Board & Card Games Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people who like playing board games, designing board games or modifying the rules of existing board games. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

Once I was in Diplomacy game with two experienced players, one intermediate (me), and four people who had never played the game before.

As it were, the two best players drew England and Turkey, and ran all over the board. Two of the new ones ended up with Italy and Austria-Hungary. "Italy," in particular complained, "I didn't know what I was doing the whole game." Meaning he wasn't about to play it again.

England, France, Russia, and Turkey are relatively easy to play because they are in the corners of the board. Germany, Austria, and Italy are much harder because they are in the center, and more easily surrounded.

If I had it to do again, I would have had the four newbies draw for the "corner" countries, and the three veterans draw for the three "center" countries. Would such a plan have made it a better, more balanced, game? And more fun for the newcomers?

share|improve this question

I don't think it would've changed the outcome at all. A strong player will walk all over weak ones regardless of which country they are assigned.

A better plan might be to play several "mini-games". Play for the most centers at the end of 1904, then take 15 minutes to "debrief" so that the newer players can get an idea of the strategy that was going on "behind their backs". Draw for new countries, and repeat, maybe playing a little longer this time.

Knowing that their entire day isn't ruined by a bad start and that they only have to wait a little while to start over should keep you from losing the new players, and the experienced players should be challenged by trying to repeatedly pull off strong showings. While ending at a particular year does result in some weird tactics toward the end, it should still serve as a good learning session that hopefully leaves everyone wanting more.

share|improve this answer
"A strong player will walk all over weak ones regardless of which country they are assigned." I once heard of a history class where students had to play Diplomacy as a class exercise. The two best students wanted to be on the same team. "Fine," said the teacher, "as long as you play Austria-Hungary." They got crushed. – Tom Au Mar 11 '13 at 23:09
@Tom Best students or best diplomacy players? Either way, it's certainly possible for new players to target a skilled player and eliminate them first. But usually the skilled player can find a way to make it worth people's while to keep him around and then slowly find a way back into the game. But as for Austria, I had more solos in e-mail play as Austria than any other country. – bwarner Mar 12 '13 at 2:40

I believe there should be no special treatment for new players. Life isn't fair, and Diplomacy is far less fair than real life. That's how the Creator intended it :-)

The only way I see to prevent experienced players running roughshod over newbies is simply to never put them in the same games. This idea works well for Chess, Go and Bridge, why should Diplomacy be different?

If new and experienced players must be mixed, the newbies require training on the rules and, importantly, the spirit of the game, before their first play. The rules of support, and to a lesser extent convoy, how to write orders correctly, and why orders cannot ever be changed once they are revealed are major sources of confusion and frustration, and they warrant a training session to ensure that at least everyone understands the game they are playing. This can take a few hours to do it right.

And even before they agree to play the game, I always give new players a standard disclaimer, that people can be very mean to each other in this game, even those who are your friends in real life, and if you're not OK with that, maybe you shouldn't play after all.

Anyone who passes both of those initial barriers to entry deserves to be treated with all the respect due to a competent player - that is, with no mercy whatsoever. Surviving and thriving in a den of lions is what the game is all about, after all.

In response to your particular concern, I'll say one thing more. For every duo of experienced players that forms a Juggernaut alliance and bulldozes the newbies, there's a "carebear" player out there somewhere who "teams up" with the newbies, and promises to help them and never ever betray them (very seductive for many newbies), and basically ends up dictating their orders to them, turning newbies into zombie players. These arrangements are utterly indistinguishable from a single player controlling two Powers.

I've played with such people. I find players who coddle (zombify) newbies are harder to defeat than experienced Juggernauts, because at least you can sell an "attack the cabal" alliance a lot easier than you can sell a "kill the newbies to drain the zombie master" alliance. Granting preferred placement to a "carebear" / zombie master player is basically my worst nightmare in Diplomacy. Please no!

share|improve this answer

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.