Year 1 Grades:

ENGLAND: A-

Getting two builds as ENG in the first year is quite a large achievement, and similar to Turkey the extra build makes it far less enticing for you to be looked upon as a target by your neighbors. You look to have coordinated well, and pulled the board not only in your favor in terms of not being a target, but also giving yourself potential to expand more in the coming years. The only thinking keeping you from getting a straight A is the French fleet in Portugal, which would have been better served in Spain for your purposes. Sure, it’s just as close to you whether it is in Spain or Portugal, but it takes an extra move for that fleet to make it to the Med when it is in Portugal. In terms of your path to 18, all things look good. Confusion in the East, and a route that seems manageable for you to expand through.

FRANCE: B

A two build year with no imminent threats is a good place to be. Also, it looks like there is a pretty clear direction that you have established – another good thing. I’ve already discussed why I think the bounce in Piedmont was much more beneficial for Italy than yourself, but it’s not the end of the world. The army in Ruhr can do many things and it will be interesting to see where this takes you. The reason I worry, and why I grade this a B is that you may have positioned yourself to get less of the gains out of your movement into GER. On the surface level it looks like ENG is poised to pick up more of the centers, and that is a dangerous position to put yourself in – so it will be up to you to make sure you aren’t being taken advantage of in any alliance.

GERMANY: D

Not many things went right for you, and it looks like you are in the worst position after the first year. Luckily for you, that is the topic of the first lecture, and things can turn around quickly so long as your present a strong alterative to one of your foes. Your two builds will help make it a slow process to defeat you and you can control who is able to take centers from you, so I think some appeasement may be in order to help get one of them to take a different direction. The fleet in Sweden is vastly out of position which hurts your ability to defend yourself against ENG fleets, so you’ll have to rely on your tongue to get you out of this position.

RUSSIA: D+

What in the world was this opening? I can’t even speculate on what happened in the North there – as it looks like a misorder and I’m not sure if you were trying to convoy into Sweden or Finland. Livonia is an unusual opening that I don’t see much reason to do as a move to St. Pet puts better pressure on ENG, and a move to Silesia puts better pressure on GER. By nature of the board, RUS will always have a difficult time holding the southern centers such as RUM because of how many neighboring units are south of him and the difficulty he has in being able to support his units there. So if you open north with RUS you have to make it count, and you did not. The reason I bumped this up to a D+ is that you were able to secure Rum, which gives you a much needed build. But much like Germany, you need to come up with some serious reasons for TUR and AUS not to pick up centers you control and cannot adequately defend. You also need to find a use for Livonia, as right now it is a unit that has no relevance on the board.

AUSTRIA: B-

While I can’t say this was a poor first year for you by any stretch of the imagination, I can’t help but feel like you let an opportunity for a great first year slip away. You got two builds and seemingly have no immediate enemy – two great things! Yet I would have liked to see you pick a target. The supported move to Greece shows that you did not trust or communicate well with Turkey, which is surprising considering Turkey’s strong anti-RUS moves. Your units in Bud (and Serbia really) were wasted when they could have achieved many better outcomes, such as a move to Gal, supporting yourself into Rum to bounce RUS, or even getting Turkish support into Rum. Still, you are getting two builds and seemingly have a friendly Italy, a Turkey attempting to position itself to go north and a RUS in a world of hurt. I’d love to see you take more of a direction this next year and become more of a driver of play in the East.

ITALY: A

I don’t see any issues with Italy’s opening and while the movement is pretty standard, many good things happened for Italy. For one, France’s fleet went to Portugal instead of Spain south coast. Pair that with the fact that France has an army in Ruhr it seems likely that at least one of France’s builds will be an army, if not both. A push into the Med seems unlikely for the time being, especially with a two build ENG in the back of France’s mind. Second, TUR only got one build, which means a Lepanto is still very much in play. To me, the trickiest outcome in the first year for ITA is a two build TUR which totally shuts down even the potential for a Lepanto. Third, Italy still has an army in Venice, which makes a move on AUS a possibility as well. I’d feel pretty comfortable with my position as Italy.

TUR: D

This may seem harsh, but I thought TUR had a very poor opening year. The bounce in Armenia was very bizarre and not a good thing for Turkey as it almost immediately took away any potential at 2 builds or a strong RUS attack. The fall turn was even worse as similar to AUS, you wasted a unit by ordering a move that wasn’t necessary. Black Sea supporting the move to Armenia was a waste, because regardless of how strange RUS opened, it was extremely unlikely he would move to Armenia and forgo any chance of a build. If TUR aims to move against RUS, a much better use of Black would have been to make a play on Rum either yourself, or with AUS. And if you wanted to protect against a Lepanto, a move from Black to Con would have been effective. Now while you can threaten Sev, you are at the mercy of AUS in the Balkans, and Italy in the Med. You need to begin steering this in a different direction.

In response to Smokey asking how far ahead you should plan - the vague answer is that you should always have a pretty clear picture what 18 centers you plan to take to win the game. If you don't know that - you need to work on establishing having a clear goal and direction. The 18 can change, but every decision should be working towards that.

With regards to AUS in particular, I think this is even more important. AUS can't afford to wait and see because of how easy it is for their centers to be taken early as short term gains. AUS needs to drive play and dictate the moves of others. AUS is a scary power in the hands of a good player, and easy pickings in the hands of a weak player.

Hi guys. I was asked to do a guest lecture on how to turn around a bad start. Tom Bombadil even found me a good example of a game where I crashed and burned in 1901 and then made it into the draw. Believe it or not, I can think of at least two other very similar cases as Austria. That probably means that I should rethink what I say to Italy in Spring 1901 as Austria...

You can find the game here: gameID=188446

So it's late 2016/early 2017, and Zultar has invited me to a game with some other high-level players. Awesome! Zultar likes me. Not enough to play a game with me, but still!

The game starts, and I draw Austria. I have a pretty good record with Austria, but still, it's Austria. The first few years with Austria are always stressful. Time to go make friends.

Turkey starts out by telling me that he doesn't like A/T. That's not a good sign. I guess I'll keep writing him anyways.

Russia is friendly, but non-committal. I like allies who actually coordinate moves. I try to get him to commit to opening to Rumania so we can take Bulgaria, but he sidesteps the question.

Italy is nice! He's willing to talk about specific moves! We start out talking about the Lepanto, I turn down his suggestion for a Key, he turns down my suggestion for a Blue Water, and we decide to go with a vanilla Lepanto and start talking about how we're going to divide the Turkish centers.

Russia confirms that Italy will go with a vanilla Lepanto. Turkey tells me he can't attack Russia while there's an A/I, but also tells me not to trust Italy. Eventually, I do talk him into bla/arm and Russia into going to Rumania. They're all telling me there's an A/I, so this should go well, right?

Wrong.

Italy is in Trieste. That's the one place he's really not supposed to be. Time for damage control. When under attack, I really try to go for every angle. I try to show the people attacking me that they're better off doing somebody else. I try to persuade everybody else to either be my ally or to go mess with the people attacking me. Some general principles:

1. Think of what would make you change directions if you're attacking somebody. Personality and diplomacy aside, the three general reasons people turn around is if the attack looks too difficult, looks like it might not yield enough, or if somebody else is attacking them. Point out why one or more of these things is true or might be true. Then work to make at least one of them actually true. Don't discount the personality bit either. You want to make them want to work with you, even if your plan is to kill them as quickly as possible.

2. Remind your allies of how they benefit by working with you. Point out how there are either bigger or easier gains to be made by sticking with you. Once again, personality does matter, so try and be the kind of ally they enjoy talking to.

3. Point out to the people on the other side of your attacker how bad it would be if your attacker took a bunch of your centers really quickly, and how likely that is to happen if they don't intervene.

It's very likely that not all of these will work. That's why I try all of them.

First, I need to make sure Turkey is 100% with me. I point out to him that I have no choice but to stick with him, and that he'll always have the advantage on me. On the other hand, if he works with Italy, he'll be trapped behind Italy's fleets all game.

"So at this point, if you stick with me, you get a solidly loyal smaller ally, which is perfect for you. Working together, I can hold Italy off until you get your fleets, and then you go take Ionian and he's history. Your lead on me means you never have to worry about me stabbing you. On the other hand, if you jump me with Italy, you'll forever be trapped east of him, and you'll never get across the stalemate line into Germany or Iberia."

We then spend several pages of press going back and forth on the best way to play this. Eventually, I convince him to support me to Greece while lying to Italy about supporting Italy to Greece, resulting in a wasted move for Italy.

Second, my goal at this point is to secure my eastern front and kill Italy. There's no reason Italy needs to know that though. So here's what I tell him:

"Well, that was nicely played by you. I thought it was 50-50 whether you would stab me, but I thought I'd give you a chance.

Now, I'm not the type of player who holds grudges. I believe in evaluating the map and the press and making the best plays possible. In this position, I see 3 paths for us.

1. You back out. Pretty great for me, but I'm not sure what I'd have to say to you to get you to back out.

2. We fight. Not really good for you, and very bad for me. It's not very good for you because I'll dedicate everything to fighting you and nothing to defending my east, so that you end up with a very large Russia, or, even worse, a very large Turkey who is also beating Russia. Very large Turkeys have a very bad habit of taking the Ionian in 1903 or so and then your game is pretty much over.

3. We Key. Not my first choice, but certainly better than having to give my centers to Turkey."

Italy says he'll Key, but I know that he's talking to Turkey about taking Greece.

Third, I tell Russia that there's obviously and I/T. He doesn't seem to believe me, and this conversation generally goes nowhere. He ends up supporting himself to Galicia. I end up having a lot of trouble understanding why he would attack the neighbor who didn't attack him in Spring 1901.

Fourth, I ask France to hit Italy early, pointing out that a strong Italy is not good for him. This also gets very little traction.

My position after F01 is pretty difficult, but in reality, I've already laid the groundwork for a comeback. The most important thing here is that I've gotten Turkey to commit to working with me by moving aggressively towards or lying to both Italy and Russia. I want my allies burning bridges with everybody else so that they HAVE to work with me.

In Spring 1902, I actually convinced Italy to work with me because Turkey had stabbed him. Of course, then he made absolutely terrible moves that split up all his forces AND pissed off France, and Turkey and I promptly dismantled him. Ok, so maybe I viciously stabbed him too.

Meanwhile, I'm not really sure what Russia was doing in the spring, and I don't see a lot of messages from him. All I have to say here is: if Turkey opens to Armenia and then attacks both Sev and Rumania in the fall, maybe don't attack Austria the next year? I believe that I told him in the fall that I would help him against Turkey, and then promptly stabbed him for Warsaw.

I think a lot of my success in 1902 came from Italy and Russia being absolutely convinced that A/T was not a viable alliance for me, and so believing me when I told them that I would absolutely switch sides ASAP if they would just work with me. That gave me the opportunity I needed to both solidify my alliance with Turkey and convince them to make moves that opened them up for devastating stabs.

There's a few lessons to be learned here. First, don't count out any alliances just because they're uncommon or you don't think they work. Second, think through your tactics. Yes, my press had a great deal to do with being able to convince Italy and Russia to work with me in 1902, but tactics is what allowed me to use that influence to set up devastating stabs.

Third, I make a nice comeback here, but the game ends in a 4wd. You'll also notice that I talk very little about my press and strategy with the western powers. Those two things are connected. I had to spend all my energy turning my immediate neighborhood around, and in the meantime, there was no chaos in the west. This also means that, while turnarounds are nice, if you want to solo, starting off strong is even better. You'll have used less time turning around, and you'll have more time right from the beginning to shape the rest of the board if you're not just trying to stay alive.

And finally, this lesson is off-topic, but in press, Italy attacking Austria is not as much of a slam-dunk as people think. I've seen this as both Italy and as Austria.

A day late, but here's my lecture for this turn!

Fall 1901 is, in my opinion, the more pivotal turn of the first two. For all that’s written about opening strategies and opening press, I do think it is the second turn where a player’s strategy begins to pan out (or not). With that in mind, let’s see how our players are doing. I’ll go west to east for no particular reason. (My grades are probably different from Tom’s - I’ve tried not to read his post too closely.)

FRANCE - B+: I wrote before that France had among my favourite of the opening moves because it offered a lot of options against either Germany or England, left Belgium on the table, and let France defend against Italian hostility. I had a suspicion that the Burgundy opening was made with England’s knowledge, given England’s rather vanilla opening, and this turn has borne that out. So now it looks like France is set up well for war against Germany, could have an ally in England, and has two builds and no enemies. It will take good diplomacy to manage an alliance with England, if that’s where this is going. The main reason this isn’t going into the “A” is that England doesn’t *have* to join France in attacking Germany, whereas France has made a commitment quite clearly. In that respect, France needs England more than England needs France.

ENGLAND - A: England might be the best example of why Spring 1901 moves don't give you a good handle in the game. England had a very good first turn - no enemies, two builds on the table, but it was of course the most vanilla opening possible. Now, England has two builds, an army on the continent (strategically necessary if England wants to solo) and France has made a solid commitment to fight Germany. On top of that, Russia is not strong in the north. Everything is coming up England, and it's probably not all luck. Credit goes to England for laying the groundwork for a great first year. Curious to see where they go from here.

Germany - C-: The English army in Belgium is probably not good for Germany. The French army in Ruhr is definitely bad for Germany. Germany’s diplomacy didn’t yield good enough information to act, clearly, because both of moves could have actually been blocked. Moreover, the Russian misorder is a saving grace for Germany, and you really don’t want to be in a situation where the saving grace for your turn is someone else’s misorder. Going into next year, several SCs are vulnerable, and it’s not clear if Germany can defend Sweden, gain Denmark, and fend off any French advances. We’ll see how the spring turn goes - I don’t want to say too much about what one should be doing diplomatically in this situation just yet, but suffice to say, Germany should be working hard now.

Italy - A-: This is a great first year for Italy, a lot like it is for England. No one can attack Italy now, which is pretty nice. The biggest danger for Italy in the first year is often that Turkey or France gets a running start and comes in with a wrecking ball. Both of those outcomes are off the table now. The challenge for Italy now is finding a sustainable path to grow (as it always is). Italy has a couple options, but following through from this position is not straightforward. Italy should not get complacent.

Austria - C-: So, look, it’s not all bad, but I am shaking my head at those bounces in Rumania. They probably mean that Austria and Turkey are trying both to fight Russia (their moves surely say that!) but cannot agree at all on how to do so (there are other explanations, but I won’t speculate just yet). The result is quite disastrous: together, Austria and Turkey had the power to keep Russia to two builds, and it looks like they just totally fumbled it. On the bright side, despite not making the most of this turn, Austria is still in a decent position to expand and it looks like neither Italy nor Turkey will make Austria’s life difficult.

Russia - D: I’m not sure what to say, really. The misorder is bad, but even if it weren’t for the misorder, I am not sure an army in Finland to capture Sweden next year was exactly the strongest move Russia could have made. Russia’s saving grace is other players’ mistakes: Austria and Turkey can’t get on the same page about how to plan this assault (if they are planning together at all). If I were to suggest one goal for Russia, it would be to find a way to capitalize on that.

Turkey - C-: I don’t have much to add to my commentary on Turkey except what I said about Russia and Austria. I am struggling to think of diplomacy that would be occurring behind the scenes that make these moves make sense, and it is a struggle. There are some upsides for Turkey to Russia still getting a build, depending on how diplomacy goes during builds. I am curious to see if either Turkey or Austria have any influence over how Russia builds.

And on to builds! Builds are very important, and I have tried not to write anything to influence builds. But everyone should keep in mind that your builds will send important signals to your rivals, in addition to their tactical significance. Sometimes, these goals are at odds. I’ll write up something short after builds are over.

Thanks for the guest lecture pw! I think it was very informative and shows people that they shouldn't become discouraged if they find themselves in a tough spot.

From my viewpoint of that game, where you destroyed me, I'll expand on the couple of mistakes that I made:

1) Don't stop communicating with your allies even if things are going to plan. I had talked to Italy pretty extensively in that game about rushing AUS early, and after the first year I thought it was going well. I had let up on my press going into the second year, and pw took advantage by getting in Italy's ear when I was absent.

2) Be aware of what you can offer compared to what your enemy can offer. This is the mistake I made with Turkey. I had a so-so relationship with Turkey, and after Italy and I made strong moves against AUS I wrongly assumed that TUR would be open to jumping on board. He did a good job of deceiving me, but in hindsight it should have been clear that TUR had little to gain by working with ITA and I, and more to gain by what pw offered. I got so wrapped up in what I wanted to see happen, I failed to put myself in TUR's shoes and realize it probably wasn't what he wanted to see happen.

It always a good idea to put yourself in your allies or neighbors shoes. It can help you predict when a stab may happen.

bump

Builds are in! Some are telling, some are less so. Looking forward to reading the commentary from the profs!

I don't have much time today to do a full post, but at a glance it looks like the rich keep getting richer.

To me Italy and England had the best opening years, and they also had the best build phase.

France building no additional fleets is a huge win for both. ENG is in virtually no danger here, and ITA is also in no danger. ENG also can be happy with the lack of a build in St. Pet, though that seemed unlikely considering RUS's issues in the south. The Turkish fleet is a nuisance for ITA, but all things considered its looking pretty good.

I do question France's builds, but I don't think they are devastating. Certainly France has picked a very specific direction here, I just don't like the lack of flexibility with two army builds. Basically France is relying on his/her ability to make gains in GER as moving on ENG or ITA is near impossible without another fleet.

I’m particular I would be interested to see what 18 centers France envisions himself getting at this stage, though I think all players should continue to write this list down each year.

bump

If turkey isn't going to do his moves can I be put in before he NMR's?

Also if that happens could we pause it for a day?

bump

Bumo

The game has been paused since Italy has had a family emergency. We're looking at Wednesday for a tentative unpause date. Thanks for your patience.

In the bright side, if gives the profs time to do an extra in-depth analysis! :P

Don't worry everyone, I haven't forgotten about you. I'll get my grades done for this turn today or tomorrow.

GRADES

ENGLAND - C

Its hard to tell exactly what to make of this sping year for the Englishman hence the grade. On the surface, there isn't anything wrong with the moves as the continued attack on GER continues and HeL is a good spot to be - yet the moves of his neighbors have me a bit worried for ENG. In particular the moves to St. Pet and MAO are very interesting and ENG would have been better served convincing those units to go elsewhere. France could have better positioned himself in the med with a move to Spain South Coast, and RUS could haver better positioned himself to help against GER with a move to Prussia. It is hard to view either of those moves as anything other than anti-English, or at the very least I would be concerned that they are setting themselves up for an easier mid-game stab. This turn is going to be pivotal for ENG's success.


FRANCE - C

I hate to see wasted units, and when I look at France's turn those two wasted units jump off the screen. I like the move to MAO as it gives you some leverage, and more important some defense conisidering you only have one fleet (which I think was a mistake). That being said, if you have 4 armies you need to be using them better. The longer you sit with only one fleet, the more appetizing you will look for ENG to move south, or Italy to move west. The bounce in Pie is again very problematic, and I think you would have been better served making sure you made it into Burgundy. Coming to an agreement to DMZ Pie would have been ideal, but regardless, that continued bounce is severaly stunting your growth in GER.

GERMANY - C/Incomplete

Its very difficult to grade Germany's moves this turn as at this point it all comes down to his diplomacy. The other powers have the jump on him, so even perfect tactics cannot save the day here. I feel like disloging the army in Ruhr would have been a better move than bouncing in Burgundy since it would force FRA to rebuild it (and give you an opportunity to convince him to build a fleet), but I don't mind the bounce in Burgundy. The move to Boh is interesting as we don't know its purpose, but the biggest move of all was the RUS army to St. Pet which is certianly preferable to a move to Prussia.


ITALY - C

A quick downturn after a strong start. The joy of playing as Italy. I think the bounce again in Piedmont is a good move on your part as it slows down France tremendously, increasing the chances that ENG makes a move on him and increasing the chance you won't have to worry about French fleets (Plus, he only built one, which is a big win for you). The picture in the east is a disaster for you though. Clearly not on the same page as AUS - as a move to Aegean with support from AUS would have been a strong move. Instead, AUS looks to be trying to shut you out of making gains in TUR, and instead both of you got nowhere. With RUS and TUR seemingly having peace, you don't have much in terms of expasion prospects. Italy can afford to be patient, but at some point you need to find a way out of your stuck position, and this turn was a failed effort to do so.

AUSTRIA - D

I don't know if AUS was expecting Russian support into Bulgaria, but that is what this looks like to me. This was all but a wasted turn from AUS as he accomplished almost nothing with his units (besides getting out of position with the move to Boh). A move to Gal would have been extremely strong both threatening with 3 units on Rum and bordering Warsaw, but it looks like you were duped by the Russian. Thankfully nobody is in any position to do you much harm in the fall phase, but the board is shaping up not in your favor. A unified TUR/RUS greatly limits your expasion, and now you need to be keenly aware of a potentially impatient ITA at your backside. I'll be interested to see what that army in Boh does in the fall. This is one of those times where you should be looking at the BIG PICTURE to decide what to do with a unit that has a big impact on the fall turn.

RUSSIA - A

After a rough start, this was a superb turn for Russia. Getting Turkey out of Armenia frees up his unit in Moscow, and it looks like some deception really foiled Austria's turn here. Plus, convincing AUS not to move to Galicia was a huge victory as that would have been the logical spot for AUS to go. It looks like you will get a build in Sweden unless GER and ENG suddenly make peace, and the move to St. Pet gives you the opportunity to have a great deal of influence over the battle in the west. The key here is to make sure that you are thinking of what route gets you the 18 centers you need to win.

TURKEY - B+

A pretty straightforward turn from TUR, but made the correct decision. Without AUS help, the advances on RUS were going nowhere, and a Lepanto was imminent. This turn basically ended the potential of a Lepanto, and created a solid defense. The issue here for TUR is to find a way to expand. Russia has recovered better from a bad opening than you have. You cannot drive play from your position and instead are relying on others to give you an opening. Its fine for the time being, but you don't want to get left behind as other powers get bigger. You need to find a way out of the corner.

Sorry for the brevity and a few typos. Currently in a sling and typing is a bit tedious. I'm going to try to line up another guest lecture from a top player as peterwiggin provided some great insight on a specific topic.

bump

I find Russia's moves in the north particularly interesting. Is he allied with England, as the support to Sweden suggests? What about the move to Pete, then? I could definitely see the possibility for Germany to willingly have given up Sweden. I'm looking forward to seeing which side he ends up on.

The game is now unpaused.

Quick thoughts: This turn was all about failures to understand what Russia's motives are, and England and Austria paid the price.

So what was Russia's interest? He had a slow start, but there was real opportunity in the north. Further, he needs to get established in the north before Germany falls for real because he needs to be a viable ally for France who can hold back England. If England can just roll him in the north, he is careening toward an E/F/(A or T) draw. Similarly, Turkey falling quickly just means he would have to hope that he isn't next (and Austria just built two armies!). What this means is that he needs time to get himself established. Germany or Turkey falling (yet) are not good for him.

So what should England have done? First and foremost, don't help Russia and Germany untangle! That's the worst move of the turn. Russia and Germany were badly out of position to work together, and now they are in great position to work together. That's a disaster. You needed to push him in that direction- point out that between you and France you will be cutting Kiel and Munich next turn so Berlin is guaranteed if he moves Livonia that way as well. At least don't let Germany into Denmark. Never allow other players to establish clean boundaries.

How about Austria? One of the most important things that happens in 1901 is whether Russia takes Rumania with a fleet or with an army. Basically, if Russia takes Rumania with a fleet, Austria is safe, and if he takes it with an army, the juggernaut is on. When I play as Austria, it is my number one priority to get a fleet in Rumania, and I'll do extreme things to get it. For example, in gameID=164615 I promised to build a fleet in Trieste for my first builds if Russia went fleet Rumania. Here, there is army Rumania, so that's a big red flag. There's simply no reason to expect Russia to work with you here, and you don't need him to anyway. There's very little reason to go for Bulgaria here- the slow part of the Lepanto is the fleets. It would have been much much better to go to Aegean Greece and Serbia. Also, if you are going to do the moves you did, at least just move Trieste to Serbia and do something else with Budapest. It's insane to move your pieces in some absurd chain that can be bounced at any point.

Finally, sort of similar to the England thing- Germany, you have to have to have to pop the French army in Ruhr there. France is all in against you right now; he only has one fleet. Your need to create a clean border with France and give him the opportunity to switch course. You are unlikely to lose Holland if you do so, and even if you do, who cares that's fine you are further unbalancing the E/F.

I presume this applies to the regular School of War instead?

Yep yep

Wait, no it doesn't. It's for this. So tricky Claesar

Interesting moves, and interesting retreat choice. I'll post up my grades hopefully tonight.

I'm so confused about what just happened. There are so many moves this phase which I did not expect.

What I wouldn't give to see the press around Scandinavia. Russia supported England into Den, while simultaneously tapping his unit. England both attacked Germany by accepting Russian support into Den, while also attacking Russia by supporting Germany into Swe.

The I/F and R/T falling-outs are also interesting.

I'll have my post up today too, including some catch-up commentary for the turn I missed.

Fall 1903

Lecture on Deceptive Moves and Public Press

A good diplomacy player uses the entire game environment, public press, and moves on the board to her advantage. I am going to use two examples from the Fall 1902 moves and post Fall 1902 press to illustrate how a player might exploit these weapons to advance a stratgic cause.

Let me start by observing that England and Turkey are two intimately connected powers. It is counter-intuitive because they start the game on opposite corners of the board and seem to be very far and disconnected from each other. I am going to assume that the English and Turkish players here are keenly aware of this and could have executed a brilliant move to dramatically advance their partnership influence over this School of War game.

To recap. In Fall 1902, we saw Turkey take Greece with a perfectly executed support order and move, but ostensibly make a blunder in his ordering of F Con and A Smyrna. Had Turkey properly written his order, his second fleet would have entered the Med on Bulgaria(south coast). But from Bul(SC) a move into Black Sea is not possible. The misorder here keeps possible F Constantople to Black Sea in the spring.

One of the best pieces of diplomacy advice I have learned is that you look at the location of the pieces on the board. These are the best indicator of a player's true intentions.

Using a misorder to fool another player is only effective when the player you're trying to fool thinks you are capable of a mistake. Even the best players can misorder. However, there is a sliding scale of how believable the misorder might be depending on the experience of the player supposedly making the mistake. See diagram at this link: https://gamecockfootball.files.wordpress.com/2017/11/diplomacy-graph.png

In this case, the target of the deceptive misorder is Turkey's ally Russia. The main objective is to stab and secure Black Sea. Even if Russia bounces the move, A Ank-Arm is assured. Meanwhile, A Greece S A Smy-Bul; F Aeg C Smy-Bul; A Smy-Bul; gives Turkey outstanding position against Austria, a potential alliance with both Italy and Austria.

The other thing to note here is an outstanding effort by the English player to facilitate his ally Turkey's stab of Russia. He even takes his public press to this thread, a clear violation of the agreed rules, but also not unprecedented as other players have mistakenly posted here earlier.

The English public press on global and here was outstanding. In the global section he orchestrates hue and cry about a Steamroller alliance. Here, he gives the impression of a broken teacup upset by a mean professor's stern lecture. He supports the insulted Turk who the professor said made an “abysmal” move. The English player cleverly weaves the professor into the deception, implicitly and explicitly suggesting the mistake was by a novice, beginning player and the professor is too insulting and not understanding of the level of inexperience for the players in this game. A deception of Russia could not be more brilliantly orchestrated by two potentially allied players, Turkey and England.