start) which can be easily overpowered by Britain(1)/France(3). If China loses Canton it is virtually finished in the south. Alternatively a focused french supported attack to South China Sea can surround Hong Kong if an alliance with China is prefered. Whereas a Chinese/British alliance can do little to a wiley french player early since French fleets outnumber the Hong Kong fleet and China has no navy. It is true that it may require some effort to take the important South China Sea IF Britain/China ally, but considering those two powers are the largest in the game their alliance is quite weak vs france in the early game.
- Certainly France is facing Holland and Japan and Britain at sea and needs to forge some sort of alliance or truce to prosper in that area, but it can, if it chooses, reach the Philipines as fast as any other sea power.
- Ultimately, this game is a game of diplomacy, and as a small power France can't be fighting everyone at once. But it is in a decent position. China for example has 3 of its 5 home bases right next to Russia and Japan, has 3 of 5 home bases on the coast near multiple opponents, and has no fleets. Though large, China is surrounded by enemies and is completely fleetless. Any sneaky withdraw from one of the coastal territories prior to counting up new armies (in order to get China a fleet or two) can lead to a loss of one of those crutial territories. If anyone is in a bad starting position it isn't France, it's China.

Britain:

Britain starts with the most colonies, there is no doubt there, and they can expand fairly successfully as well. But Britain also has a lot of weaknesses as well.
The three main areas Britain controls are: the Eastern Islands, India, and Aden.

- the Eastern Islands (2): Britain has two isolated islands in Hong Kong and Singapore. While these may initially survive or even prosper by taking a city on rare occasion, for the most part they serve only to slow down or support other powers, and without an alliance are utterly doomed. Singapore can do little accept try to take Malaya or find a way to the Java Sea, both options leaving their only local unit making colony vulnerable, and the taking of Java Sea can be prevented by an intelligent Holland. Hong Kong can survive a bit longer, but will find itself facing giant fleets from Japan and Holland. Ultimately, these territories are very hard to hold unless Britain makes its major goal a massive push eastward. This is generally a bad idea imho as it leaves 5 colonies (Karachi, Persia, Shiraz, Tabriz, Egypt, Sudan) to Turkey and Russia. Holland can even reach Ceylon off the Indian coast before the British who are in India if they so wish.

- India (3): You may notice Britain starts in this large territory with the same number of units as France has in Vietnam. The only way to possibly get 3 new colonies here by turn 2 is Madras to Bengal, Dehli to Kashmir, and Bombay to Karachi. However, China can block Britain from taking either Bengal or Kashmir by sending the army from Sinkiang to Assam or Kashgar on turn 1 and declaring a move to Bengal or Kashmir on turn 2. Win or tie, China still gets a colony and Britain gets nothing. So Britain can be forced to get only one territory in the north and east of india.
In the west of India Britain can take Karachi without difficulty if it wishes, but further advancement becomes a three-way fight between Turkey/Britain/Russia in the Middle East. China and Russia will also be just northeast of Karachi, forcing Britain into another three-way fight.
Britain can profit greatly in India, but it can end up getting nowhere fast. Again, alliances and player skill make the difference. Sacrificing early armies on turn two to make tactical advances (Bombay to Persian Gulf instead of Karachi for example) can make things interesting as well.

- Aden (1): Diplomacy again is the key to whether Britain can prosper here. If Turkey and Russia war against each other heavily then Britain can pick up Egypt and Sudan and even threaten into the tactially important Mediterranean Sea. But if Russian and Turkish armies stalemate over Rumania, truce, or ally then the Constantinople and Aden fleets will come to a draw over Egypt and Sudan. Another army could perhaps be spared to march from Baghdad to Aden and lead to the downfall of Britain in the west.
Should Russia and Turkey ally they can split up the Middle East free colonies and advance toward India itself. In this situation, with armies appearing in Baghdad, and the Constantinople fleet free, Aden would also be sorely threatened.

For Britain as for everyone alliances make the difference. Britain has the most starting colonies, but should be seen not as a single power, but as several small to medium sized powers as Britain is initially unable to act cohesively with all its territories. Bringing all bases together by later in the game requires a lot of skillful work. The advantage Britain has is that many players seem to want to fight whoever is the biggest power right next to them and get support from any small power that they can't easily and quickly destroy, so the many small colonies Britain has can early on make that little difference that allows them to survive, and they are small enough to be ignored. That is a mistake that can perhaps be exploited in areas like Aden and Singapore. Britain's small colonies can survive by maintaining the balance of power around them for as long as possible while places like India and perhaps Aden grow, but this balance won't be maintained forever and an ally you support once won't take kindly to having you turn sides once they start to be successful, so such alliances for balance can't be much more than a tool to control other nations while your main plans of how to grow in a main base or two are implemented.

Thread: Colonial Diplomacy: a review

Romain — 2005-08-18T14:26:58+00:00

Colonial Diplomacy is one of the numerous variants of Diplomacy. The action is taken place in Asia, North-East Africa and Russia in 1870, where three colonial powers: Britain, France and Holland dispute the supremacy of the continent to four «local» powers: China, Japan, Russia and Turkey.

With three exceptions, the normal rules of Diplomacy are applied. These exceptions concern Hong Kong, the canal of Suez and the Trans Siberian Railway:
1) Hong Kong is a supply centre for all powers except China. If China controls Hong Kong, it cannot get an additional unit.
2) The player that has a unit in Egypt controls movement between the Red Sea and Mediterranean Sea.
3) The Trans Siberian Railway is a line linking the following Russian provinces: Moscow, Perm, Omsk, Krasnoyarsk, Irkutsk and Vladivostok. It allows a Russian army to move directly from any province on the line to any other. This line is only available by Russian armies. A foreign unit attacking or occupying a territory on the line can block a Russian army using the TSR.

The map contains 120 territories with 57 supply centres compares to 75 territories and 34 SC of the standard map. A player must control 29 SC to win. Because of the size of the map, players should expect to take twice as much time as standard Diplomacy to finish a game.

In Colonial Diplomacy, Powers have the reputation to be imbalanced. France with is three home SC and no place to grow is doomed and Britain with six home SC and lots of choice of expansion is always a good starting position.

For players that love Diplomacy and want to make a change, Colonial Diplomacy could be a viable alternative. However, if you draw France, try to find something else to do, you will be out of the game pretty soon.

Thread: Re:General Comment

tmaschino — 2004-03-15T23:08:07+00:00

tswider (#30497),

And I agree with you Tom. In Dip there's instant tension. In colonial dip the tension is missing early on and the game just takes too long.

Thread: Re:General Comment

tswider — 2004-03-14T23:46:17+00:00

Dan Dolan (#2353),
Totally agree with you. The game also stalemates easily and is too large. Given the large number of other excellent Diplomacy variants, I am amazed that Avalon Hill chose this turkey.

Thread: General Comment

BoardGameGeek — 2002-01-01T06:00:00+00:00

The games I've been involved in have always had Japan as the dominant power. If there isn't an alliance against the Japanese right from the start between Russia and China then the Japanese are going to get rolling.

Once they get to around 8 centers they are very tough to beat. They can sit in their corner and hold onto what they have and wait for the opportunity to strike at the back of either China, Russia, France or Holland. This gets them to 10-12 centers and then they can't be stopped.

I think that one possibility might be to eliminate one of the Japanese at start fleets. This would slow their expansion and force them to get involved in the diplomatic infighting a bit more.

There is so much happening in front of the Japanese that they can win by sitting back and picking off the power who is forced to turn his attention away from them for a moment to deal with a threat from another direction.

I think that the Japanese power unblances the game to the point of making it less enjoyable than it could be. My suggestion of removing one of the At Start Fleets is a way of trying to make the Japanese a bit tougher to play.

The actual Fleet to be removed could be voted on by the other players secretly prior to the games start. The Japanese could be involved in negotiations with the players prior to the vote.

Any comments on this?

Thread: Session Report

gschloesser — 2001-01-01T06:00:00+00:00

This one was continued from the previous week and ended very quickly. Jerry Maus (as Japan) had positioned himself quite well, having conquered twelve supply centers at the break. Jon Comeaux (Turkey) was his only real competitor at this point, having stretched his Turkish fleet all the way into the Dutch East Indies. Further, both Jerry and Jon had protected themselves quite well, positioning their pieces so that they could support their pieces and prevent their dislodgement.

The end, however, came quickly. Holland (Greg Schloesser) was being squeezed hard by both Turkey and Britain (Ashton Arnold). Further, Japan was poised right along the border by the Philippines. Only a game-long alliance with France prevented Holland from being assaulted on four fronts. The only expansion route available for the Dutch was through Malaya, however, and this was currently in French hands. It was a 'must' move for Holland, however, if they were to have any chance of breaking out of the strangle-hold.

China, too, was collapsing under the combined assaults of Britain, Russia (Willard Fann) and Japan. Britain had been freed from any threat of Turkish assault by a game-long alliance with both Turkey and Russia. However, both Russia and Britain had left their western fronts completely vacant, and Turkey had begun some land movement with armies in that arena. It did not bode well for them as Turkey was in position to grab several supply centers quickly when the alliance crumbled.

The pivotal turn came when Holland ousted France from Malaya, but lost New Guinea and Java to a back-stab by the Turks. I knew it was coming, but just not so soon. This forced me to remove a piece, and I decided to remove it from the front with Japan. Any other place would have resulted in the further loss of territory to the Turks.

China, too, lost a province to the Japanese. The end was in sight.

On the subsequent build, Japan increased one to 13 while Turkey increased to 9. China, however, was forced to turn its attention to the West and try to hold off the combined Russian and British assault. This left its southern border with France weak, which France took advantage of. Japan also swooped in, ousting China from Mongolia and Port Arthur. Further, Japan easily conquered Davao from Holland, who had turned its attention to attempting to oust the Turks.

All of this maneuvering resulted in Japan amassing 16 supply centers by the end of the turn, thereby capturing the victory. John Moore catapulted into a second place finish (at the expense of China) and finished with 10 supply points.

The final tallies:

Jerry Maus (Japan): 16; John Moore (France): 10; Ashton Arnold (England): 9; Jon Comeaux (Turkey): 9; Willard Fann (Russia): 8; Greg Schloesser (Holland): 3; Andrew Nash (China): 3

Thread: Session Report

gschloesser — 2001-01-01T06:00:00+00:00

This was Jerry's night to choose a game, and he selected Colonial Diplomacy by Avalon Hill. The players were Ashton Arnold, Andrew Nash, Willard Fann, Jon Comeaux, John Moore, Jerry Maus and Greg Schloesser. I've played Diplomacy many times, as well as Machiavelli, but have never played the Colonial Diplomacy version.

The game mechanics are identical to that of Diplomacy, but the game is set in the East at the height of colonialism. The powers represented in the game are Britain (Ashton), France (John), China (Andrew), Russia (Willard), Turkey (Jon), Japan (Jerry) and Holland (Greg). The first power to capture 16 supply centers earns the victory. There are no dice or cards ... diplomacy and negotiation are the only elements.

Jerry has taken detailed notes and promises a full report when the game is completed. I'll try to pass along briefly what occurred.

Britain begins the game with firm control of India and remote outposts in Hong Kong and Singapore. Unfortunately, these outposts are surrounded by hostile powers and were destined to fall ... and fall they did. Since China is prohibited by rule from attacking Hong Kong prior to another power taking it from Britain, a deal was struck wherein Andrew allowed France to temporarily move into Canton, a Chinese province, and launch an attack from there into Hong Kong. The attack, which was supported by a fleet in the South China Sea, succeeded, forcing England to lose Hong Kong and its fleet.

On the same turn, France supported an attack by Holland on Singapore, ousting England from that outpost, too. England had lost its Far East holdings.

It appeared that England was going to establish basis in the Middle East and North Africa and deny an exit to the Turkish and Russian fleets. However, Jon's wily negotiation skills bore fruit, as England quickly withdrew, allowing both Turkey and Russia to maneuver their fleets into the Indian Ocean. This alliance has stuck throughout the game so far, as England and Russia have both turned their combined attentions on China, France and Holland.

Turkey, meanwhile, has used its naval might to take virtual control of the Indian Ocean and threaten the shores of the Dutch East Indies. Holland was forced to allow Turkish passage through the Java and Timor seas, or risk losing several of its holdings to a combined English & Turkish assault. As the game ended, Holland was still casting a wary eye on the two Turkish fleets in its area.

China, which had expanded nicely in the early stages of the game (at the expense of Russia), found itself in a three-front war with England, Russia and, to a lesser extent, Japan. England and Russia were finally able to outmaneuver the Chinese and obtain a positional advantage, resulting in a slow, yet steady encroachment into the Chinese territory. At the break, Kashgar, Tibet and Urumchi had fallen to the English and Russians, while Japan was in control of Seoul, Fusan and Shanghai.

France was suffering from the English-Russian-Turkish alliance, too. Its initial incursions into Assam and Bengal had been pushed back by the break, and its holding in Hong Kong was under threat of Japanese invasion.

Holland, meanwhile, was bottled up in the Dutch East Indies. Having built a reasonably large fleet, I was initially able to force the British out of the Southeast and East Indian Ocean area, as well as the Adaman Sea. With the arrival of the Turks, however, I was pushed back into the Dutch East Indies. I currently find myself bottled in between the English-Turkish alliance and the imperialistic Japanese navy. At the break, Japan and Holland had a few skirmishes which resulted in the expulsion of a Japanese fleet from the Lower Pacific. An uneasy situation now exists with both navies face-to-face off the south coast of Cebu. Without French or Chinese help, which appears dubious, this standoff will likely result in an eventual Japanese triumph.

Japan has steadily increased its imperial holdings by capturing significant territory from both China and Russia. Neither of those two nations has been able to build a significant fleet in order to challenge the Japanese. The imperialistic Japanese are now turning their attention south towards Dutch and French held territories.

At the break, 1890, the following is a supply center count:

Japan (Jerry): 12; China (Andrew): 9; France (John): 9; England (Ashton): 8;
Holland (Greg): 7; Turkey (Jon): 7; Russia (Willard): 7

In spite of its current tally of 7 supply centers, Turkey is in an excellent position. Russia and England have diverted all of their troops to the Eastern front against China and France, while leaving none as a 'rear-guard'. Their back-door is wide open. Turkey can swoop in at any notice and gobble 5 or 6 supply centers before they can react and get troops back to defend their holdings. The fear amongst most of the players is that this is exactly what will happen. We just haven't been able to get Willard and Ashton to sense this danger.

Japan, too, is in an enviable position. Russia has no coastal territories in its possession along its eastern shores in which to build fleets, thereby challenging the Japanese navy. China has only one fleet, and it is hopelessly bottled-up in Port Arthur. Only France and Holland are in a position to provide some resistance, but Japan has an 11 to 7 advantage in fleets and has positioned itself so as to virtually eliminate any chance of a Dutch-French victory. I fear that if Turkey doesn't make its move against England and Russia soon, Japan will capture the victory within a few turns.

I have always enjoyed Diplomacy. In fact, it was one of my favorite games until Machiavelli came along. Machiavelli added economics and random events to the game. Players could now bribe opponents armies, ferment revolt, attempt assassinations, and more. Famines and plagues could devastate areas and hinder players' plans. All of these possibilities helped prevent 'stand-off' situations and keep the game fluid and exciting. Once I played Machiavelli, Diplomacy lost its appeal to me.

In regards to Diplomacy vs. Colonial Diplomacy, I prefer Diplomacy. In Diplomacy, the only two countries who rarely conflicted were England and Turkey. Nearly every other country would come into contact with each other at some point in the game. In Colonial Diplomacy, several countries will not meet, or if they do, it will be very late in the game. Examples: Russia and Holland; Russia and France; Japan and Turkey; Japan and England (except for a possible early conflict in Hong Kong ... although unlikely); Holland and China; France and Turkey.

Do I enjoy the game? Sure, but it would not be on my list to play. I'd much rather play Machiavelli.