bump, hmm?

I'll try to get one up in the next couple days.

Alright, my EOG will not be nearly as in-depth as Tru's but I hope that at least Leif finds it helpful as a wrap-up of my commentary given to him during the game itself.

First, a note on my general attitudes on German play, and the specifics that came into play in this particular game.

Typically I spend 1901 feeling out my neighbors, regardless of what nation I am playing. 1901 is for formulating relationships, 1902 and following for formulating plots. To this end I encouraged Leif to concentrate heavily in the first year on creating relationships that are built on his demonstration of trustworthiness, the to work on maintaining those relationships in the years that followed.

After this preliminary step, I tend to focus on either (a) a domination of the West while maintaining good relations in the East, or (b) a strong move east backed by a Western Triple. In my mind the first option is to be preferred because it brings about the best chance of solo success, but one should keep their options open as the German, because the tide can turn rather quickly against you, as we discovered in this game.

I could say more, but I will leave that to more experienced and eloquent players.

---

Now, specific comments for Leif, which will for the most part be restricted to those years prior to the French CD (1901-1907).

The comments by the professors in the early years were hardly complementary towards your strategy and position but with the advantage of being privy to your communications I would say that you had a very good start, if not "impressive" in the truest sense of that word. The fact of the matter is, having an "impressive" start as Germany can do more harm than good. As it was, you gained 2 centers in '01, a 3rd center in '02, and were tied for largest nation at the end of '03 with only one discernible enemy. The fact that you accomplished all that and still managed to stay out of the spotlight is, in my estimation, an impressive start in its own way.

You started, I think, as any successful German must start. You made yourself the mandatory ally in the West, with both England and France desiring your aid, so that you had the option to choose between them at your leisure. The professors were anxious for you to choose sooner than you did, wanting to see commitment one way or the other. Biding your time as you did showed a great deal of nerve and patience, and it paid off for the most part.

The first real blunder came in 1904, and it is a blunder which I myself am wont to make and so I was not in the position to warn you against it, not seeing it myself until it was too late. You intrusted the success of your '04 maneuver to Russia, a nation which you had previously harmed in a big way. It is an easy mistake to make and boils down to blind arrogance (again, I don't say this to be cruel - I am guilty of this very thing myself). The fact of the matter is, when dealing with nations whom you have previously stabbed, you must always assume that they will act against you, and be pleasantly surprised if they do not.

That being said, I think that your conduct from '05-'07 showed great resolve and tenacity. Many players would leave a game after such a defeat, but not only did you stay, you flourished. You did not hold a grudge against Russia but were yet willing to work with him (although with a healthy amount of caution). You were able to overcome certain crises with calm demeanor, rather than reacting rashly (for instance, when Russia threatened BER and MUN with his move to SIL in S07).

Coming out of '07 you had positioned yourself either to move against Russia or France, and from this point things get fuzzy due to NMR's and CD's, but even so I thought you played admirably. I noticed your DRAW vote when the NMR's began (a very sportsmanslike response, in my estimation). You swiftly formed an agreement with the new French player which allowed you to focus elsewhere while he kept Italy from advancing.

Overall, I thought that your communications were very good from the beginning, needing only the occasional reminder to talk with everyone, not just the nations you were currently coordinating with (to keep up those positive relationships). Your strategy was sound. You showed an inclination from the beginning to stab for only a few centers, without much thought for "what's next," a common error among new players. This I saw corrected by the end of the game, when you were very obviously making plans not just to add a couple centers, but to ultimately gain 18.

All things considered, I really think that without the CD's you would have had a good chance to either solo or at least participate in a stalemate-draw. As you continue to play, I would urge you to keep in mind those lessons that you learned during this game, namely (1) to keep caution in mind when dealing with nations once stabbed, (2) to keep your end-game in mind when planning/executing a stab, and (3) to remember that a stab is not necessarily the end of a relationship.

It was a joy to participate in this game with you. I look forward to hearing your EOG thoughts, as well as any questions (from Leif or anyone) on what I have said.

First of all I'd like to extend my gratitude to all who played (especially those who stuck with it) and all who committed to providing commentary and assistance, TA's and professors, especially my TA Triumvir for his constant attention to my questions and for sticking with me even as the game unravelled.

I feel I was able to learn a fair amount in this game though where I was really hoping to improve my game play was in mid and end game scenarios, and this is where the game started falling apart. All this aside, I enjoyed this first foray into the SoW world.

I would not consider Germany my strongest nation. I'm much more comfortable as England or France for the western powers and as Italy or Turkey for the eastern powers. That said, I am quite pleased with the way I was able to handle Germany this game.

Walking through the game:
After working the presses early in spring 1901 to feel out every nation and especially my neighbors, I started out deciding to pursue France and Austria as allies while seeking peace with Russia and leading England on for a quality stab. I decided on this tentative plan because it seemed England was trying too hard to sell me on a plan early for equal growth while double teaming France and Russia. Meanwhile France showed some interest in working with me but was cautious about proceeding. I figured England had something up his sleeve while France was feeling things out. Austria is a natural ally for Germany and a buffer of sorts against the eastern powers, the longer Austria is in the game (and not looking to head west), the more time Germany has to focus it's attention west before worrying about the east.
I also did not overtly declare my plan to anyone and instead worked the press to secure friendship with both England and France against the other, but focused my energy on securing friendship with France. This way if the opportunity for a Western Triple presented itself, I could help to cement such an arrangement.
It is my policy as Germany not to end up with 6 centers at the end of 1901 as that makes england and France both feel threatened. I always try to pick up my sixth center in 1902, and 1901 saw me sitting at my desired 5 centers.
Russia's 1901 build of a fleet in StP SC (which he assured me was aimed at England) temporarily derailed these plans, and so I went to war with Russia first with England's help (again intending all the time to eventually stab england and work with France when the time came). By 1902, Russia was reeling (but not enough) from the English/German/Austrian thrashing and I felt I needed to help France into Belgium to keep him from deciding I was a better target than england. What surprised me was that through my constant attention to press with england that I was able to weasel my way out of having tried to help France into Belgium. The next year I somewhat conveniently was able to get away with not supporting France to Belgium and securing further help from england vs Russia. France and I had an uneasy relationship with much posturing along the border. It was necessary several times to cover Munich because France felt it necessary to keep units in Bur from time to time, and it was about this time that we had the first of many discussions about how to eventually DMZ the border (the full DMZ where our units could be sent elsewhere rather than one turn removed from the border never materialized).
In the spring of 1904, with England catching on finally that I did not intend friendship with him, and Russia upset about my pre-emptive strike after his 1901 fleet build in StP SC, I decided it was time to focus on one enemy and toss the other a bone. Russia got the bone (Sweden), which proved to be a temporary mistake as the rest of Scandinavia went with it the fall of 1904. (Norway to Russia and Den to England).
I also had managed to sneak a unit eastward to meddle in the Eastern fray, but in retrospect I don't feel I used this unit very well. During the Austrian collapse, nabbing a center would have been a good idea, or better still, sneaking through Warsaw in the spring of 1904, to threaten Moscow concurrent with his stab in Scandinavia might have been better.
In addition, a more focused plan that adapted to the changing situation with Russia rather than a turn by turn reaction looking at what centers I could pick up each year would have been a benefit to my early game.
By a stroke of luck and Russian goodwill (or impotence with armies in Scandinavia that precluded in further advance up north?) I was able to regain Denmark and nab the north sea the following year.
Two armies on the English isles followed in 1906 and loss of a Russian center made Scandinavia a possible target. France proposed fairly early on that he would like 2 centers on the island and I would get 1 and Belgium. My misfortune with the Russian left me weaker than France and the move to York was a method of ensuring French cooperation in our agreement. Russia and I had made an uneasy peace at this point (As a true diplomat, I have no qualms about switching sides and becoming best buds with last year's mortal enemy, and this is both a strength and a weakness for me as I can too easily trust last year's mortal enemy who probably is still seething about two years ago). Talks were going back and forth between France and I and Russia and I about which way I was headed next. I delicately tried to appease both France and Russia by manufacturing a botched set of moves in the spring 1907. This may have been another mistake as an outright stab on France or Russia would probably have been better. Both France and Russia moved units into DMZ areas (probably as a result of my own fence sitting) in 1907 and I was once again in a tight spot.

If Riphen or quebeclove don't mind posting EOG's, (I bear them both no ill will) I'd be interested in learning what the true plan for 1907 was, before France left. From what little I can gather, Russia was supporting Bur to Mun.

France's NMR in 1908 saved me, though our press had by this point been geared toward trying to effect a turning of France south and me east lest Italy swallow us both. Russia's support of Bur to Mun would have had disastrous effects had France turned his full attention east, however, rather than managing an NMR.

What little end game was seen and the failed mid game with France's NMR had me at peace with the new France (who was trying to stop Italy's push west after France's NMR) and me set to steamroll Russia.

By the time of my stab of France I was looking at Italy's position and trying to figure out which set of 18 centers was the best for me to pursue. Once France NMR'd I figured leaving the new France alone to slow Italy while I pressed through Russia (on Italy's side of the diagonal NE to SW stalemate line) would be the stronger set of 18 centers to pursue).


What I learned and re-learned:
1. Position in the spring, stab/secure new centers in the fall. (I have to remind myself of this constantly when planning stabs).
2. As Germany, talking to everyone constantly is not just a good idea, its mandatory. I attribute my survival and subsequent success to my constant press to all my neighbors, allies or not. I also tried to keep in touch with distant nations to establish friendships for the end game, though with time commitments, this wasn't as consistent as I would have liked. It never is..)
3. Limit your conflict as much as possible. My constant flip flopping between England, Russia, England, France, Russia made things in some sense harder for me, though I don't see much alternative in this game other than choosing England as my ally from the beginning. An england who follows through on a war with both France and Russia is probably not going to fight Germany anytime soon.
4. Plan your spring moves with your fall moves in mind. (related to point number 1 though it applies to all cases not just stabs. I still forget this principle often so... repetition will make it stick, I hope.)
5. Also plan your moves with at least a few turns forethought to what the likely state of the board might be down the road. Have specific goals and don't just react to the current state of the board. I guess this is why I ended up flip flopping as my original plan was to remove england with French help and then we each were supposed turn and fight with our backs to each other. Seeing this wasn't immediately viable, I probably should have adjusted my plan rather than use reactionary moves for several turns to try to get back to where the plan was a viable one. Once england was gone, my constant friction with France and my uneasy peace with Russia made it seem like a good time to stab France since the conflict in the east was still going. At this point I changed my entire plan (rather than just that year's moves) because the situation seemed to call for it. Rather than simply react to the board, I planned to carry on a sustained drive against France before turning on Russia. Italy and or turkey were going to be my new partner, and so I started working the press to this effect. The apparent combined French/Russian stab of Germany that never materialized because France went NMR would have put a serious crimp in my plan, but my long range planning in securing friendship with turkey/Italy may have allowed me to survive even still, and Russia was not in a position to carry out a sustained war with me.
6. Write your EOG report as you play... for a 2 month game its hard to remember what happened back in August, let alone July.
7. Trust no one any more than you have to, especially if you angered them earlier in the game.

I must also say that my view of things was much different than the professor's in the early game. France was my ally from the start (albeit there was always unease), I was using England from the beginning, and Russia and I were supposed to be at peace (but for the fleet build in 1901 and my pre-emptive response in 1902, and Russia's stab in 1904, and again in 1907). I didn't openly take sides in the French English conflict immediately because I had a hostile Russian to my east, and things were much more solidly in my favor in the west (at least in my view) than the professors painted it.

Triumvir,

A couple questions I have for you:
What would you have done differently as Germany?
To what extent to do you formulate plans through out the game?
After initial press, I only formed tenative plans for initial targets, with no thought of mid game or end game. It seems I should have been planning immediately after spring 1901 moves where I wanted to be in the mid game, and then once Austria and england were effectively done and it was clear the mid game had begun (or even in the late part of the early game), begin planning how to controlling key portions of stalemate lines/determine who potential draw partners might be/identify which 18 centers are my best shot to solo, in otherwords end game planning (which I had started to do this game).

How do you deal with required changes to your plans (like the russian build of a fleet in Stp SC?)

Thanks again for all your help!

I'll put off the first question for a while, because it will require more thought.

As to the extent to which I formulate plans, as soon as I find out what nation I'll be playing, I look at the board and figure out which 18 centers I would ideally like to take for the win. I make a (very) basic plan for how I want to get there, but that doesn't take real solid shape until after '01 or '02, when I have a better idea of who I'm dealing with in the other nations. Sometimes my initial plan has to be changed radically at this point, but not often. I also like to formulate my plan in stages, so it's not just a 3 center to 18 center plan. That is to say, I decide "First I want to add these 3, then these 2, then I'll stab _____ and move onto these..." This type of specific planning usually comes after the first couple turns.

As to changes to the plan - they always come and you have to deal with them. I have 7 solo victories and as many draws. I can only think of one game that went "according to plan" from the beginning. It's learning how to deal with those forced changes to your plan that make someone a good strategist/diplomat. I think the multi-step plan that I mentioned above helps in this area. That way, when trouble does arise, the question is not "How am I going to get to 18 centers now?" but rather "How am I going to achieve step 2 in light of this new development." This makes it easier for me to put such changes into perspective. Does that make sense?

Again, I'll get to your first question later, either on here or via e-mail. Remind me if I don't get to it in the next couple days. (Mid-terms next week)

bump

I'd like to see other student's EOG's..

bump. All students are required to post EOG's

First I would like to start off by saying sorry. I’m sorry for ruining the game that was already ruined. So truthfully I am not sorry. Ha.

Okay so when I began the game, I did not have a TA. He was on vacation or something like that. So I got another TA who I didn’t really feel like he was a TA. I don’t know why but I never felt comfortable even with my real TA. I would send him few messages because I didn’t know really what to say, or what to ask.

I feel like I felt childish asking stupid questions and such. Or making stupid plans and trying to explain in words how I am going to execute it. Or instead of talking to my TA first, I would already commit to something and then tell him. Then he would tell me that it would be unwise. Oops.

Which is my entire fault. Maybe I should not have agreed to play this game. But I did.

So my first negotiations started off strong with England Germany Austria and Turkey. I sent messages to both Italy and France but just the standard stuff. “I will tell you if I hear anything about you as long as you do the same” You know that type of stuff but longer.

Anywhooooo… My first year I think I might of scared England off any chance of an alliance between us. We had the second most conversation out of all my neighbors except for Turkey. About half way into the first phase we had to pause for my TA to get back or replaced. Which gave us more time to talk until everyone was on to unpause.
During this time, England asks if I have heard from Austria and Turkey yet of any real plans. I respond no not really. And then Boom he tells me that Turkey and Austria plan on attacking me. Turkey told him.

I really feel like this is a flat out lie. But then France out of the blue mentions the same thing. So I ask around and determine that it is a lie. I tell England that I do not like liars and such. He says that he had jumped the gun and told me something that he thought to be true but he does really not know for sure. But I should be cautious none the less.
This is where I failed as a diplomat. I called him a liar and really turned him away from choosing me when he had the choice of either me or Germany. Which he should have chosen me as Germany was obviously very good at being manipulative. I mention this later.

Anyways first year went well. Except for the fact that Turkey’s builds really spelt out JUGGERNAUT!!! Which F’d me over all over the place and gave Germany a perfect way to convince England to help him. But any other builds would have screwed me even more.

Next year(1902) my diplomacy really started to focus on killing the Central Powers. But maybe I had tried to much as it seemed the central powers were very dangerous against Russia. Able to convince at least England to stop the “Jugg” Germany had heavily caused me grief this year. And I absolutely saw his skill in the diplomatic ways. And knew I would have to kill him. If was never about a personal fight against Germany. His attack on me was not the reason I took all of Ska(or helped take all of Ska) in 1904. It was because I saw him as the first real threat at beating me.

Diplomatic wise he was sound and skill wise he was playing great. He had to go down.
But, except in 1903, I was never in position to try and hurt him, or when you count the year that France quit. God would I have done some work then.

Anywhoo….Down south… Turkey was a cunning bastard but a nice bastard. I will never believe that Black Sea was an incorrect move, but it was a smart one. It really put me in check and forced me to support him to Serbia in 1902.

Austria felt that the two fleet builds were a sign of Jugg so he went after me. And he was right to do so. But since he got screwed in 1901 by Turkey’s brilliant diplomacy He was forced to work with his neighbors heavily. He never had a true Identity as an individual country. He never gained a SC without some help or no resistance. This made him doomed from the start.

Italy was not a great diplomat. Which made him a great diplomat? Ha.

At least to me he never seemed that way. But who knows maybe he was behind everything bad that happened to me.

Near the end he was obviously great convincing Turkey to attack me. But the better thing would have been able to convince us both. But he would never been able to.

His comments were short and sometime misleading. But maybe he wanted it that way.

Anyways in 1903 I had stabbed Turkey but was it a stab? I convinced turkey it wasn’t because His position was still great. And I would not be helping Austria anymore; I had done it to keep both Austria and Germany off my back. One of Germany’s comments said help with Turkey and we will stop fighting. That year also finally had England being attacked by Germany and me able to convince him that an army in Sweden would help me out a lot in regaining my country and would have little effect on anything in Ska. Then I convince England and my plan was off.

When 1904 started I had entered talks with France and Italy trying to get a three way draw going. If France and Italy were doing well.. Then I was doing well.

But Italy was weird and did not seem really into it or discussing it. But his relationship was not the most annoying. And I will get to that in a little bit.

So I decided why not get Turkey into it. I mentioned it to France and he said he did not care if it was Turkey or Italy. So I decided to stick with Turkey. Wrong move I guess. But that was also my fault for moving Budapest into Gal. I really wanted Warsaw. That was where I flubbed the game up. I feel like us out of position against Italy convinced Turkey to turns towards me.

Turkey was always mentioning and talking about plans and would pick ones that seemed quick. He did not have patience which is a flaw of his. But later he gained some but by the time we could finally start getting our plan moving France goes and NMR’s.

This is where I got pissed. If France and Germany started a war France would have won against Germany with my help. Italy would not of attacked France because he was still fighting me and Turkey.

But France was still logging on. And he was always posting that he was really busy in real life so I figured if it was so important lets pause or Draw with FRANCE. It seems reasonable. But Italy was not having any of it. He agreed to draw WITHOUT FRANCE!! A four way draw. I was not against a four way draw if France CD but if France had gotten on and was able to confirm that he would not be able to play for blank amount of time then if the time was long enough then we would draw. And if it was short then we could pause. But he never responded and at that stage of the game when we are trying to LEARN the game should have been ended. But instead the mods and the Dean replace a guy in the middle of the game.

I’m sorry but I’m not learning anything but how to be screwed. Which is not bad if talking about a hot blonde but we are talking about a game. So I had enough and put my draw vote up.

But this FNG(f**king new guy) would not put up draw. I never really voiced it though and should have tried to convince him too but all four nations had the draw up and he never pressed it. So I said F**k it and voted CANCEL instead and left. No regrets. I even came back and saw that he had pressed his draw vote but I kept my Cancel. And I still don’t know how the Draw happened. Guess it was mod intervention since I was included but I can’t say.

NOWWW TO THE MOST ANNOYING PERSON IN THE GAME AND I HOPE HE NEVER PLAYS AGAIN!!

(original)FRANCE!!!

Big surprise huh!

So many chances to do so much!! He never had to worry about Italy; England Germany and Russia all fighting for the entire time. GOD I wish I was in his position!! Then he up and quits after this entire shit play he had performed. Ugh!

Can his TA PLEASE POST WHY HE DID NOT STAB GERMANY SOONER? Or even better can the original France please get back on and say. Kthxbye!
………………………………………………………………......................................................

All I can really post. I stayed up late just to type this. So if it is terrible grammar and spelling and what not. . . . well. . . . you can just f*ck off!

Basvan(blah blah too lazy to find the rest)- my TA. Never mind I found it. basvanopheusden

Sorry I was not a great Student and did not ask as much as I should have. But you taught me some stuff and it worked to my advantage to stay alive and help my strategies for any future games. Thanks again.

Just to let you know Riphen, you were the hardest of my opponents to manipulate with my press. I considered you the most dangerous of my neighbors (till Italy was a solo threat), but at the same time, I trusted you for a quick gain in scandanavia against England hoping you and I could become more than just uneasy neighbors. That was my biggest mistake because England, Austria and I had you in the noose early on. To be honest, I probably should have seen that you had no easy gains against Turkey, Austria, or Italy and that you wouldn't be content to just sit back and hole up in your defenses if I let you live.

Thanks for the EOG. It was good to know what you were thinking. A quick question though, was your fleet build StP SC at all intended to harm me? I saw very little way it could be used against england as you said and a million ways it could be used against me. Also why SC instead of NC if you meant it against england? Had it been NC, I never would have considered pushing for stopping the juggernaut (real or imagined).

Of course it was for you. Find it funny you even ask.

England was probably my second most annoying interaction. And he was the only neighbor that got on my nerves.

I tried so hard to get me and England to work after year Two. but by the time I convinced him, it was too late. For him..haha.

Seriously why would you try to get me out of Ska? If you are not interested in taking Norway. That is what I told England but he didnt listen until you took Norway.

Also sorry about being all over the place. I, instead of focusing on chronological order, went by big events and each country.

no worries, your EOG was easy to follow for me. I look forward to a match with you again that isn't tainted by (original)France..

And I had to ask about the fleet because you insisted so forcefully that I was wondering if you were telling the truth (and by extension were somewhat deranged). Either way, truth or not, I couldn't let that fleet go unchallenged. I just had to know what in the world you were going to do with that fleet against "england"; the lie was so brazen as to be almost believable in its outrageousness.

There are a million things I could of done. Like me and you plan to use all those fleets for a massive bull rush on England.

Think about it. If we were on the same page that 1902 turn. You would of had Norway and Denmark....Which you tried four years for. Didnt really get anywhere...did ya?

AND NORTH SEA oh my god!!

^

bump.. no one else?

I was hoping to hear from rhinoceros.

I apologize for the delay and want you to know that I haven't forgotten. For what it's worth, it should be coming soon.

Albeit a bit late and a little lengthy, here is my EOG(not the first time I've been late in submitting stuff for this game :P).

Year 1: Negotiations with Austria and Russia seemed to start off well enough. Diplomatically, I had no preference between the two at this point. Italy definitely seemed to be the weakest of the three at this point in the game. For some reason I offered to DMZ the Aegean and the E Med(which didn't actually have anything to do with his diplomacy but a flaw in myself that I'll discuss at the end of this EOG). My relations everyone else were tentative at this point, and it was a lot of the "if you hear anything, just let me know" talk. However, I may have said some things to England about my negotiations with my neighbors that unintentionally led him to believe that I was going to ally with Austria(incidentally the direction my TA was pushing me in) despite not having any feelings one way or the other. I was still feeling much of the same indecision about Russia and Austria as the fall rolled around, and actually initially offered a stand-off in Greece to Austria. It was Austria that came to me with the offer of support into Rumania. I decided that I was willing to go through with it if Germany bounced Russia out of Sweden. I asked Germany to do so, but he never responded and it was only at the last minute that I went for Greece. And yes, Riphen, that move to the Black was intentional. I can only ever remember misordering once, and claim that my moves were misorders too much for my own good.

Year 2: Because of my builds I was finally forced to violate that silly DMZ with the Italian. He feigned indignance but we had both built fleets, and I don't think that anything could have come of the relationship at this point. I tried to convince the Austrian that we could still work together, and even tried to get Germany to vouch for me, but I think that we both knew that that juggernaut was in full effect. My diplomacy with Russia at this point seemed suitably solid, and I was now inclined to continue the relationship. My communication with the west really started to drop off at this point. Part of that was my own fault due the decline in press I was sending but I remember a few of my messages going unanswered for a good few seasons. Other than that, I got lucky with tactics and ended up with six at the end of the year.

Year 3: I knew that Russia had been getting beat up in the north, but his losses came as kind of a shock. I hadn't been partcuarly concerned(and actually kind of happy that he was smaller than me), but I knew that the recent losses were a big danger to me. I wasn't at all surprised, although a little dissapointed, when he turned on me. I tried to get something rolling with Austria or Italy, but neither of them made reasonable demands and, to be honest, I can't blame them. I decided to support hold Rum, thinking that there wasn't any downside for me as Rum would just cut Bul's support if Austria went for Serbia and a potential upside if Austria/Germany tried to take it. Silly me. Moving out of the E Med was simply a ploy to try and convince Italy that we could work together if stabbed Austria. Apparently my efforts were misplaced.

Year 4: The move out of the E Med did have a side benefit, though; it got me and Italy talking, and my initial opinion of him as a pretty mediocre diplomat began to change. The rest of my time was largely spent reestablishing my relationship with Russia, and that paid off in the fall.

Year 5: Getting Rum in the spring was particularly sweet, especially as I had Russia's sanction to stop Austria from retreating there. I should have seen Italy's move to the E Med coming, but given how the game played out I think that it was necessary to solidify our relationship(and I'll explain more on why I wanted that relationship later). Russia's moves in the fall and the loss of Budapest came as quite a surprise, but in the end I don't think that they changed much.

Now, I know that Riphen has already offered his explanation for why I decided to ally with Italy at this point. And, to be fair, his explanation is essentially how I explained my actions through my press. However, my actual decision to go with Italy had very little to do with tactics. To understand my decision, you have to understand this: by this point in the game, I was bored out of my skull. Every time I have played Turkey previous to this I have ended up in a juggernaut, so this game just felt like the same old thing all over again. And while Riphen was by no means a bad diplomat, my press with him felt like 99% of all press that I get on this site does. It felt like work, and it felt like a slog to read and respond to. By contrast, I looked forward to the Italian's press, and I actually enjoyed communicating with him, something I don't find very often on the site. Tactically speaking, I knew that staying with Russia was the superior option. However, I decided that I was done with doing what seemed sensible. I wanted to do what I thought was going to be more fun and interesting, so I went for it. To be honest, I don't really regret that decision. I believe that I had far more fun in the two years that I was allies with Italy than I would have had with Russia. As testament to that, I would bet that I had more press with Italy over that short period than I did over the entire course of my relationship with Russia. Even if I had ultimately been eliminated as a result of this decision, I don't think that I would have regretted it. I'll take a fun loss over a boring draw almost every time.

Year 6: I tried to pass off my build in Smyrna as a misorder. I was actually kind of surprised that Russia didn't do try and cover Arm. I also had to lie to France here about my intentions; that came back to bite me later when my inquiry about an advance on the Italian was met with silence. I agreed to give up Serbia for a future promise of Moscow, although at this point I wasn't really expecting him to follow through.

Year 7: The blame for the nmr lies primarily with me. I messed up my sleep schedule, and the result was predictable. Usually I do have a set of orders in just so I don't nmr, but I ended that practice just for this game. Multiple powers had earlier viewed me with suspicion because I had orders in. I didn't like it, but I felt it was necessary. Ironically enough, I don't think that my nmr affected how the turn would have played out. I don't remember exactly what my orders were, but I do know that what I said in global was true. I'm now forced to go back to the jugg to prevent complete anhilation but still guess wrong in the fall.

Year 8: The final years of the game are the most boring for me. Russia and I both agree that we need to band together to fight against Italy, and all I really do is play tactics. Getting Bulgaria is a lucky stroke, but the French nmr spells bad things for Russia.

Year 9: Essentially a repeat of 1908, although things weren't looking partcularly good for me at the end of it.

In sum, I would say that it wasn't a bad game overall(although the end of the game definitely went downhill). I had fun, and I think I learned a few things along the way. One thing that I did realize, though, was that often times I don't demand enough. I care too much about keeping the alliance strong and having my partner's trust that I don't demand what I am deserved. Not sure exactly how to go about fixing that, but ackowledging that fact should help. Good game all. Oh, and I haven't proofread this, so I'm sure it's full of mistakes in spelling and grammar. :-)

That split smiley at the end just puts the icing on the cake for me. :P

I bet your diplomacy with Italy was fun.

Italy was controlling you and if you were enjoying his diplomacy is just a flaw in your entire play. He wanted you to attack me. And you reluctuntally followed. Doesnt sound like fun sounds like poor play.

I'll have my comments on playing Austria up in the next few days. I do hope that the other students post their comments

I was TA for quebeclove (at least for the start of the game before he first stopped talking to me and then NMR'ed completely). I will give like 6 sentences for what I was telling him throughout the game. Essentially, as long as Italy is busy and France keeps a unit in MAO, Burgundy, and Gascony, France is a fortress. Italy was busy in the east and was going to be for years and years and years; that was clear. So France could afford to wait out England and just sit in the standoff that lasted unnecessarily long. I tried to tell quebeclove to portray this to England, but I don't think he did a great job of it because the standoff. It didn't matter... The commentators didn't seem to think so at times, but there was not one turn the entire game (at least until the NMR) that France wasn't on a path to at least a draw, and often was even better than that. I do think that if not for the NMR, quebeclove would have had a great chance at a solo as long as he supported the juggernaut (pitching a three way) so that Italy would be tied up. Then he could have gone down, sealed Tunis, and already had a good chunk of Germany (as Riphen says he was going to give the support). The cool thing about France is that you can pretty much clinch a solo with only 12 or 13 centers, and that is what we were trying to set up. So yeah.

*because the standoff lasted way too long

bump..
still looking for England, Italy, Austria, and (unlikely) france to post their EOG's.
Also Russia, England, Austria, and Turkey's TA's.

Also Triumvir, a reminder about your promised answer to my first question about what you would have done differently as germany.

Alright, I was TA for fabiobaq (Austria)

We had a lot of communication problems due to time zone differences, and I believe that also had a major impact on his negotiations, but I think fabiobaq had excellent diplomacy skills (a major factor in keeping him alive so long imo) and a pretty good hold on strategy. Tactics killed him here, though. I may have been a bit late in delivering my speech on opening strategy, and I firmly believe that his fate was sealed by his S01 moves, since they allowed Turkey to get Greece uncontested. That caused a steamroll effect, which let Turkey into Serbia, which let Turkey take back Greece, which caused Italy to stab, which was his ultimate killer. Just poor tactics caused him many problems, when he could have taken advantage of Turkey's overabundance of fleets and Russia's predicament. Fabiobaq played very well to the end, and leveraged Russia and got Germany's help, which was key to him surviving for so long. but really, imo, it goes back to spring 1901 and (debatably) fall 1902 where he lost the game.

That said, I will 90% of the time as Austria open with moving the fleet in Trieste to albania. As Austria, I try to be as open minded as possible. Be wary of manipulation, but never be adverse to working with someone. I usually open to Galicia, Serbia, and Albania as a rule, but that doesn't mean I won't open to Rumania instead of Galicia if Russia swears on opening north, or Turkey is amiable towards you. But, I generally will never open to Tyrolia, as that exposes way too many things. Control of Serbia is key to your survival more than anything else, as it effectively can pin enemies down in greece, bulgaria, and rumania for as long as you want. The fleet I find is generally useless, until you start gearing up for the solo. destroy it if possible and you will be all the better for it.

Another thing as Austria is that you always want to get Germany looking east, in order to take pressure off of you, but not so much that Russia is weak or dead. As I have found, a dead Russia is bad for you as Austria. A weak and threatened russia is far superior, as the balkans offer many SC's and you could be the key to the cookie jar. Just make sure you aren't the cookie jar. To do that, you need to give Italy viable chances to grow. Offer him something tangible and achievable. as this game is evidence of, when Italy can't grow, he stabs. That can be said for any country.

Finally, when you're in trouble, getting units into strategic positions is often better than defending your home centers. Become a rouge army and wreck havoc in the backfield of a country (Russia) and you will undoubtably live longer than if you sat defending your shrinking centers. And as a general rule, try to screw the country that screwed you. I love it when they're getting eliminated a year or two after me.

no rhinoceros yet, eh?

Thanks for the reminder. Midterms this week, but I'll put some thought into it.

bumps

It's been quite some time since I was involved at England's TA, but suppose I should say something before I forget everything.

Not so sure I was a very good TA since my play is extremely dependent on press. I talk to people a lot in an attempt to figure out if they are my friend or enemy. If someone is planning to stab me, they often say something to tip me off since I'm not part of their plan and they don't put too much thought into what they are telling me and it's often obvious that I will need to defend myself shortly, but I digress. Anyway, my approach as a TA was to discuss options and allow the student to make his own decisions, which is somewhat ironic since as time went on I'd get message like, "what should I do this season", which clearly showed that I failed. If there was time I'd respond with, "what do you think you should do" or "what do you think are your top options" in an attempt to get my student to engage with the game and actually think about it, but sometimes there wouldn't be much time left in the phase so I'd just discuss pros and cons of different options...

I do remember some issue about England talking to Russia about Turkey wanting to attack Russia. I don't really know what all Turkey said to England about attacking Russia, but I do remember making a comment that when I'm England I'm more than happy for Russia to be fighting Turkey down south since it takes Russia's sights off of England, and I think England ran with that a bit too much, though I'm not entirely sure how much England lied to Russia about it to try and get Russia to focus in the south. This whole situation appeared to blow up in England's face in the pre-game, as if he already had an enemy in Russia, since Russia seemed to be extremely angry about the situation, at least that's how I interpretted what England told me.

I told England that when I play England, I always hope to ally with Germany long-term, since I think it has the most potential, BUT that it always comes down to press and who is playing each great power and figuring out if any of your neighbors want to ally with you. I personally play the players, not the great powers, meaning I ally with who I think will be my best long-term/loyal ally, that's most important to me, finding a person I will enjoy working with and that will enjoy working with me.

1901 went relatively well, I suppose, if you just look at the fact that England got two builds, but England told me that Germany lied to him, though I don't remember about what. Anyway, for me, I would then focus on killing Germany, period (assuming Russia and France had not lied)... BUT, then England reported that both Russia and France were making demands about his 1901 builds and not coming off as decent potential allies. Add that to Germany already revealing he was not a decent potential ally and I didn't really have too much concrete to advise since I am so press dependent when making my own decisions in a game.

To back track a bit, when I play England, I don't need France to make demands of me on my builds, I know what France wants of me just as well as France, and I know building a fleet in Liverpool is a declaration of war on France just as much as France does, so when France makes a point to tell me to not build in Liverpool it often makes me paranoid and makes me think France is telling me that specifically because he plans to attack me and does not want me to be able to defend myself, BUT it is also very dependent on exactly which words France uses to make his demand... I know I'm getting off track here, but this goes to show that my way of thinking does not translate well to a TA because this sort of game is probably more about France telling England not to build a fleet in Lvp since it may not be so clear to England and then I've advised England poorly about the situation.

So, anyway, England's 1901 builds were critical to England success. After Germany's lie(s) in 1901 I made it extremely clear to England that the last thing he wants to do is declare war on France, since that puts all the power in Germany's hands (since Germany can then ally with England or France). BUT, Russia appeared to already be a very angry and upset sort of player (even if most/all was due to England's press regarding Turkey) so IF France was making a bunch of demands and IF England had three crappy choices for someone to ally with, then one way to make the decision could be to ally with whoever provided the best long-term success as an option, which as I said earlier is Germany for me when I play (again, when I have decided that France, Germany and Russia are all relatively equal when it comes to which I'd want to ally with, criteria being which I think I can trust to ally with me long-term the most, that's how I choose allies moreso than which great power I want to work with, it's all about the person).

Perhaps all my vague long-windedness and repeating myself just in describing this much can give you a sense of what I put NinjaIntervention through as his TA, poor guy!

So, at that point, the game was honestly pretty much decided for England, he would die, it was just a matter of how it would happen. As Germany has said, he had no interest in allying with England, he was just using England, which was pretty clear from his 1901 lie(s). Russia was never interested in a long-term alliance with England, though I'm sure Russia may have worked with England a bit to put Russia into a position to then take out England, but I suppose that's most people's approach anyway. England declared war on France with his 1901 builds and France then lied repeatedly about being open to working with England later on, but those were clearly lies based on the fact that France would never consider England as an ally after that 1901 declaration of war. I did try to advise arguments to make each season to get people to help England, but it clearly never worked out.

If anyone has any questions for me specifically, I'll try to check back and answer them to the best of my ability/memory, but that's about all I have to say right now.

Hey, Tru Ninja, thanks for sharing your Italy strategy, it's absolutely brilliant! I probably talk too much to be able to implement it, but the concepts behind the strategy can be applied in other situations, which I plan to do in the future, so thanks again!

I talk a ton as well in most games, which is why I believe I do pretty well at this game. My comments to Italy on detecting a ruse were similar but rather 'raw' with some examples. It included details such as:

--When a player brings up information too early: Some people enjoy talking about alliances far too early. For example, France or England talking to Italy about long-term alliances in 1901 or 1902 are generally empty words because in 1902 they can't be sure that they'll have the ability to turn on a prior ally or even if they will. Often, the players who mention alliances early have pretty good intentions because they want to keep you on friendly terms but this type of talk should be considered false until proven. The best way to ensure these types of agreements are by simply laying down ground rules. This might include not building units in a certain location or units of a specific type in that location, not moving units into DMZ'd areas or simply limiting the number of units in a given region. It might be permissible for Italy to allow France to build a fleet in Mar if he leaves the MAO empty on the prior fall, only docking fleets in Spa nc, or not building 3 units in a given turn. Be up front with what you expect out of someone so that their talk of "alliance" doesn't become a red herring to a stab.
Sometimes people like to try to get you to target another player that's unreasonable to target early. For example Austria asking Russia to move against England, or Turkey asking Italy to attack France. This is fine and dandy if there's a Western Triple but it's suicide in other cases and sometimes someone will try to get you to attack someone they border but might not back you up in the assault or they might help out while allowing another neighbor of yours to slip in and stab your flank. Sometimes it's a genuine request, othertimes it's not and it's always something to be careful of.

--Something they say doesn't make sense: If a player says something that just doesn't make sense (and I don't mean logically) or if something is 'too good to be true' then it's probably a ruse. This might include someone asking you to move your units a certain way that exposes your flank without giving a reason, or even a very good one. An example might include Turkey asking Austria to attack Italy while he goes after Russia or France telling Italy that he needs to keep his fleet in the MAO while building a unit in Marseilles. Other examples include someone offering to empty locations along center zones like Scandinavia or the Balkans (ie: Russia telling Italy to move his units out of the Balkans while he does the same so that they can use their units more effectively against another foe). This is often a ruse and a good set of checks to this are by asking yourself a few questions:
a) does he control more units near your centers than you do or are his units the same distance from your centers as yours or closer?
b) how many enemies does he have or how many other people does he have to focus on?
By asking yourself these questions ahead of time, they can help you gauge whether or not a stab might take place. If his units are the same distance away from your centers as yours and he's asking you to move further away while he does the same, then it could be a trick. If his units are within the distance it takes for him to move to your centers by the end of the year, then you need to be careful by vacating it. Secondly, if he has no real enemies, then he's looking to attack someone and it could be you. If he's asking you to do something that's too good to be true or something ridiculous, then think twice before doing it. A good understanding is that "the guy with no friends is never your enemy" and "the guy with no enemies is never your friend". If someone has no friends, then they're looking desperately for an ally and they're far far less likely to lie to you because they want someone to help them out in a pinch. Conversely, if someone has no real enemies or threats, then they aren't much of an ally and they're far more likely to lie to you.

--Style and frequency of comm: If someone isn't talking much to you or when they do, they're vague in their plans, then they might be planning a stab. Don't ally with a guy who doesn't talk at all and try not to ally with the guy who doesn't talk much. Assume that everyone talks frequently with their allies. If someone's not talking to you very much, it might mean that their time is spent communicating with someone else. People who talk a lot, are detailed in what they want or what they're thinking are much easier to ally with.
Most people won't directly and outrightly lie to you. Some will, but they're the minority, and the best players who do it, do it only a few times a game and make each lie count. The majority, however, try to be vague when they're about to stab. They use deceiving comments instead of outright lies. It might include statements like"I might try to ____, will you____?". This type of statement is vague in that the player *might* try to do what they're saying but they might not also. It's not technically a lie so you can't call them a liar but it is deceptive. It's safe to assume that most of the time someone sends this type of press to you that they're planning on stabbing now or soon.

--Time stamps: This does a wonderful job of telling you when people are on and when they last logged on. You can detect ruses by looking at the time stamps. For example, if you send someone a message, then log off only to log back on and see that they didn't respond, look at the last time they were on. If they were on since the time you sent that message and didn't reply, then something's up. After all, they spent that time talking to someone and it clearly wasn't you. I check time stamps so frequently that I don't even notice when I do it unless something is out of place. Also, of someone logs on and finalizes moves before talking to you, or even if they send comm but finalize before receiving a response, then it often means that they're banking on a certain alliance, especially early in the game. This could very easily be an attack in the works.

--"I forgot": Lastly, you're better off not believing when someone tells you they're going to do something and then when they don't, they use the following language: "I forgot to___", "I swear I submitted different orders", "I accidentally___". Unless the moves hurt them more than they hurt you, they're probably lying. You'll find that this type of talk occurs more frequently the lower on the GR scale you go because vets know that someone else won't buy it, and I'm sure you know to doubt this kind of language, but it needs to be said anyhow. Additionally, sometimes you'll get people that tell you they'll do one thing but do another and then explain their actions away. This often occurs during build phases or fall phases when they promise to do something but renege. Some players assume it's better to do something and then explain it later, but that's only true in FtF games. People can talk during retreat phases, build phases and at any time. Additionally, they have 24-hours or more to let you know about a change of plans and there's no reason to not have done it. Time isn't usually a problem and not letting you know they're changing their mind is usually indicative of a stab in the works.

Also @MM: When TA'ing for Italy in S01, I had him going through profiles (which he didn't do) and I noticed that in a vast majority of your games as England, you see 2 builds in 1901 at Norway and Belgium. What's your key to doing this? I've found that people are pretty reluctant to wanting to give it to me when I'm playing. I've even had games recently where both parties stated they would see me in but it was clear they were lying to me and I found myself being assaulted by F/G/R.

MM: Did you ever try and convince England later on that I was a good ally. I was never mad I just told him I didnt like liars as I believed he was just spitting out things to get a advantage up north.

I never once attacked England until 1904. I wanted to work with him for a long time.

I thought I showed that pretty well in my moves.

Hey, Riphen, I was pushing England as hard as I could to ally with you, from 1901 I didn't think Germany would be a good option and then England declared war on France with those builds, you were the only real option even available, but I suppose the carrot of potential success of an E/F was far too tempting... Plus, it's easy for us to say all this with a bit of hindsight, which is why diplomacy is so much fun, in the heat of the moment, it's pretty easy to have a warped sense of reality especially when real life takes a toll on things, sometimes you just have to wing it a bit and things don't always turn out so good.

TN, just the thought of going through profiles makes me ill, there is no damn way to know the press involved that resulted in moves players makes, everything is so game specific for me I wouln't waste a second looking at profiles any more... Anyway, as far as getting two builds as England, I'm not really sure how, I just try to talk people into it and apparently it works sometimes. I wish I could explain it, like how you explained your Italy strategy, but my brain can't figure that stuff out, at least not to the extent to be able to explain it, I just do stuff and have a sense of what I should do while I'm doing it, but have no idea how to summarize my thought process to share with others, though, admittedly, even if I did know how to explain it, I'm not so sure I'd be as generous as you and actually do it, that may have a negative impact on my success! :-)

^

bump

^

I'm guessing it's unlikely we'll see any more analysis on this??

I doubt it. I'd have liked to hear from Rhinoceros, but that's not going to happen. I'm honestly surprised the thread was bumped several times.

It just saddens me that all the players knew what they were taking on from the beginning, agreed to the terms and conditions, yet didn't follow through. The EOG's were the best part of this game

I agree. Pretty sad turn out for this one. Game 2 is going really well, though.

Seeing as this thread has all but gotten its last update. I'm going to ask how I should organize/format my EOG for Game 2 when I post it. So far I've just been putting down bullet points of what I was thinking, what I was doing, what others were telling me, what I thought of that, how I fared on my moves, how I was working with my TA, what my TA said compared to what I was saying, reasoning for my moves. Stuff like that.

Going season by season, explaining your thoughts, moves, and press should be more than sufficient. Thank you for putting effort into this, scmoo