Fall 1996 Retreats Map up on Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/30973257@N03/5816456289/in/photostream
Britain, Egypt, France, Turkey, and Ukraine all gained 1 build.
Germany and Poland have 2 builds.
Cheers!
Technically France didn’t “gain” a build. I disbanded the army forced out of NAV, and I get to replace it.
I can’t argue with that, except that I didn’t think my commentary was self satisfied. It certainly wasn’t intended to be.
True enough, garygnu. I should have been looking for the word “get” instead of “gain.”
I just didn’t want observers to get the wrong impression.
Map in Flickr
Britain: Builds Army London
Egypt: Builds Army Alexandria
France: Builds Army Bordeaux
Germany: Builds Army Hamburg
Germany: Builds Fleet Berlin
Poland: Builds Army Warsaw
Poland: Builds Fleet Gdansk
Turkey: Builds Army Istanbul
Ukraine: Builds Army Sevastopol
Lots of armies this time - guess that balances the fleets last time. 
Order Results:
Britain:
Britain: F Algeria Supports F Tunisia FAIL Support failed. Supported unit’s order does not match support given.
Britain: A Belgium -> Picardy
Britain: F English Channel Convoys A London -> Brittany
Britain: F Irish Sea -> Mid-Atlantic FAIL Bounced with mid (1 against 1).
Britain: A London -> Brittany Convoy path taken: lon→eng→bri.
Britain: F North Sea -> Norwegian Sea
Britain: F Skaggerak -> Sweden
Egypt:
Egypt: A Alexandria -> Apulia Convoy path taken: ale→lbn→ion→apu.
Egypt: F E Sahara Supports A Libya
Egypt: F Ionian Sea Convoys A Alexandria -> Apulia
Egypt: A Libya Holds
Egypt: F Libyan Sea Convoys A Alexandria -> Apulia
Egypt: F Saudi Arabia -> Red Sea
France:
France: A Bordeaux -> Navarre
France: F Gulf of Lyon Supports A Marseilles -> Auvergne
France: A Lyon Supports A Marseilles -> Auvergne
France: A Madrid -> Portugal FAIL Bounced with por (1 against 1).
Dislodged from nav (2 against 1).
France: A Marseilles -> Auvergne
France: F Mid-Atlantic Supports A Madrid -> Portugal FAIL Support cut by Move from Irish Sea.
France: A Switzerland Supports A Milan -> Austria FAIL Support failed. Supported unit’s order does not match support given. Dislodged from mil (3 against 1).
Germany:
Germany: F Berlin -> Bornholm Sea FAIL Bounced with den (1 against 1).
Germany: A Hamburg -> Denmark FAIL Failed because Russia: F den -> bhm failed.
Germany: F Holland Holds
Germany: A Munich Supports A Milan -> Switzerland
Germany: A Ruhr -> Alsace
Italy:
Italy: F Albania Supports A Bosnia -> Serbia FAIL Support cut by Move from Greece.
Italy: A Bosnia -> Serbia FAIL Failed because Turkey: A ser -> cro failed.
Italy: A Croatia Supports A Bosnia -> Serbia FAIL Support cut by Move from Hungary.
Italy: F Maltese Sea -> Naples
Italy: A Milan -> Switzerland
Italy: F Tunisia -> Maltese Sea
Poland:
Poland: A Austria Supports A Milan -> Switzerland
Poland: A Belorussia Supports A Kharkov -> Central Russian Plateau
Poland: F Estonia -> Gulf of Bothnia
Poland: F Gdansk -> Baltic Sea
Poland: A Krakow Holds
Poland: A Latvia -> Estonia
Poland: A Warsaw -> Lithuania
Russia:
Russia: A Central Russian Plateau -> Moscow
Russia: F Denmark -> Bornholm Sea FAIL Bounced with ber (1 against 1).
Russia: A Gorky Supports A Central Russian Plateau -> Moscow
Russia: A Moscow -> St. Petersburg
Russia: A Murmansk Supports A Moscow -> St. Petersburg
Russia: F W Black Sea -> E Black Sea FAIL Bounced with geo (1 against 1).
Spain:
Spain: A Andalucia -> Seville
Spain: F Barcelona -> Auvergne FAIL Failed.
Spain: A Navarre -> Madrid
Spain: A Portugal Supports A Navarre -> Madrid
Turkey:
Turkey: F Aegean Sea Supports F Ionian Sea
Turkey: A Ankara -> Istanbul
Turkey: A Armenia -> Ankara
Turkey: A Bulgaria -> Macedonia
Turkey: F Georgia -> E Black Sea FAIL Bounced with wbs (1 against 1).
Turkey: F Greece -> Albania FAIL Bounced with alb (1 against 1).
Turkey: A Istanbul -> Bulgaria
Turkey: A Kazakhstan Supports A Volga
Turkey: A Serbia -> Croatia FAIL Bounced with hun (1 against 1).
Ukraine:
Ukraine: A Hungary -> Croatia FAIL Bounced with cro (1 against 1).
Ukraine: A Kharkov -> Central Russian Plateau
Ukraine: A Kiev Supports A Kharkov -> Central Russian Plateau
Ukraine: F Odessa Holds
Ukraine: A Rumania Supports A Serbia FAIL Support failed. Move orders must be supported explicitly.
Ukraine: A Sevastopol Holds
Ukraine: A Volga Supports A Kharkov -> Central Russian Plateau
Italy attacking France? You’re both the nations of romance. Can’t we all just get along? 
Post-Retreats Map in Flickr.
France may have had to retreat, but still has significant presence in Spain.
Retreats:
Britain: F Sweden to Norway
Italy: A Switzerland to Milan
Italy: F Naples to Rome
France: F Mid-Atlantic to South Atlantic
Spain: F Barcelona to Auvergne
Builds:
Egypt can build 1 unit
France must remove 1 unit
Germany can build 1 unit
Italy must remove 2 units
Poland can build 1 unit
Russia must remove 1 unit
Turkey can build 1 unit
Soooo, did the game stop then?
Sorry, this thread was pretty inactive so I stopped updating it. The most recent turn can be found at: http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=14055409&postcount=210
The Spring 1999 turn is just awaiting 2 sets of orders.
I will be away at an estuarine reserve for a large part of the day, but will check my email for orders in the afternoon.
Latest turn available here: http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=14087022&postcount=221
Turkey is our game leader with 15 centers at the moment, Egypt just behind with 11. My that Turkish-Egyptian alliance is a bear!
Asking the non-players since the players will be pondering their votes.
Here’s the current situation in our SDMB Modern Diplomacy game: Flickr map
The latest turn can be seen here: http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=607271&page=5
As well as the current discussion on whether to end the game or not.
What do any of the non-participants think?
Would you mind weighing in, wevets? I respect your opinion on the matter. Also, I feel like I should explain the situation a bit.
Turkey and Egypt negotiations pre turn 1 were very tumultuous. I tried convincing aclockworkmelon to leave Israel neutral, and he responded with very firm “you’ll have to take it from my cold, dead hands” sabre rattling. Italy was non-existent in the pre-turn 1 negotiations, and only joined negotiations literally hours before the turn was due. My only other neighbor was Ukraine, who I believed would be jumped by both Russia and Poland. Turns out I wasn’t exactly right, but with the info I had, Italy was my obvious first enemy.
After cooperating with Egypt and Ukraine to destroy Italy, Egypt and Turkey had a seriously nail-biting few turns of suspicious negotiation. There were several turns I was certain were going to reveal Egypt’s treachery, and I later found that he felt the same toward me. It turns out we were both honest, and Egypt pressed into Europe and Spain while I took Ukraine.
At that point, it became apparent that we could surely achieve 2way victory, even against a united Europe. We began negotiations for ensuring that no backdoor last-minute stabs could occur, by agreeing to a DMZ in Europe, and eventual mutual bumps in territories that it would be impossible to leave empty. The final stages of those negotiations had not been reached yet, but I (and I believe Egypt as well) was confident that we could have created a situation between us in which it was either impossible or impractical to stab at the last minute as we wrapped up the war in Europe (and by last minute, I mean the final 3 or 4 hypothetical turns. Before that, and a stab would just start another long, drawn out and uncertain war).
Some players think that the agreement melon and I made over the last few turns is against the spirit of the game. My argument is that our strategy, although quite unconventional, is legitimate. The world just failed to recognize and respond to the unusual metagame we presented. We just created a situation between us where either one stabbing the other would not end in sure victory for the stabber.
This game is about alliances. Stronger alliances win. While our alliance grew and our suspicions lessened, Italy stabbed France, England stabbed Russia, Poland stabbed Russia, Ukraine stabbed Poland (admittedly unsuccessfully), England stabbed Spain, Germany stabbed France, etc. etc. We are winning because our alliance was stronger than the other players’. We’re going to share a tie among fewer players than is typical for this game, which I think is a better result than the typical, boring 4-6 player stalemates.
One response from another player is “we didn’t know you were playing a different game than us.” My rebuttal is that we are playing by the same rules available to every other player. We took risks with each other, and with the other players - especially by pushing so strong so fast and accepting an early lead. As our lead grew, the strategy grew with it, until the treacherous thoughts I’m sure we both harbored made less and less sense. It was a natural evolution of the game, unforced, and could have been countered by players that did not keep assuming that we’d begin to play more typically in another turn or two.
On a final note - I bet nobody playing or watching this game will fall for this strategy again.
Many thanks for your respect, but as the adjudicator I feel it is important that I not weigh in with an opinion until all players have voted.
I should just limit my comments to: there are many different ways to play diplomacy, and lots of sound and fury expended on what one’s goal should be. The most important facet to me is that players have experienced a range of fun, struggle with the challenge of facing off against an opponent’s dizzying intellect, and excitement at the prospect of what will actually happen when a turn is released (and occasional dismay as plans meet reality!)
Vote whichever way you feel maximizes your enjoyment. 
I said I’d give a more complete explanation after the game had been called, but I’ll go ahead and make it here:
Before starting this game I read a bunch of articles online about Diplomacy. People arguing about what “real Diplomacy” is isn’t new. There are hawks and doves, warmongers and care bears. It’s up for people to determine their own priorities in the game. Just because my priorities don’t happen to align with someone else’s priorities doesn’t mean that either of us are wrong.
Take the “nuclear deterrent” strategy I’ve used at least once in our current game: I threaten someone with the idea that if they betray me (or something) I will more or less throw the game as I do everything in my power (even at the cost of winning) to make sure that person loses. That isn’t a strategy I came up with- it’s been used in games of Diplomacy forever (based on what I’ve read at places like diplom.org and others). Surely, if that person does betray me, I’ve got to make good on my promise else I’ll be seen as a dog with no bite in future games (indeed, whether people should even consider multiple games is something that seems to be hotly debated among the Diplomacy community - yet surely the people who came into this game did so with preconceptions about the other players who they might have shared games with in the past), yet I’d no longer be “playing to win” at that point.
Repeating, it’s not up to anyone to choose anyone else’s priorities. I’ve decided for myself that winning is the best scenario. Behind that is being involved in a tie, with the fewer players involved in that tie the better. Behind that is a loss. Frankly, whether or not Mosier and I decide to shake hands and call it a draw after we potentially defeat the rest of Europe isn’t any of those defeated nations’ concern. If we succeed, they’d be defeated anyway, even if one of us was planning on stabbing the other instead of actually going through with the 2-way draw.
It does however mean you’ve decided your victory conditions are different from everyone else’s. The other players in this game were not striving to achieve a draw.
What if you and I played a game of Connect 4 and I decided without telling you that I consider three in a row a victory and stopped playing after I had achieved that result?
treis’s position is justified.
If you just stopped playing during Connect Four you’d be surrendering. Drawing, on the other hand, actually has a basis in the rules of Diplomacy.
That’s right. And Mosier and I exploited that.
There were plenty of opportunities to see the monster the Turko-Egyptian alliance was becoming. A European alliance earlier in the game would have been able to stop us.
Actually AClockworkMelon, I won the game. I controlled Warsaw in Spring '02 and I consider that a victory.
We can keep playing if you want though.