Just a quick comment on what I've read. Austria-excellent game, I've enjoyed playing with you. Italy, I really did want to work with you, Gulf of Lyon was the only place I could retreat to, and I just wanted to make sure you didn't take MAO, so I would have worked with you if you didn't do two fleet builds right after that retreat

My EOG will be coming folks. Be warned, I go all in on these haha

EOG-Germany
Pre-Game: I had originally signed up to be in an Undergrad game, and had PM'ed Dean Wiggin one day about what was going on. He asked me if I could take over germany in the grad game. I was pumped, a chance to prove myself to the pro's. then I saw Germany. Russians in baltic and Berlin, Italians and Austrians on my south. I had no choice but to accept, and so I entered...
After a long fight alongside England and Austria, I liberated the German homeland, and captured Russia's mid. I was especially proud of my deal with Austria in A1905, giving us each a center, and finishing off Russia. I recall talking to Fortknox that winter about who I should be looking at next. He said "finish off your first opponent before finding your next." that very turn I finished off Russia, and Austria attacked. oh the irony.
Austria and Italy had both warned me of an English stab, and I admitted that if England betrayed me, all hope was lost for me, but I could do nothing about it.
He did. All hope was (again) lost for the German homeland, so i decided to set up camp in Sweden with a convoy out of Berlin. and so I sat. Three years later, the southern stab occured, and I needed to get in this draw. I bounced Baltic as Austria wished, but then I decided to try something other then sitting. I used some complex (and probably wrong) math to show Austria that England could take the solo that very year, and that I was not going to help Austria hold onto St Petes, and I would give England Sweden, all that he needed for the solo. I had Italy do the same, the final suicide mission. Austria hit the big red button to end the game, and a sizely smile came across my face this morning when I noticed that SoW Grad game was no longer in my side bar.
I must say, best 10 I ever got.
Good game all

I would also like to thank FortKnox, many a turns I had my orders saved, and replied to FortKnox's message with a "yeah, those are the orders I have in...." followed by a rapid changing of orders. his words are the only thing that let me live

I have to admit, I don't have much of an EOG. I got Turkey, Italy moved west, Austria and Russia at no point ever intended to ally with me. Pretty much end of story.

As for England soloing -- was unaware that Italy had a plan to throw it to Austria if England kept pushing. From the way things looked I felt like England would be able to hold on to Rome with Italian help (because there was clear Anglo-Italian cooperation, I felt), clean up Scandinavia and St. Petersburg, then pick off Tunisia and Marseilles and win. Though it doesn't shock me that between abgemacht and pastoralan that it wouldn't work... I still just got the feeling it might. In any case it seemed a natural 2-way draw.

And n.b. -- I know "those other players had no intention of allying with me" is a strong point to make, but this is now by concession from both players, not just my thoughts on the matter. Austria just told you he didn't intend on allying with me the moment Russia proposed alliance, and Russia told me ingame after we got both killed that "he thought he had a solid going on with Austria" so, basically, why bother listening to Turkey?

If the rhetoric hasn't made it clear, I was very dissatisfied with this game. Frankly I think it's terrible policy to automatically shut your mind to alliance with a power out of preconceived notions about the feasibility of working together. It clearly worked here -- for Austria, because he got the jump on his ally. But even AFTER the stab Russia kept hammering into me, presumably out of laziness and apathy rather than a serious attempt to stay alive.

I'd like to thank my advisor, Ebay. I couldn't really implement his advice much, though, because it was primarily diplomatic rather than tactical or strategic; we generally agreed on all points, but the diplomacy was simply impossible because Italy came into the game with the idea in mind to attack France from the start and Austria and Russia both came into the game with the idea in mind not to ally with Turkey. As Turkey, you simply cannot do anything with that hand. At all.

My sympathies Eden. I did sincerely try and argue with the powers to try and keep you alive. I've read the stats, and England does phenomenal when Turkey is alive, so I wanted you alive hehe

Well, on the other hand I can't blame either of them. Tru Ninja's report says that when Turkey wins, Austria dies over 80% of the time, Russia over 50%; when Turkey draws, Austria and Russia are the two least likely powers to be involved; and when Turkey dies, Austria or Russia go on to win a combined >60% of the time.

My beef is just that Austria was apparently not interested in a Turkish alliance from the start, and Russia ignored me entirely after S1902. =P

@Eden: you're right, you were doomed from the start no matter what you did. Has that really never happened to you before?

It has, but it's legitimately been a long time since that's happened and it's always frustrating. It's obviously not a problem now, I just thought that since EOGs ask for the player's opinions of the game I'd take the time to note my opinion of neither of my Eastern neighbors being willing to negotiate at all.

England EOG
So I was psyched when I drew England. Its my favorite country to play and also one of the most versatile. Turkey was my first contact, and he and I got along well, I probably talked to him most throughout the early years, and I wanted to help him out. My advisor, drano, told me right off the bat that for England to have a chance of winning, France had to die, and conflict with Russia would be a death knell for me, and I took that to heart. I started talking and cooperating with Germany right off the bat about attacking Russia, to blow some smoke into the wind. Spring 1901 everyone was talking about attacking Russia, especially because he was advertising that he didn’t hear any word from his advisor. 1901 moves were interesting, especially the German move, and the Russian move. France had intended to bounce Germany (I believe).
Fall 1901. I was promised Belgium by both Germany and France, but France was worried that I planned to convoy in there. He tried to explain it to me, saying he wouldn’t have minded if there was and fleet there. But then he built a fleet in Brest over my protests. which just guaranteed that I would attack him. I told Germany that Russia would move to Baltic, but he didn’t listen to my advice, thus the open Denmark. I tried to scare Austria by saying Germany would move to Trieste, but he didn’t bite on that one either (like I said, I wanted a strong Turkey and attention focused away from me). I started working fervishly with Germany though, to prevent Russia from breaking through. Germany tried to get a WT started, but I wouldn’t bite at it.
Spring 1902. I asked France to let me into Belgium, and then we could talk, but moved to the channel to get a better “negotiating” position. With great luck, Germany invited me into Sweden, solidifying our relationship. I wanted to be strictly neutral with Russia, not getting involved enough to warrant an attack on Norway. Russia therefore thought that I was attacking Sweden to help him. After I moved to the channel, things were almost irreconcilably damaged between France and I. He wanted fleets, I didn’t want him to want fleets. I start spewing press out to everyone, saying different things to France, Germany, and Russia. France is the only one who checks everything I say, so he quickly finds out that I’m lying to several people, which severs us further apart. I tell him that a move to MAO from Spain was unnecessary and would be considered hostile, so when he moved to MAO, I started talking a lot to Germany. I start feeling out Italy for attacking France. To help my case against France, he wasn’t as much of a chatterbox as the rest of us.
Fall 1902. The German position with Russia was a great bargaining chip. I got Germany to support me into Belgium in exchange for helping him out with the Russian, which got me the two builds I desperately needed to continue my fight against the French. Still trying to get Austria to work with Turkey. I put it into Austria’s ear to attack Rumania or Ukraine; anything to break up the A/R alliance.
1903. I needed to get MAO. With a stroke of luck and a CD, I got it in the fall, and not trusting Russia completely, I kept flip flopping between Norway and Sweden while holding Belgium
1904. Now the real attack on France began. With Germany’s help, France’s line is broken. The move to Norwegian Sea really throws a hammer in my plans, and actually was a huge thing in slowing me down. I choose to keep going at France, though Russia is asking me to attack Germany, and he is indeed wide open for the stab. France is at 4 SC’s though, and is too dangerous to leave alone. I talk to Italy and convince him to turn towards France and help me out, leaving some of my units available to tackle Germany. This however, turned out to be a mistake in the end, it created conflict between Italy and I. I also start discussion with Austria on attacking Germany. In doing so, I’m trying to spare Russia from his fate.
1905. I get into Spain only to be kicked out. Now in one of his lectures, Dean Wiggin said that the position of your units is one of the most important things in the field, so instead of destroying the fleet in Spain, I retreat to Gulf of lyon so I have an advantage in numbers over the French and can try to get Spain back next year. Russia gives me permission to take St Petersburg. I try to stab Germany and take Denmark, but Holland was unsuccessful. The stab was to show Austria-Italy that I was not stuck with Germany, and alliances with me are flexible.
1906. I reach out to Italy and Austria to make deals getting them to stab each other, but neither of them will budge, even after my little German stab. So in response I patch things up with Germany. Italy wants me out of the Med, but I don’t want those fleets of his chasing me out of there, so I do what I can to stall him until I can get the French out of my backyard. In the fall I move to West Med as Italy wanted with the end-goal of moving out to MAO, and I have fleets in EC and Irish, waiting to plug it up. I tell Italy I’m supporting Burgundy to Marseilles, so he doesn’t get tricky and try to keep the French alive and support him into Portugal, but have no intention of actually doing it. Germany takes back Denmark with my permission – the price of a new peace. Italy talks to me about vacating Portugal, which I will never let happen so long as there is a unit in Spain. I destroy Barents, which in hindsight seems a huge mistake, but at the time seemed the least destructive.
1907. France moves to clyde, which is a huge pain in the butt for me, so I invite Germany to take Edinburgh, while I move to defend Liverpool. I invite Germany into St. Petersburg, to keep some sort of pressure on Austria. Italy is showing a lot of aggression down south, so I move to gulf of Lyon because it isn’t looking like I’ll ever get him to turn on Austria, event though I have MAO locked up. That was actually the most confusing thing about Italy’s play. I showed him a stalemate line to the west, and he kept building up fleets, which he would never use. Edi falls to Germany, but worse things could’ve happened, at least France is dead. Italy and I are still trying to work things out, but we each are being aggressive to each other, which just furthers the problem.
1908. Now the talk of four-way draws really beings to circulate, especially with Austria and Germany. But I don’t want a 4 way draw. In reality, I want a solo, or a three-way at least. Italy comes at me with the crazy idea that I’m working with Austria, which though I’m talking to him, its still in the vague terms of narrowing the draw and getting him to stab the Italian. I’m working on both Italy and Austria to get them to stab each other, but no dice with Italy. He sees my fleets all built up and imagines that Austria and I are trying to do a two way draw. Now, its not a bad guess, but I personally will never do a two way draw in any game. It is far too unstable to be offered. Now I realize that I will never be able to break the Italian, and my intention is only to make the stalemate line – North Africa, MAO, Spain, Portugal, Gascony. Basically the next few years are about me trying to get Austria and Italy to stab each other, holding my line against Italy, and helping Germany against Austria
By 1910 though, it was apparent that Austria had the upper hand on Germany. So, I finally took up Austria on his offer, and moved to stab Germany, and thus get Austria to turn on Italy….anything to break the status quo. At the same time I move to break into the Med, trying to complete the stalemate line with the new builds I was getting.
1911 here’s where I go wrong. Instead of convoying my army somewhere useful, I leave it on mainland, but good news is that I get my stalemate against Italy completed. Austria is very clever, and won’t attack Germany further until I agree that he can get Berlin and Munich. I see that Italy won’t attack Austria still, and vice-versa so I make a decision here (my advisor being AWOL for 5 years by now). I decide to let Austria get big enough to solo, in hopes that Italy will disengage, and harness the Italian to work against the Austrian until I reach solo potential myself.
1912. Austria takes St. Petes, Berlin, and Munich, and moves to attack the centers in what was formerly Turkey. Italy still does nothing, much to my disappointment.
1913. It takes a fleet build to get Italy to react, and he does so only half-heartedly. I start to disengage with him to get all those armies onto mainland, and try to figure out how exactly I’m going to get a solo from this position. Austria took three centers from Italy, which disappointed me so much, because I suspected a much better fight from him, but now Austria is growing MUCH faster than I had thought, and I need to alter my plans.
1914. I put in a draw vote to satisfy Italy, but have no intention of drawing. At the same time I tell Austria not to vote draw until Germany is dead. I decide not to kill Germany off for a while, so I can use my units into better position for the Italian stab. I work out that if I can get St. Petes, Sweden, and all the Italian centers, I can win. I try to work my units into such a position.
1915. An (almost) perfect move. I have an army in piedmont, fleet in Rome, and am in perfect position to take on everyone and try for the solo. The only problem was the bounce in Baltic. I needed units there to guaranteed St. Petes, and also set up for the eventual landing of an army in Livonia. My most probable moves for the following turn had it not drawn would have been the following. A Bur – Mar, A Pie – Tus, F Tyr – Nap, F GoL – West Med, F Barents sup Fin – St. Petes, A Fin – St. Petes, F Nor sup Fin – St Petes, F Ska – Swe, F Den sup Ska – Swe. I would’ve walked away with St. Petersburg, Sweden, Marseilles, and Rome, been set up to take Tunis the next turn. Austria and I would both be at 16 centers. Italy would be (almost) weaponless to throw the victory to Austria. I probably didn’t have enough units down in the Med to counter it. I am interested though, in hearing Italy’s plan in response to those moves.

Sorry that was so long folks. If you read through it all, you deserve a medal. Its only my second EOG so I don’t really know appropriate length

Wow, I should've fixed the spacing on that. It was alright in my word doc, but I guess its different when it comes over. Again, sorry it was so long

My EOG statement is shorter ;-) A bit at least ;-)

Englands description of our relationship is quite good - no trust from the start, including England wanting to get into war position against me from the start as the advisor told so, and then all action on the board led to even further decreased trust and thus, logically, to war.
I think there were three aspects leading to Englands victory over me: the change in player of Germany (the original one had good and plenty of conversation with me and we had a good trustful relationship, the new one was neutral or on Englands side), both Italy and Germany not reading or accepting the professors notes on "England is about to go for a solo if noone stops him and he will stab G as soon as he can", and thirdly, my NMR of course.

All in all a rather frustrating situation, with England getting the advice to hit France no matter what else happens on the board before we even got started and thus of course no potential alliance from the start; pretty the same as for Turkey who was doomed to get attacked due to some piece of advice like "Austria always has to kill off Turkey". I think this is a petty, as I always felt that there is no single no-go-alliance and no single always-working-alliance in Diplomacy.

Nevertheless the game turned to be nice to look upon in the late years, with the race to 18. I also think Austria was good to hit draw now, before England got too big (with StPet and Swe doomed and Austria in Baltic soon afterwards...).

Due to time reasons I could not talk to my advisor half as often as I wanted to, and then, latest at the NMR, I felt like there was no need giving too much effort in the game as it was decided that I will be eliminated anyway. But until then the advice I got was quite helpful, although the situation was very complex since the new Germany turned in.

Hi Graduates,

Firstly, I'd like to apologise for dropping the ball on commentating on this game towards the end. Things became hectic for me and I couldn't find the time to devote to studying the moves and formulating any relevant posts. Especially towards the end where strategy counts and things get complicated.

I still think Germany should have been eliminated to create a 3 way draw, but that was obviously Austria's prerogative.

Thanks everyone for the EOG statements. Very enlightening and always worth a read to shed light on the thinking. I was very honoured to commentate on this game (as a replacement commentator) and only wish I could have done a better job and committed more time. Having participated in SoW before I think it's a very worthwhile venture and I know (myself included) many players get a lot out of it.

Just hope my commentary was relevant and appropriate.

I might post some more when I go back and reread this thread and see what happened.

Also, as far as Austria allying with Turkey, personally, I don't think this is a very good idea for Austria. Austria's friends are Russia and/or Italy. Turkey as an ally always seem to end badly (although I'm sure there are exceptions, anyone have an example?)

Turkey's only hope really in light of a Austrian-Russian onslaught would have been Italy, but it Italy wasn't willing to help then that's that! Sometime all the diplomacy in the world can't save you!

Thanks everyone for a very entertaining game. I was happy to be a small part of it.

I hope SoW can continue in the future (dodgy advice and all!)

I just want to make a side note. I was Austria advisor and I never give some advice like "Austria always has to kill off Turkey".
I think the option to attack Turkey was due to the board position, with Russia facing a strong opposition and Italy being also commited to move to the East. In this position, Austria will get the upper hand (like it really did) crushing Turkey, it just doesn´t make sense to attack either Russia or Italy on this situation.
And I still think Austria could have won the game if he had moved to cover StP a little sooner, while England is still busy with Germany. When it was clear that England will take StP the draw was the best option.

I really enjoy to work with Pete and have learned quite a lot with him, I wish I could have helped more at some stages when I was with little time to give advice, but he played really well alone.
If the SoW continues I will be really happy to sill play some small part on it.

@goldfinger: I'll have to look at your moves later to see what would happen. They probably would have worked, but that's why I demanded that you put in a draw vote. Austria was a conservative player, so I figured that he would draw before he would allow you any chance of getting a win.

By the way, Austria's inexplicable refusal to move to St. P was one of the main pieces of evidence favoring an arrangement. Why else would Austria leave himself so weak?

A note: I never said Austria shouldn't have attacked me, only that he never had anything else in mind. I did not attribute this to his advisor, but rather cite his own EOG where he admits to this as such before he begins discussing his 1901 planning.

I'd also like to note that statistically speaking, Russia wins more than Turkey does when Austria dies, and that 80% of Italian victories end with Austria's destruction. Turkey is admittedly no less dangerous, and perhaps an enemy, but with supposed "friends" in Russia and Italy, who needs enemies?

On the Austria/Turkey thing, I've just been in another game where that is working well for Austria - because he managed to get all the Turkish units west of Italy, and north of Sev before he stabbed. Unfortunately, I was Russia in that game, which I fully expect to be an Austrian solo now.

To Pres Eden's point, it's the first semi-stable A/T I've seen. And yes, it was my idea to go after Turkey, nothing to do with rdrivera. I think I need to look again at that line of thinking

Yes, I have found out that it never does good to have any nation eliminated right off the bat. In one game as Austria I manufactured Russia's destruction by Fall 1902, and got slammed by Turkey just afterwards.

But pastor, why would he take St. Petes when it was not a center he could hope to hold on to? that's the kind of thing you take for the short term when you hope to win, but is best left alone because it isn't worth the hassle, at least coming from the south. He and I never talked about St. Petes, i don't think

I think the whole logic is flawed. If country A needs to eliminate country B to obtain a solo, that does not mean they are enemies. Richard Sharp in his (maginificent) book reasons this way, and I suspect others follow his line of thinking.

What one should really look at is: How often does a A/B alliance result in
- win for A?
- win for B?
- A&B sharing a draw (possibly with some other players)?
In that respect, I suspect A/T does not perform badly (but I haven't done the statistics).

Very well, so it looks like this game is over. I guess we should get Dean Wiggins here for some closing statements....

Dean?