| Broadcasts for Fall of 1913 in describe |
Movement
Fellow Players,
If things continue as they are going, the game will be over this
turn. My orders are already in and I have NOT set wait, so as soon as the
rest of you put orders in, we can get this done and get fat on Turkey and
stuffing and watch very important college football games and not have to
ask for an extension to do so.
Thanks.
Lord Sheringham
I'm extending the deadling for the Thanksgiving holiday. Feel free
to get your moves in before leaving, and have a happy Thanksgiving.
- Simon
Retreats
Italy - you mean I was fighting someone with my own name all
that time?! Pretty weird.
> Summary of game 'describe' through F1913R.
>
> Master: Simon Szykman [email protected]
> Austria: Alex Hsu [email protected]
> England: Grant Flowers [email protected]
> France: Lex Allison [email protected]
> Germany: Paul Phillip Lacey [email protected]
> from S1906R: Thomas Altmeyer [email protected]
> from S1910M: Michael G. McMillie [email protected]
> Italy: Christopher Welser [email protected]
> from S1905M: Grant Current [email protected]
> Russia: Steven Stuart [email protected]
> Turkey: Jonathan S. Tan [email protected]
> from S1907R: Matthew R. Schwab [email protected]
> from F1908M: Denis Reilly [email protected]
>
> Historical Supply Center Summary
> --------------------------------
> Ven Nap Edi Lvp Par Por Bel Mun Ber Swe Stp Mos Con Smy Rum Ser Vie
> Year Rom Tun Lon Bre Mar Spa Hol Kie Den Nor War Sev Ank Bul Gre Bud Tri
> 1900 I I I . E E E F F F . . . . G G G . . . R R R R T T T . . . . A A A
> 1901 I I I . E E E F F F F F E G G G G G . E R R R R T T T T R A A A A I
> 1902 I I I I E E E F F F F F E G G G G G G R R R R R T T T A A A I A A A
> 1903 I I I I E E E F F F F F E G G G G G G R R R R R T T T A A A I A A A
> 1904 I I I I E E E G F F E F E G G G G G G R R R R R T T T A A A I A A A
> 1905 I I I I E E E G G F E E E G G G G G G E R G R R T T T A A A I A A A
> 1906 I I I I E E E E G F E E E E G G G G E E R R R T T T T A A A I A A A
> 1907 I I I I E E E E G F E I G E A E G E E R R R R R T T T A A A I A A A
> 1908 I I I I E E E E G F E I G E G E R E E R R R R R A T T A A A I A A A
> 1909 I I I I E E E E G F E E G E G E R E E R R R R R A R I A A A I A A A
> 1910 I I I I E E E E G E E E G E G E R E R R R R R R I R I A A A A A A A
> 1911 I I I E E E E E G E E E G E G E R E R R R R R R R R I A A A A A A A
> 1912 I E I E E E E E E E E E G E G E G E E E R R R R R R R A A A A A A A
> 1913 I E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E G E E E E R A A R R R A A A A A A A
>
>
> History of Supply Center Counts
> -------------------------------
> Power 1900 '01 '02 '03 '04 '05 '06 '07 '08 '09 Player
> Austria 3 4 6 6 6 6 6 7 7 7 Alex Hsu
> England 3 5 4 4 5 7 10 9 9 10 Grant Flowers
> France 3 5 5 5 3 1 1 1 1 1 Lex Allison
> Germany 3 5 6 6 7 9 \ Paul Phillip Lacey
> 5 3 3 3 Thomas Altmeyer
> Italy 3 4 5 5 5 \ Christopher Welser
> 5 5 6 6 6 Grant Current
> Russia 4 5 5 5 5 3 3 5 6 7 Steven Stuart
> Turkey 3 4 3 3 3 3 4 \ Jonathan S. Tan
> 3 \ Matthew R. Schwab
> 2 Denis Reilly
> Index: 10 21 24 24 25 30 30 30 30 34
>
> Power 1910 '11 '12 '13 Player
> Austria 7 7 7 9 Alex Hsu
> England 10 11 15* 19 Grant Flowers
> Germany 3 3 3 1 Michael G. McMillie
> Italy 6 4 2 1 Grant Current
> Russia 8 9 7 4 Steven Stuart
> Index: 36 39 48 65
>
> * = 1 unused build.
>
> Index is the sum of squares of the number of supply centers divided by the
> number of players. It is a measure of how far the game has progressed.
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
I'm doing this in two parts, since I don't have time to do the
entire thing. I had the honour of having just finished playing in a game
with Dan Shoham, and he sent out a 1,045 line EOG. Perhaps inspired by
him, mine will be long, but not THAT long.
So this is Part I:
> 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.
>
>
> I will leave off here and write the second part later.
>
> Lord Sheringham
Greetings to those leaders of the game Describe from the third German
Ruler.
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
Congrats to E on a well deserved win. I'll send out my EOG after
Thanksgiving.
Alex Hsu
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
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.
Here is the second part of my EOG. I'm sorry that it's so long,
but once I got started in detail I kind of had to continue that way. Much
to my annoyance, but here it is in all its glory.
England's EOG, Part II:
> 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)
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
Congratulations to England for a game well-played, and thanks to
everyone for participating in my experiment to capture Diplomacy
strategy and rationale as the game is played out. I appreciate
everyone's having taken the extra time to provide information
which hopefully will be of use to others.
Now that the three showcase games are over, I'll have to get my
act together and put everything up on the web. Hopefully it
won't take too long.
Thanks again. Here's the game summary:
Summary of game 'describe' through F1913R.
Master: Simon Szykman [email protected]
Austria: Alex Hsu [email protected]
England: Grant Flowers [email protected]
France: Lex Allison [email protected]
Germany: Paul Phillip Lacey [email protected]
from S1906R: Thomas Altmeyer [email protected]
from S1910M: Michael G. McMillie [email protected]
Italy: Christopher Welser [email protected]
from S1905M: Grant Current [email protected]
Russia: Steven Stuart [email protected]
Turkey: Jonathan S. Tan [email protected]
from S1907R: Matthew R. Schwab [email protected]
from F1908M: Denis Reilly [email protected]
Game Started: Mon Dec 11 11:48:33 1995
Game won: Wed Nov 27 13:52:48 1996
The game was won by England.
Historical Supply Center Summary
--------------------------------
Ven Nap Edi Lvp Par Por Bel Mun Ber Swe Stp Mos Con Smy Rum Ser Vie
Year Rom Tun Lon Bre Mar Spa Hol Kie Den Nor War Sev Ank Bul Gre Bud Tri
1900 I I I . E E E F F F . . . . G G G . . . R R R R T T T . . . . A A A
1901 I I I . E E E F F F F F E G G G G G . E R R R R T T T T R A A A A I
1902 I I I I E E E F F F F F E G G G G G G R R R R R T T T A A A I A A A
1903 I I I I E E E F F F F F E G G G G G G R R R R R T T T A A A I A A A
1904 I I I I E E E G F F E F E G G G G G G R R R R R T T T A A A I A A A
1905 I I I I E E E G G F E E E G G G G G G E R G R R T T T A A A I A A A
1906 I I I I E E E E G F E E E E G G G G E E R R R T T T T A A A I A A A
1907 I I I I E E E E G F E I G E A E G E E R R R R R T T T A A A I A A A
1908 I I I I E E E E G F E I G E G E R E E R R R R R A T T A A A I A A A
1909 I I I I E E E E G F E E G E G E R E E R R R R R A R I A A A I A A A
1910 I I I I E E E E G E E E G E G E R E R R R R R R I R I A A A A A A A
1911 I I I E E E E E G E E E G E G E R E R R R R R R R R I A A A A A A A
1912 I E I E E E E E E E E E G E G E G E E E R R R R R R R A A A A A A A
1913 I E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E G E E E E R A A R R R A A A A A A A
History of Supply Center Counts
-------------------------------
Power 1900 '01 '02 '03 '04 '05 '06 '07 '08 '09 Player
Austria 3 4 6 6 6 6 6 7 7 7 Alex Hsu
England 3 5 4 4 5 7 10 9 9 10 Grant Flowers
France 3 5 5 5 3 1 1 1 1 1 Lex Allison
Germany 3 5 6 6 7 9 \ Paul Phillip Lacey
5 3 3 3 Thomas Altmeyer
Italy 3 4 5 5 5 \ Christopher Welser
5 5 6 6 6 Grant Current
Russia 4 5 5 5 5 3 3 5 6 7 Steven Stuart
Turkey 3 4 3 3 3 3 4 \ Jonathan S. Tan
3 \ Matthew R. Schwab
2 Denis Reilly
Index: 10 21 24 24 25 30 30 30 30 34
Power 1910 '11 '12 '13 Player
Austria 7 7 7 9 Alex Hsu
England 10 11 15* 19 Grant Flowers
Germany 3 3 3 1 Michael G. McMillie
Italy 6 4 2 1 Grant Current
Russia 8 9 7 4 Steven Stuart
Index: 36 39 48 65
* = 1 unused build.
Index is the sum of squares of the number of supply centers divided by the
number of players. It is a measure of how far the game has progressed.
From - Sat Sep 13 19:31:55 1997
Return-Path: [email protected]
Received: from greatdane.webnexus.com (greatdane.webnexus.com [165.227.96.3]) by acm.cs.umn.edu (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id NAA11286 for ; Sat, 13 Sep 1997 13:08:00 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from mobile.diplom.org (mobile.diplom.org [205.179.145.134])
by greatdane.webnexus.com (8.8.7/8.8.5/WN-1.2) with SMTP id LAA02925;
Sat, 13 Sep 1997 11:19:15 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <[email protected]>
X-Sender: [email protected]
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.3 (32)
Date: Sat, 13 Sep 1997 11:13:15 -0700
To: [email protected], [email protected]
From: "David C. Kovar"
Subject: Re: Judge: History de-archiving request
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-UIDL: 38e4861492b5138b866a1242740ea9e7
Status: U
X-Mozilla-Status: 0011
I found three of the four and just mailed them to you. I'll see if I can
find who.
-David
At 02:09 AM 9/11/97 -0500, Ry4an Brase wrote:
>Hello, I'm the new Dip Pouch council member handling the Showcase
>section. I'm trying to gather the histories of a few games that seem be
>to offline. Were the games below archived or perhaps lost:
> describe
> explain
> justify
> who
>
>Some of them of pretty old, but if you could either put them back online
>or email them to me, I'd appreciate it very much.
>
>thanks for your time,
>Ry4an
>
>--
>Ry4an Brase - http://acm.cs.umn.edu/~ry4an - 612-624-0496
>'If you're not a rebel when you're 20 you've got no heart; if
> you're not establishment when you're 30 you've got no brain.'
>
>