| Player Analysis for Fall of 1913 in describe |
Army Rumania SUPPORT Army Sevastopol. Army Bulgaria SUPPORT Fleet Greece. Fleet Greece SUPPORT Army Bulgaria. Army Trieste HOLD. Army Vienna SUPPORT Army Trieste. Defense. Army Ukraine -> Moscow. Sevastopol SUPPORT Army Ukraine -> Moscow. Attacking mos. Cut possible mos s stp, for E. ----------------------------------------------- EOG - Austria ------------- Unlike the typical RAT early intrigue that goes on, I was faced with the unusual situation of R showing no interest in fighting T. That left me with only to options - ART or AI vs RT. With 20/20 hindsight on R's style of play, I would have gone for the ART. But at that time, I thought R's disinterest in fighting T was a bad sign for me, so I went the AI vs RT hoping to sway E and/or G to help us out. EG came out on top out West, so they were perfectly content to let AI vs RT struggle with each other. Despite that, AI gained the upper hand on T. And despite G becoming hostile to me in the north and F's decline, we had 3 or 4 50/50 shots at breaking T defense in time to allow Italy to defend the W. Med against E and for me to have enough armies to hold off GR and wait for the Western alliances to realign after F fell. Unfortunately, T outguessed AI everytime, so AI was forced to make peace with T and defend ourselves against GER. Conventional wisdom says that an early G vs A war is bad news for both, and it proved true. It forced me to go with an unweildy TAI alliance, and while G was putzing around with me (and later he attacked R). It left his back wide open, so he got himself royally reamed when E stabbed him. I knew that TAI would never last long - once T got armies north of the Black Sea it was only a matter of time before he would ally with E. Plus, I wanted R in my corner, since it was apparent that he was an "honest" player. I spent a good deal of effort getting G to stab R. Then, G's attack on R allowed me to make nice with R and finish off T. The rest of the game was spent fighting with E for R's friendship. There's nothing like having an ally who will trust you blindly. R hoped for a compromise with an ARE, but it was a hopeless cause, as ARE would lead to an English solo (GI were E's puppets by now). I warned R repeatedly, but he wouldn't listen. My biggest mistake in the game occured when the 3rd G came in. Right before R was about to get some Turk centers, I should have stabbed R. In retrospect, it was the last real chance to stop E. G at least appeared interested in the possibility of him tyring to hit E, while I could attack R. Unfortunately, I just completely missed the opportunity. I hadn't looked at the board closely for weeks, and I paid the price. By the time I saw it, it was too late; R was going to get builds off of Italy's holdings in Turkey, which would make my attack futile and collapse Italy's defense against E. I eventually reluctantly went along with RAE, since E was breaking into the Med, thanks to the Russian attack on Italy's Turkish possesions. So out of desperation I hoped to get Italy's centers before E did, although it was a hopeless effort. Not content with being fooled into thinking E wouldn't win in an ARE allinace, R then decided to go for an ER alliance and attack me. E finally stabbed R, and IG were uninterested in making a last stand against E. So, I attacked R to get this game over with and to grub for centers. England: An excellently played game. He dominated the diplomacy in this game from start to finish. I always felt like he was one step ahead of me everywhere. France: He ended up the odd man out of the Western triangle, didn't really get to do much. Germany 1: Got himself in central European wars without watching his back, and paid the price. Germany 2,3: By the time they came in, there roles were being defined by the larger powers. I misplayed my dealings with them badly, especially the 3rd German, by not finding them an alternative to serving E. Italy 1,2: I don't feel they ever really got going, as theirs roles were defined for most of the game by fighting T then trying to defend the Western med. Turkey1: It was readily apparent he was a good player. However, he never got going when the early alliances went against him. Turkey2,3: Things were getting too messy to my North to allow T to develop, so I wanted him eliminated. Russia: An honest player who didn't stab. I based a lot of my play on this by courting him heavily for an alliance once I realized how he played. However, E's stronger ties with R, combined with R's lack of respect for tatical and strategic considerations, contributed a lot to the English win. Austria: Once school started, I didn't have much time to spend on Diplomacy. Often times I was in "auto-pilot," not really looking for new strategies or tactics. I blew what turned out to be the best chance to stop E by not stabbing R. While R was directly responsible for E winning by attacking Italy, the ultimate responsibility was mine for allowing to reach that point.
This should be it, unless both Germany and Austria suddenly find
some reason to prolong this beyond Thanksgiving.
There was very little diplomacy this turn, but here's what I did:
Germany: At first I was going to just support him in place, but
that meant Austria would have to attack Moscow for me to win. I wanted to
get this over with, and I didn't want to have to rely on Austria, so
Germany and I agreed to let me into Munich for the win. I will support
him in place in Berlin so he can survive.
Austria: Said hello, and wished him good luck in Moscow.
Italy: Told him to hold both of his units, and he agreed.
Russia: Didn't say anything.
The tactics:
F Ion S Italian F Aeg: Just making sure he stays in place. Have
nothing better to do.
F Adr S F Ion: Making sure Ionian is held. Why, I don't know,
but I have to do something.
F Naples C Italian A Ven-Mar: I have to stay in place in Naples
to capture it, and so I'll put in a joke order which provides the Italian
leader with passage to Marseilles, where I have promised him a villa on
the Riviera. That's gratitude for you.
A Tuscany S Italian A Ven: Helping out the Italian, although he
doesn't need it.
F Piedmont C German A Mun-Swi: Germany doesn't know it, but I've
set aside a quaint ski lodge in Switzerland for him, and this order
provides transport.
A Kiel S German A Ber: This will be Germany's last centre, and my
support will enable him to survive against the onslaught of the deprived
Russian hordes.
A Burgundy-Munich: Just in case Austria doesn't hold up his end
of the bargain, Germany will support this move with A Ruhr and A Ber so I
can get Munich and end this puppy.
For my attack on StP, I'm doing the convoy I talked about earlier:
F GoB C A Swe-StP, with support from F Fin and F Bar: It's a
beautiful thing, to finish this off with a convoy. If Austria does his
bit and attacks Moscow, this attack will succeed.
F Nth C A York-Bel, A York-Bel: To capture Belgium from the
German, another convoy.
F Eng-MAt: I heard a few rumours of some pirates on the Barbary
coast. This fleet is headed there to investigate.
So, this should be it. It's been frustrating at times, but
perseverance - my one virtue - has won out. I'll elaborate in my EOG.
Lord Sheringham
----------------[ END OF GAME ]-------------------------
England's EOG for game 'describe':
I must say this is the most unexpected win I've ever had, as
somewhere around 1908 and 1909 I figured the only result possible was a
EAI draw. Everyone was playing things so tightly that I thought it
impossible to get a breakthrough in the Med, which I knew I would have to
have if I was going to win. Austria wasn't going to attack Italy, and he
and I both knew that, and Italy wasn't returning the few things I was
sending him. I figured that I would continue the attack on Italy as far
as it would go, which I didn't think would be very far. I anticipated a
stalemate in the Med, which probably result in me attacking Russia in
order to get things to a three-way draw of EAI. Austria would surely join
me and stop me from getting anywhere near a win, Germany would be
eliminated and that would be that: EAI. However, one or two things
happened which enabled me to avoid the draw and get the win. But that is
a story a little bit down the road...
1901: From the start my main goal was an EG alliance, and I
worked hard on Germany in that first year. EFG all talked about doing a
western triple, but I think we all knew that we were lying and that the
fight would be who got Germany as an ally. However, EFG agreed that
Germany and France would bounce in Burgundy in the Spring as a show of
"trust", and this was fine with me as it meant I would get Belgium. Also,
I worked on Germany to get him to go to Denmark and then bounce the
Russian in Sweden. Apparently, the Tsar got word of this and I think
that's why he had that northern strategy for the first two years of the
game. One thing I elaborated on in my analysis at the time was that I
wanted a strong Austria: a lot of armies in the Eastern side of the board
means less fleets in the Med to block me. That's why I wanted to keep
Russia relatively weak. Austria did turn out to be a strong force in the
game, which is unfortunate because he was an excellent player. But more
on that later. By the end of 1901, I had gotten Norway and Belgium and
Germany bounce Russia from Sweden. Things looked pretty good.
1902: This was the only really scary year for me. In the Spring,
Germany stabbed and eliminated my army in Belgium and it seemed as though
I had lost him to the French. The Russian sent three units to the north,
and it looked as though Norway was also done for. Things were very bad in
the Spring. I immediately set to work on getting Germany back on my side;
he said something about how AI hadn't guaranteed his security or something
like that. I don't remember what I said, but I did manage to get him back
against France. Russia was going to be a different matter, as he was
going to take Norway regardless. Germany and I agreed on a plan that
would let me keep Belgium so I could at least stay at four units. In the
next year, we decided, we would join up with Russia for an EGR alliance.
The Fall plan worked, I kept Belgium and I retreated F Nwy-Nwg with an EGR
in mind, and particularly a quick move to NAt and an attack on the French
position in the MAt. Once 1902 was finished, I felt pretty secure about
surviving the game.
1903: By this time it was very apparent that AI were working
tightly (indeed, the "leasing" of Trieste to Italy for the first year was
proof enough) and that and EGR would be a very good alliance against the
rest of the board. Turkey, assaulted by AI, would have no choice but to
go along with us. So EGR spent this year attacking France and Austria.
We were all very communicative at this time, and basically there were no
surprises. As I broke into the MAt in the Fall, EG were in good position
to take care of France quickly. Although only at 4 units (next to last,
one more unit than Turkey), I felt pretty secure with my allies. Things
were about to happen.
1904: This was the year of greatest EGR cooperation. Germany and
I made some progress in France, and GR armies in the centre attacked the
Austrian (albeit with very little result). Key for me this year was
getting Portugal for a build: France, as part of a last-ditch offer to
turn me, offered an alliance and suggested a set of moves that obviously
left Portugal wide open. I took it from him - one of my several lies in
the game - and if Germany was ever going to attack me, that would have
been the time (he was at seven units). But since I had another build, I
guess he thought Russia would make a better target. In the Fall, Germany
and I dislodged the Russian fleet from the North Sea and Russia disbanded
it so he could rebuild the fleet in Sevastopol. This was the height of
the EGR, and things were going to get very bad for Russia.
1905: Germany tried very hard to convince me to attack Russia
with him. I thought it was a bad idea, as the EGR had not made enough
progress against the rest of the board to make a stab very useful - it
would just give AI the breathing space they needed . I pleaded with him
several times, but to no avail: he was going to attack, and at the time I
had little choice but to go along with him. So we attacked Russia, but in
doing this I made sure to keep my relationship with the Russian honest.
When Russia told me from the start that he was an Honest player, I decided
to do the same in my dealings with him, until I thought a stab useful.
With one very obvious exception I held to this diplomatic tack. Anwyay, I
told Russia that Germany would be stabbing and that I would be forced to
go along with him. I also told him that I would see what I could do about
stabbing the German, but I didn't have the forces to do so in 1905. This
was all true. The German stab worked pretty well, and Russia was reduced
to three centres and EG units totaled 16 at the end of the year. I still
didn't like the straight EG at this time, because we didn't have a
majority of the units; Turkey might have been able to help, but I knew
that Germany and I were making it very tough on ourselves by not getting
past the stalemate lines before stabbing the Russian. I kicked Italy out
of Spain and things were turning the corner. Meanwhile, Austria got back
into Galicia and had survived the GR assault. He was going to be a major
pain in my side for the rest of the game, another reason why I wanted the
EGR to continue; early on, I had noticed Austria's diplomatic skills, and
they were going to be shown in the years to come. But at the end of
the year, I felt that with 7 units and two builds, I finally had the
tactical flexibility that I needed to make the midgame jump.
1906: The Midgame Stab of Germany.
I spent most of my energies this year trying to set up a good stab
of Germany for the Fall. I had to have everything planned out the way I
wanted to, and for the most part I succeeded with making an EG plan which
I could blatantly ignore for my own personal gain. While doing this, I
also kept close communication with Russia, advising him of German moves
and of my coming stab. Since I was so busy with this, I didn't really
realize the growth of the AR relationship, which would soon become the
most annoying thing in the game from my point of view. Anyway, in the
Fall I ripped off Germany pretty good: I took Brest, Holland and Sweden
from him and had maintained my relations with Russia in the process. In
fact, I had offered Russia possession of Norway that turn, but then I took
it back, because I figured I would need the extra build to finish the job
on Germany in the following seasons. I promised Russia Norway and Sweden
eventually, and he agreed. Meanwhile, in the Fall, Austria ordered his
first support for Russia, a support of his A War. Italy was heading west
to stop me around Spain, but I figured I wouldn't have to worry about him
once I got a few more builds from attacking Germany. I used my three new
builds on three armies, which were going to get to the Continent as
quickly as possible.
1907: This was the year where the alliance structure which would
make things so static later on began. The main players: ER were allied,
AI were allied, AR were allied, and all of ARI were attacking Turkey.
Looking back at this year after the game, I think that Austria would have
done himself more good if he had gone ahead and attacked Russia. Even if
RT had cooperated defensively, they only had a total of 7 units at this
time, and one of those was a Russian army in StP. I think Italy and
Austria could have quickly gotten a leg up on RT while Germany was busy
stalling me in the West. If things had followed this course, we would
have gotten an EAI, I believe, the same result I thought was going to
happen and which was probably Austria's more preferred result later on.
Of course, during this time my plan was to quickly prop up Russia and have
ERT attack the rest of the board. I ran into the big problem here:
Russia and Austria were allied, and no matter how hard I tried, Russia
wasn't going to attack Austria. Instead, RIA were going to attack Turkey.
Very bad. Things got worse when Italy and France knocked me out of Spain
in the Fall and I went down to 9 units, and Austria got more of Germany
than I did when he grabbed Munich. At this point, I was wondering why the
hell I had stabbed Germany in the first place. My stab had given the
initiative back to Austria, and he had taken advantage of the situation to
get himself back into a strong position.
1908: I forgot that in Fall 1907, I gave "permission" for Russia to move
back into Norway. As I said, when 1908 began, things were bad. I knew I
didn't have the forces to strongly attack Italy, and so I decided to annoy
him as much as possible by moving to North Africa. I just wanted to keep
him busy, and at the worst I'd be able to fall back to the Atlantic
stalemate position of F Por, F MAt and F Eng. The key for me was the
centre: I could have gotten both Paris and Belgium from Germany in the
Fall of 1908, but to have done so would have put AR on the doorstep in
Germany. Seeing as how Italy was trying to push his armies through
southern France at the same time, I decided to try to get Germany's help
against Austria in Munich. Even though this was the same German I had
stabbed earlier (the second one; the first left the season before the
stab), this wasn't too difficult. I pointed out that if EAR all attacked
like they should, he'd be at one unit instead of three. So, in one of the
most important moves of the game for me, Germany and I got his Berlin army
(which was being attacked by AR units that turn) to Munich and closed off
the Austrian's retreat to Burgundy with the German A Bel-Bur. As long as
Germany (or whoever was playing Germany) was friendly, I'd protect him and
keep the centre clear of Austrians, which was my main goal at this stage of
the game. Austria's diplomatic pull was strong enough, and a few more
units would make it worse.
1909: This was the first really boring year. AR would attack Germany in
Munich both turns, but since Russia was telling me that he would support
Austria's attack, I would just move F Bal-Ber to cut that unit's support
and keep Germany in place. My diplomatic efforts to break up AR failed,
and it didn't look as though Turkey was going to survive much longer. The
key that Spring was getting France's help into Spain. He had helped Italy
previously, but I pointed out how the Italian position would soon envelop
his garrison in Marseilles, and he agreed to help me into Spain. In the
Fall, I attempted to get Germany's help of A Bur S F Spa(sc)-Mar, but he
seemed to have lost interest at this point (or more likely, he was getting
sick of me), and he didn't give the order. So instead of getting both
Spain and Marseilles, I only got the former and had pissed off the French
by trying to get the latter. To make things worse, my German puppet wasn't
even taking orders correctly. (Hrumph.) But at least Austria and Italy
weren't getting any more builds: by knocking them out of Munich and Spain
in consecutive years, they were not able to profit from Turkey's demise.
Russia did, but since he was my friend, I could live with that. But when
he used that build to make a fleet in StP(sc), I wondered what he had in
mind for me.
1910: This was the year in which I won the game; alas, I have to admit,
none of it was my doing.
I asked Russia about the fleet build in StP, and he said that he
was allowed to build a fleet on the south coast according to our pact. (I
had forgotten this.) I had talked to Austria about jointly attacking
Russia at this time, before the Russian had gotten back to me about the
fleet build. Austria was very interested, and I used this fact several
times in the next two years to help break apart the annoying AR friendship.
Still, I didn't think I was going anywhere. I saw how I could make
a little progress against Italy, but eventually I figured he'd stop me by
bringing another fleet west from Turkey. At this point, I was just going
to play out the string, get stopped in the Med, then turn on Russia and
finish in an EAI draw.
During this time, Russia, Austria and I were all talking about an
RAE endgame, but Austria wouldn't attack Italy because it would give me a
good chance at a solo. In discussing these things, Austria would always
point out the tactical advantage I had of having the German centres of
Belgium and Paris behind my lines, and the fact that I could quickly rip
off some Russian and Italian centres and perhaps get the win. I never
bothered to try to refute Austria in tactical terms, because he was
correct.
Anyway, the final German - the good one - showed up this Spring,
and he offered his help toward a win. I accepted, and from then on every
order he made was asked for by me. A nice chap.
When the Spring results came through, I finally got the break I was
looking for. Austria and Italy were obviously trading Constantinople and
Serbia. Any Russian attack on Italy's possessions of Con and Smyrna would
enable an English breakthrough into the Med. I wrote Russia about this,
asking for his help against Italy, and he quickly agreed. Really, I think
it had very little to do with any shortcomings in Italy's press to Russia
and more to do with the fact that Russia, throughout the game, was
committed to attacking players that he did not have a "relationship" with.
When he told me he was going to attack Italy, I jumped for joy. Key in
this was finally permitting the Russian to take Sweden from me in the Fall.
With the build, he was able to make an A Sev with which he could put more
pressure on the Italian.
Tactically, not much went on this year besides the swap of Ser and
Con. But that had given me the opportunity to get at Italy through
diplomatic means via Russia. As soon as I saw that army built in Sev, I
was pretty sure I'd find a way to win.
1911: The spring of this year was the most diplomatically intense of the
game for me. Nothing was really happening on the board - except that I
dislodged Italy from the WMed - but the action that counted was going on
over the wires.
Soon after Russia built A Sev, Austria wrote to AER, saying that he
wanted such a draw but that I would have to pull back from protecting
Munich, give up Kiel and Denmark to Russia, and basically assure AR that I
wouldn't have much ammo with which to pursue a solo. Again, I didn't try
to respond in tactical terms, because Austria was completely right and any
attempt on my part to refute him would have been a weak argument. What I
did do was respond in terms that Russia could appreciate. Austria and I
both knew, I think, that Russia's direction in the endgame would be the
key; whoever could persuade him better would achieve his desired outcome.
So what I did was respond to AR saying that conceding centres that
I had earned through stabs and efficient tactics was against my "sense of
the game." All they had done was to sit around and watch me do the work.
Austria, of course, didn't appreciate my meta-diplomacy, but Russia said
that he understood both Austria's and my point of view. That was fine with
me - as long as Russia continued attacking Italy, I didn't care if I only
got a split of opinion.
Austria wrote back to EAR, saying that if my sense of the game was
to be given a solo on a silver platter, then he was indeed violating it. I
ignored this, and decided to work on Russia a bit more. Here's the message
I sent him at this point. I include it here because I think it was very
important in setting up for the stab and the win.
**********
Message from England to Russia in 'describe':
Russia,
Interesting messages floating about, eh?
I feel the need to discuss something with you, and that something
is my relationship with Austria.
He, more than any other player, has been my enemy in this game.
Although I haven't really attacked him (I supported a German army into Mun
when he owned it - that's it), he's been anti-English for almost the
entire game. He's countered my growth everywhere with his diplomatic
efforts (skillful, I'll admit) and only because of some luck am I at ten
centres now.
And I'm sure that you sense this now in his messages; the tone of
them is VERY anti-English, and I really do think that he is trying to
strongarm me dipomatically when he has no right to do so. I welcomed your
admission that you wouldn't want to give up the centres you had gained
either because it meant that I wasn't losing my mind.
In short, I really don't feel as though I owe the Austrian
anything. I'm allied with you, you're allied with him, but I've never felt
for a second that I was allied with Austria, particularly with his
anti-English tone. With this in mind, please try to understand why I'm not
thrilled with his suggestions; if done, I feel that he would have gained
the "supremacy" in the Austro-English diplomatic war. Now, I might lose
military wars, and that's fine, but I really dislike losing the diplomatic
wars. As you might have noticed, I talk a lot: no player I've ever played
with talks as much as me, and no one I know works harder, and hence I have
a lot of pride in the diplomatic side of the game, and this makes losing
the diplomatic war very difficult. See what I mean?
Another thing, which you can do with as you will. I believe
Austria is being disingenuous. In my opinion, he sought to ally with you
solely to prevent you from attacking him. By offering to help you with
Turkey, he gained a theatre in which he could work with you and win your
trust. Very good diplomacy on his part, but I think your alliance with
him was one of desperation on his side. As I said earlier, when I
broached the idea of a three-way draw of AIE (after that F StP(sc) build
when I thought you might be hostile), he was very interested in attacking
you. Germany, who has been very busy diplomatically, said today that
Austria was considering attacking you in the Fall. Now, I trust Germany
for more than I trust Austria, and I trust G just as much as I trust
you, and I see little reason for him to say this unless it were true.
Again, all of this is just my opinion, and I welcome discussion on these
points with you.
Now the bombshell: I would much prefer a three-way draw WITHOUT
Austria. Gulp. Yes, I said that. No offence, but in this game I've
always felt that our opinions, when in conflict, have ended up being
resolved in your favour. (Attacking Turkey and your continued hostility
to Germany being the prime examples.) I just want you to know that I
have my convictions as well, and on some of them I will stand firm. I
realize that a three-way draw without Austria is not very feasible, but it
is my preference, and I feel that I should be honest and say it outright
so that you see the rationale behind my actions.
Those are the kinds of things I'm thinking at this point, and in
light of this the only thing I can do is continue to defend Germany and
attack Italy. (In other words, F Bal-Ber again.)
Please write back soon so we can discuss these matters in detail.
Lord Sheringham
************
The goal in this, obviously, was to detach myself from a potential
EAR draw. Thereafter, anything I said against an EAR would have been
already explained in the message and I would be provided with greater
freedom. I knew at this point that I needed to help Russia feel secure
about the endgame, in order to stab him, and so this is when I began
contemplating the notion of an EGR to lull Russia's suspicions just enough
so I could stab him.
Anyway, on the board, things went very well, and when Russia moved
A Sev-Arm in the Spring, that's when Italy offered his units up to me in
retaliation. From that point on, every Italian order was made by me. I
got into Tunis, got a very needed build, and used Italian units to keep
Austria out of Venice. I don't know really what was going with AR during
the time, but I hope some of the other EOG's will provide some light.
1912-3: The stab and the win
Things were all set for a Spring stab of Russia. I knew Italy was
my puppet, and Germany was a very cooperative puppet, and if the stab went
off successfully, I'd win very soon.
The key here was to lull any Russian suspicions as much as
possible. Germany had played very nice with Russia (a tactic we agreed
on), and this is when I formally suggested an EGR. To go with this, I
provided a fairly detailed tactical plan for EGR units which would
necessitate Russia keeping his A Swe in place during the Spring, which is
all I needed for a pretty good stab in Scandinavia.
Germany's EOG suggested that I didn't think he knew the EGR was an
illusion. I thought he understood that all along.
Anyway, the stab went off very well, and the rest of the game was
just moving pieces around. I did ask Austria to attack Russia at the end,
just to guarantee StP and the win in 1913, but really I think Austria
wanted to do so anyway.
Russia said in his EOG that together, AIRG had a chance to stop me.
Tactically, that's certainly true. But getting both IG to do a 180 (and
in Italy's case, completely against his motivations) would have
necessitated some pretty difficult diplomacy. Their courses were already
set, and I made sure to be very nice and entertaining and to say thank you
very often. Consideration and gratitude can be very important.
Continually promising their survival, and making it very obvious that I was
making the tactical plans to do so, also made their decision easy, I think.
For individual players:
The collection of Turkish sultans: They never got very far, but in all
they were very nice and I did try to keep them alive as long as possible,
but Russia wouldn't join them against Austria.
France: Survived for a long time between English and Italian forces, and
that's quite an accomplishment. But in the years of the EG attack on
France, both Germany and I were not too impressed by his tactics; EG made
progress far too quickly.
Italy: The black hole of communication. I talked to the first Italy a
little bit, but never really got anything going with him. The second Italy
and I hardly talked at all after the first year of his appearance, which is
unfortunate, because the few messages that I did see from him were
hilarious. The broadcast and comment on Russia's "coalition" message was
classic.
Germany: The first one was not very flexible, but he was a skilled
tactician and apparently communicated quite a bit. The second was not
nearly as communicative, but made the big German stab easier. The third
German might have been my saving grace. I counted on him quite a bit near
the end, and Kaiser Willy has my thanks for his help.
Austria: You played a very conservative game, but that's because you had
to. Overall, you were my chief opponent, although our units never really
went at it. If I were to offer one criticism, it's that you didn't talk
enough in meta-diplomacy terms, which Russia would appreciate. Tactically,
your complaints were dead-on, but your real audience, Russia, didn't think
in those terms. But then, I don't know the whole story of AR relations and
this could be totally off-base.
Russia: I never really felt we were allied, and that certainly made my
stabbing you easier. We never agreed much on policy, your aggression
against Turkey and Germany, for example, was against my wishes. In
particular, the combat around Germany, where I cut your A Ber support for
several straight turns, was pretty farcical. I would have to say I did
appreciate a very quiet Scandinavia. Also, I'll say that I didn't think
you thought enough about the tactical situation, instead playing the game
in diplomatic terms: for example you had your "friendships" with AE, and
since Italy wasn't one of your friends, you attacked him, even though it
would lead to an English win. The board is the only truth in the game, and
I think you didn't place enough weight on what was happening there. But
again, I could very well be wrong.
Anyway, it was fun and very tightly played throughout. Thanks to all,
especially Simon, and I can't wait to see what everyone was thinking in the
DipPouch. (One more thing: no, I am not English, although I am an
Anglo-phile. The centres, theatres, honour, colour, etc. were just
role-play. And Teddy Sheringham is a player on my favourite football club:
Tottenham Hotspur, in north London. COME ON YOU SPURS!!!!)
Lord Sheringham (Grant Flowers)
No analysis submitted
---Overall impression--- E is going to win this turn. ---1-Move Justification---- My three units A Ruh, A Mun, and A Ber are going to move to support England getting into Mun and me keeping Ber (my survival unit) A Munich to Bohemia is designed to vacate Munich to let E Army Burgundy in. A Ruhr is supporting E A Bur-Mun. It's support shouldn't be needed. A Berlin will continue to hold and will (hopefully) get support from E A Kie. ---2- Intentions with regards to other powers--- E-I will help E get his victory this turn by Sacrificing Bel (no choice there) and Munich. This should give him 18 or 19 centers (depending on the outcome in StP. ---3-Overall situation--- England has a forced win. Not much else to say. Kaiser Willy Jr Germany Mike McMillie Greetings to those leaders of the game Describe from the third German Ruler. -------------------[German EOG]----------------------------------- Taking over a "mercy" position in 1910 can be a difficult thing as most alliances have been set, and everyone knows everyone else. But it is especially tough when caught between a powerful Russia and England, with Austria banging on my heels. My goal for this position was not one of winning (no way that would happen, and even a draw was questionable), but mearly surviving and my efforts were directed that way. My initial efforts were to court Austria, England and Russia and see where I could get the best deal. Austria sent one very non-commital press and continued to attack. Russia (who I initially thought I wanted to side with sent nothing and continued to support the Austrian attack. England basically said "Sure, I'll let you be my puppet and I'll let you keep Munich". Puppet is better than death given my goal. This did not stop me from asking Austria or Russia for an alliance (and to stop attacking Munich), but got no commitment. But until 1911, I received no reply. England offered up an "alliance", with me and the Czar being the sharing powers. I knew all along that it was a trap, but hopefully did not let on. Eventually, this lead to the recapture of Berlin and the big English stab in Scandanavia. Overall, (and remember all I saw was from 1910 onward), I found England to be a strong player, that would listen to me and understood my goal. I enjoyed talking strategy with him, and learned a great deal. I also enjoyed our short discussions on sports and the like. Thanks Grant for all the good times! -I hardly got to know F before I gave support from Burgundy to help eliminate him in Mar. -Italy seemed like a good player, but once he got stabbed by Russia in Turkey, I did not hear from him. His assistance in the Med was crucial to E's victory. Vendettas on a Diplomacy board can be a very powereful tool, but don't keep it a secret. -Austria was very good at saying words and not passing any useful information. He eventually realized the English victory was going to happen and just helped. If I ever meet him again on a Dip board, I shall be wary of his words, but will take his advice on the overall situation as he does have a good eye for the board. -Russia is a very complex player that was also difficult to crack. Very trusting (which can be good and bad in this game), he bit on the prospect held out by England of the 3-way (E/G/R), but given the help of Italy in the south, this was probably a false hope. (his stab of Italy was good unless Italy completely turned. Unfortunately this is what happened). I actually have a great deal of respect for Russia as he is honorable, unlike the rest of us scoundrels. I hope to meet him again on a board and this time be good "hunting" buddies. Thanks again everyone. I hope my pickup of the position didn't upset the game too badly and was only a logical extension of potential German policies and diplomacy. Thanks again to Simon the GM. Good job and I look forward to more of your articles in Dip World. I hope I get to play in another of your games sometime or maybe even meet you across the board, but I need to practice some first:-). Time for Travel and Thanksgiving Turkey! Yours Mike McMillie (Kaiser Willy Jr) Germany Describe
EOG STATEMENT - ITALY - DESCRIBE First off, congrats to Grant for his victory. In keeping with the level of effort that I was able to devote to this game, I'll try to keep this commentary short. With the birth of my first child, a girl, I found my Diplomacy time cut to almost nil! I took over Italy in the early stages, and had to scramble to unravel all the threads of alliances and hostilities. It was apparent that Austria was friendly to my predecessor, and he extended that friendship to me. At that time, it was an alliance of opportunity rather than necessity, although that was to change. Never having played Italy, I was unsure of how to maintain the power balance, while at the same time looking for expansion possibilities. Together with A, I negotiated a pact with T, allowing me turn my efforts to Iberia, despite the constant barrage of press from E. I was able to capture Spain, but could not force my way into Marseilles to allow advancement into France. E and I exchanged a fair number of meaningless platitudes, while continuing to dance around the line drawn in the sand, neither of us gaining much ground. Somewhat later, when Austria suggested that Turkey should be reduced, I agreed, not caring for the possibility of being pinned between the witches' fleets. I dispatched a couple of units, and was able to secure Smyrna. Austria took Con, and Russia Ankara. Next came the crucial moment which in my opinion allowed E's victory. A & I arranged to trade Serbia for Con, which would consolidate both our holdings. I took Con, giving full explanations to Russia that the fleets would rapidly depart Turkey to fight the British. You'll have to excuse my bitterness, but I'm still shaking my head at what happened next. Either Russia feared my two fleets could somehow make their way to Moscow, or perhaps he figured that I was insincere in my claim that those centers were crucial in keeping E out of the Med. Whatever the reason, he cleverly stabbed me for a single center, which denied me a desperately needed build, and collapsed my defense against E. In dispair rather than in retribution, I offered puppethood to England in hopes of survival. Within a year, he accepted that my offer was genuine, and the game was reduced to a tactical exercise, at which he succeded admirably. My only other comment is in voicing my disappoinment with Austria's indecision. I think he tried to befriend everyone, and satisfied noone. With the powerful array of armies at his disposal, it was likely that he could have seized enough of Russia to form a line, and force an AIE draw. Ah, hindsight. Also, I felt betrayed by his apparent indifference to Russia's selfishness and at that point felt justified in realigning myself with England. To me, there was only one winner in this game. The survival of both Germany and Italy is just as significant as the gains made by A & R, and I tip my hat to Grant for not having to eliminate his vassals in his bid for victory. There is indeed greatness in a name! Grant Current Ontario, Canada "Italiano", Describe, EFF
Here is my EOG statement.
I had fun thru out the game and I never gave up even when it looked like
I was dead. Austria came to my rescue first when we were basically at
war in the begining since Turkey, myself, and Austria could not come to
agreements on how we could work together. Turkey was my first ally and
I stuck with him the whole time until the change of government, and also
stuck with him then for awhile. I could not let all of Turkey fall into
the hands of Austria and Italy.
However, I also got help from England who actually helped my first demise
with Germany, but then he decided to backstab Germany and help me come
back. Unfortunately, he decided that he could not have a 3-way end game
and decided to go for the solo victory, which Austria warned me about.
However, I decided that England was a very trustworthy player at that
point and I felt I understood where he was coming from, I was wrong and
unfortunately shortly after that he won the game.
I feel that I may have been able to cause a stalemate with the help of
Germany and Italy and Austria, but they did not way to they wanted to
finish the game with at least one supply center for sure (which means
nothing). Austria decided this year to attack me because he wanted the
game to be over before Thanksgiving. Such is life as a ruler.
Tzar Nikolai (Steven Stuart)
Russia
Describe
---------[Second EOG]---------------------------------
I feel that I must put out another EOG. This is more to explain my
way of playing. Unfortunately, from the beginning nothing really had
gone my way except my alliance with the first Turkish player. As a
Russian player diplomacy is the most important part of the game. This is
because you start out fighting a possible four front war, and four and
hopefully six units after the first year could not support something like
that.
In a way I feel lucky to still be alive at end game, because I was
sure that I was going to be destroyed after I went down in units. Yes, I
am an honest player or at least as much as a diplomacy player can be.
When I felt like I was allied with players and I was going to attack them
I would warn them first. In most games this is at a time when it would
not matter what they do. In this game I knew that I could not
completely trust either Austria or England and I knew that they were
mortal enemies or at least appeared to be. I had to constantly try to
appease both of them as to why I would not attack the other. One of the
reasons is because I knew that if I attacked one the other would probably
come from behind. This is why I never played a tactical game in this one
because I always had two fronts and if I left one too open I was
history. At the end I felt like I had to make a decision (more from
England then from Austria, but from him as well) of am I going to be
England's ally or Austria's ally. I knew tactically that England would
be able to take me out much faster then Austria would have been able to,
so I decided to jump in heads first and hope that it was deep water and
not very cloudy dark shallow water. Well i informed Austria that I would
be attacking him and gave him one turn to prepare for it. When I
positioned my units in that area, England made his move. At this point I
knew there was nothing I could do, my units in the North would get
crushed and unless I could get the rest of the countries to stand against
England he would win. I prefer playing a tactical/Strategic game
however, I never could get myself in a position to play that way and this
was because I could not bring myself to fully trust either Austria or
England. From the EOG's of them I feel it was good that I was playing
that way. However, their EOG's also proved that no matter what I did I
was not going to win.
It was a good game, I think that both England and Austria were good
tacticians even though Austria did not get much of a chance to show it as
well. Engand's Diplomacy was good in such that he was able to talk in
such a way as the other player would understand. Which is why I decided
to attack Austria, even though I was pretty sure that England would
attack me. However, during the whole time I had to constantly say that
he would never attack me, which was to give my attacking Austria
backing. All in all it was a well played game and I wish that I could
have come out better.
Steven Stuart
Tzar Nikolai
Russia
Describe
No analysis submitted