The board game diplomacy has been a staple of the turn-based strategy scene since its development by Allan B. Calhamer (1999) in the 1950s. While many aspects of the game have been instrumental in establishing the rise of turn-based strategy as a tool for learning strategy and Diplomacy, there are also some shortcomings. DIPLOMACY has been considered a close approximation of an anarchical self-help world, where states ultimately can rely only on themselves, other protagonists’ words can never be fully trusted, and betrayal of promises frequently occurs. While this setting may have been a suitable setting of the pre-WW1 era of European Diplomacy, in the modern world, the nature of war has changed to where we no longer see war as a win-loss sicario but more as an assurance of mutually assured destruction. Set during the early stages of the cold war, the game will see a more team-focused approach to international approach to Diplomacy and avoid the” the strong do what they can, and the weak suffer what they must” mentality, showing students how quickly they get engulfed by the logic of a self-help world.

This sicario can be played by 2-7 players representing each of the major powers during the early stages of the cold war in 1960, as the Allies that fought together after the Second World War morphed into two competing blocks of power representing the newly established superpowers of the United States and the Soviet Union. So will Each player come to represent each faction’s economic and ideological centre that arose out of the cold war? as well as playing the great powers of the United States and the USSR, however, this age was the downfall of the European colonial powers represented by Briton and France and newly consolidated Warsaw pact and the newly formed communist China could choose to play in conjecture within their faction or work independently to ensure its interest. However, cooperating with your faction might allow you to better ensure world homology through Diplomacy and force. However, the primary goal is not to force the player into blindly following each faction leader but to enable a cooperative atmosphere where players have to coordinate not just militarily and politicly but economically however as many students of this period will not the defining characteristic of the cold war was the lack direct confutation between the two superpowers, However, Following the radical regime changes as colonial governments transitioned to independent states a process was often marred with violence, and political turmoil, the vacuum left after decolonisation will allow for each player’s opportunities to act in direct confutation of each other without the fear of enabling a global conflict. However, in the place of conventional warfare between the spread of communism, by examining the “containment” policy indicated by nato countries and the desire for “world revolution” of the communist powers, players are encouraged to carefully pick each engagement and avoid confronting an opponent that would escalate the international tension.

This can be done by simply changing the game’s basic rules, as in standard Diplomacy, the seasons alternate between Spring and Fall each turn. Each season is further divided into negotiation and movement phases, followed by ‘retreat’ or ‘disband’ adjustments and an end-of-the-year Winter phase of new builds or removals following the Fall adjustments. As the game setting of spring of 1960, the setting will reflect the early Cold War’s political boundaries, including colonial holdings and puppet states, with third world nations representing the neutral regions. Home supply centres will operate the same way as the base game: if a player captures a supply centre, he may build on it as if it were his own. However, the addition of Homeland Supply: For a Super Power to declare victory, it must hold all of its initial Homeland supply centres (which are specially marked). If a Super Power loses control of its initial Homeland supply centres, it forfeits the game, and its units disappear from the map. This, in consolation with essential addition to the game’s mechanics, will curb what has traditionally been a “dog eats dog” playstyle. However, As in the real world, the proliferation of nuclear weapons ensured that if one nation shifted the balance of power or instigated a conflict, the promise of mutually assured destruction was at hand. To keep that spirit alive, the use of nuclear weapons in the game will operate in the same way as a conventional army taking the form of missile Silos. The movement of each silo will be limited to attacking any territory two spaces away. (For example, a Silo in Cuba can hit Texas but not California) A silo can be supported defensively with tactical strikes but cannot support other Units and disbands after its attack. However, a player may also use nuclear Submarines that Function exactly like fleets, except that they can destroy any unit or supply centre adjacent to them; however, like silos, a sub can be supported by a fleet but cannot actively support other units and any land space attacked by a submarine become impassable for two turns. Any Unit that holds in the target territory or successfully moves into the target territory is destroyed along with any supplier centre and any land territory that is hit, becoming impassable for one year apart for subs that last for two years.

If a player orders a nuclear strike from a Silo or sub, the GM will announce who ordered the strike at the end of the movement and which specific unit was used, but not where the strike will land. At this point, the GM will announce the “Defcon phase” of the game. During the Defcon phase, all players may give orders to any Sub or Silo that did not move or attack during the movement phase. After the DEFCON Phase, The GM will reveal all of the players DEFCON orders and where each Nuke has landed. This will mark the beginning of the retreat phase. However, I have no intention of including actual ICBMs, as this will shift the balance of power too far in favour of the Super Powers. However, the most significant contribution will be the use of nuclear weapons due to their limitations. To ensure the idea of mutually assured destruction is embraced. If more than 20 supply centres are nuked, then all players lose the game. Remember, the idea is that nuclear war is the end game. This will ensure nuclear weapons are not abused as a player must own 60 supply Centres by the fall retreat to declare victory. By hopefully encouraging players to play diplomatically, avoid the use of nuclear weapons, and enforce a zero-sum game mentality. However, to ensure the diplomatic element of the game is appropriately utilised, the addition of a permanent moderator with unique veto powers.

The game’s role will be undertaken by the player syphilising the un and will form the moderator for the two opposing sides in many ways. As the game notes game rules state, “in order to survive, a player needs help from others. In order to win the game, a player must eventually stand alone.” The game objective is thus not conducive to reaching a negotiated and shared solution. After all, who would gladly want to accept terms that are dictated by someone who has conquered more than half of everything? However, if player a backed into a position where mutually assured destruction is the only viable option then By establishing a figure that, as the game progresses, can act in diffidence of each faction by playing the part of peacekeeper ensuring that when areas of the game become bogged down, casualties and costs grow, and no end is in sight through continued fighting. Under such circumstances, peace mediators may find combatants more ready to use their services. This is done by modifying the game rule so that instead of winning by domination or draw, the game can also be ended by a negotiated solution taken at the end of a turn, whereby all player remaining in the game agree on the rank order of the players. This allows for and encourages a negotiated solution instead of a winner-take-all outcome. However, the peace deal needs to be agreed to in writing and signed by all combatant parties still left in the game.

As the field of international relations that was born from the cold war morphed into our modern understanding of world diplomacy. DIPLOMACY enables the players to concretely illustrate several central and cumbersome problems intimately related to the field. For example, how difficult it is to establish and maintain trust, and how easy it is to lose trust.by examining an era when the world was on a knifes edge of nuclear annihilation thought the nuclear weapons and the establishment of a primacies strategy that established a global military, economic and political presence between two idealistically opposed superpowers That we may understand how the cold war shaped our understanding of modern diplomacy

The post The board game diplomacy has been a staple of the turn-based strategy appeared first on PapersSpot.