Over the past few years, I have acted as the referee in several wargame campaigns. The campaigns involved different periods of history, but all shared the theme of several nations acting in a political as well as military sense. My friends and I had developed rules to cover the military aspects, such as movement, supply, and scouting, but left the political aspects to take care of themselves. This often led to what seemed to me to be improbably situations; allies could instantly turn on each other in the middle of a battle with perfect coordination, and far-flung armies could set off on new objectives with no delay, and entire governments could change their foreign policies in a single turn. To remedy some of these problems, I tried a series of diplomatic rules in our latest campaign. On the whole I believe thay were successful and I am presenting them here to give other gamers some ideas for their own campaigns. Basically, there are three general areas to diplomatic rules. First and most important, there should be a reasonable delay to foreign policy changes. Second, there must be some way for other players to sometimes discover what these changes are. Third, there must be a way for a player to prevent this discovery. The devices of dispositions, ambassadors, and closed borders were decided upon. DISPOSITIONS First and most important are dispositions. One man may direct a government, but he cannot BE the government. Bureaucracies have a ponderous momentum that the dictator needs time to divert to a new course. In a democracy (a rarity in most campaigns) things are even more difficult. It takes time to launch a war, patch up an alliance, or turn on a former friend, and the rules must reflect this. There are three dispositions, friendly, neutral, and hostile. Dispositions need not be reciprocal. For example, Germany could be hostile to Russia while Russia was neutral in return. Furthermore, each player must state his dispositions toward the others at the start of the turn, before learning what theirs are toward him. This allows for some tension between allies, without which no campaign would be complete. A player can change from friendly to neutral, neutral to hostile, or vice versa in one turn, but not from friendly to hostile. Friendship toward another player gives him fairly free access to your country. He can pass troops through, pass supply through, enter or leave your ports, even use your supply bases to feed his men. You cannot initiate any hostile actions, although you can of course defend yourself if he attacks you. An historical example would be Prussia toward France at the start of 1812. Neutrality on the other hand, implies a more cautious attitude. The other player can enter your lands, trace supply through, and use your depots, but only with your specific permission, and under whatever special conditions you set. In addition, you can order him to leave your lands at the start of any turn and he must leave at once. You can also forbid his entry and stop supply from passing through. In most campaigns, this is the normal state of relations between players. Hostility of course, is a state of war. If you declare war on another player, you can invade his lands, trace supply through his lands, etc. without his permission (obviously). If the enemy through some slipup still has a friendly posture toward you, you can still use his supply centers and enter his ports. This represents a case of complete surprise, where the local officials do not understand what is happening. One can rationalize anything if he tries hard enough, but that is the way these rules work. AMBASSADORS Ambassadors are the second subject of these rules. They provide for official communications between players. They allow one to discover what the other players' dispositions are toward oneself, and act in some ways as spies. When you have an embassy at another player's capitol, you learn his disposition toward you and the other players at the end of each turn. These must be his true dispositions, which the referee reveals/ You must turn in your own dispositions and moves before getting the return information, which leave some room for lying and treachery when another player tells you he will go friendly but then declares war. Ambassadors also have some spying powers. They report on troop movements near their position at the capitol. They also have a chance each season to discover a 'state secret', such as taxes collected, troops raised (or disbanded), etc. Under normal circumstances, the other player cannot stop this information, since diplomatic pouches are inviolate. You are undoubtedly thinking that foreign ambassadors at your capitol are a big nuisance. You can eject an ambassador at the start of any turn, unless you are friendly toward the player involved. Players exchange ambassadors usually on a mutual basis, and ejecting one is an act viewed with suspicion at best, since the other player can no longer learn your dispositions, but you could know his. CLOSED BORDERS Closed borders are the third and last subject of the rules. Whereas ambassadors provide information, closed borders prevent its leaving your country. A closed border denies exit to all foreigners and citizens without special government permission. Not even ambassadors can cross a closed border, although their pouches remain intact. A closed border is a drastic measure. It cuts off normal trade and travel; therefore, a player can only close his borders if he is hostile toward at least one other player. Once the border is closed, no other player can learn your dispositions, giving you a huge advantage when declaring war. No other player can enter your lands or trace supply through your country unless you are friendly to him. Flaws Naturally, there are some flaws in any rules, these are no exception. For example, suppose France and Britain are mutually hostile. Spain, on the other hand, is mutually friendly with both. Could the Spanish player load French troops onto his transports and merrily enter Portsmouth to disembark them? Could the British defenses fire on friendly foreign vessels? Clearly this is a violation of "the spirit of the rules" which a referee would have to forbid, but the rules themselves do not. As a second example, suppose a British fleet learned of the Spanish action and intercepted the transports in the Channel. Could they force their way aboard and capture the troops? Obviously they could not fire at the Spaniards- or could they? They might claim they were attacking the French soldiers, not the transports. These rules are far from perfect, and there is plenty of room for the referee to use his judgement. Despite such weaknesses, when the rules were put into effect, we were more satisfied than expected with the result. The players were careful to turn in their dispositions every turn and anxious to learn those of the others. A simple change from "friendly" to "neutral" by one power could send a wave of tension through the whole of our mythical continent. The players quickly learned to use the rules to threaten enemies and deceive uncertain allies. These were the usual complaints about movement and attrition, but almost none about the diplomatic rules. Surprisingly, they turned out to be the smoothest-running part of the game. Dispositions force a realistic delay in changes to foreign policy, as well as "yardstick" by which to measure alliances. Ambassadors provide for the discovering other dispositions, while closed borders allow a player to draw a blanket of silence over his country when preparing for war. I hope other referees will get some useful ideas from these rules, and although they will undoubtedly disagree with parts and change others, the rules should add an enjoyable dimension to a wargame campaign. Back to Table of Contents -- Courier Vol. V #1 To Courier List of Issues To MagWeb Master Magazine List © Copyright 1984 by The Courier Publishing Company. This article appears in MagWeb (Magazine Web) on the Internet World Wide Web. Other military history articles and gaming articles are available at http://www.magweb.com