@Seniorita, I like to say while there is no
"chance" in Diplomacy, there is plenty of
"luck".
The removal of any random element (after power selection) from game mechanics makes Diplomacy chanceless. But luck enters in two main ways that have already been mention. Diplomacy is a game of incomplete information, so many times players have to "guess" when entering orders. Surrenders, NMR and other sub-optimal play by players does not affect all the players equally, and those that benefit more can be considered lucky.
The way "anomalies like the above that can be manipulated for strategic benefits" is easiest to see in comparison to another great game of incomplete information, Poker. Skill in Poker is primarily about making decision under conditions of uncertainty, which in Poker is dominated by probability and in Diplomacy is dominated by game theory. In addition, both Poker players and Diplomacy players will be rewarded for discerning the cards (Poker) or intentions (Diplomacy) of their opponents while concealing their own.
Better poker players, even playing optimally, will not win every hand or every session because of random chance, but they will win more often than not over time. The same is true for better Diplomacy players. If you play closer to optimally than your opponents, you will over time be rewarded. You may not win every time due to bad luck - the surrender on the other side of the board, a series of bad guesses - but you will win more often than not.
springbutt46 wrote:Diplomacy was the first game with absolutely no dice, and therefore no means by luck could be involved in the act of playing the game itself.
Off the top of my head, Chess, Checkers, and all their iterations are the obvious counter-examples. Mancala, Master Mind, and Connect Four are others. Dominos and Scrabble don't have a random number generators, and the chance element of drawing domino's/letters is mitigated because players can re-use played pieces.