1) Which element of the game do you feel you have improved the most in because of your SoW experience (Strategy/Tactics/Diplomacy)?

Diplomacy, of course. The way I was sweet talked into doom was very educational.

2) What has been most useful to you personally? The in-game help from the vets, the forum commenting, or something else?

The forum was more helpful because my in-game experience was short.

3) What do you think might have improved this experience for you?

A longer game? :-)

4) Do you feel you have become a better player b/c of this SoW experience? (more so than playing another random game)

Yes.

5) what other comment would you like to share?

Despite being rattled, I had fun! Thanks!

Bump - (Livonia didn't technically just hold, and according to the forum, apparently djbent is hot!)

[SoW IV Official Commentary End-Game]

First off, booo hisss! Soft draws are extremely unsatisfying for me, and there was so much potential here! A six way draw?! Congratulations for completely defeating Babak's ulterior motive of promoting the WTA game play. =P

I'll comment on everyone, but I have to admit that they may be meaningless since they are based on outside speculation without knowledge of the quality and quantity of press involved. I imagine the EOG's will be far more informative. I'll start with my personal pick to win.

My actual prediction from the start of the game was that djbent as Russia would solo, and I remained quite hopeful that I might be proven right throughout the game. I stand by my statement at the very start of the game that djbent has the potential to become a force of a player if she refines her play. She's got the diplomatic chops, but I think she needs to think through her tactical orders more. Case in point, she had great expansion but was always slowed down by various units sneaking past her lines.

BigZombieDude, incredible resilience and resourcefulness. Good co-ordination with various powers to assure your persistence to the end for what I saw as an unlikely share in the six way draw. It's a shame you weren't there from the beginning because I think the game would have shaped quite differently if you hadn't inherited a flawed position. You did a fantastic job with what you were handed.

uclabb, alas, I can't really comment here because of your relatively short stay, though I'll credit your resilience.

FarmerMAN, Great early stab, and I was pleased that through the seeming hiccoughs between you and Russia, it was always patched up in time. You didn't succumb to the ever present tall poppy syndrome, and the results speak to your talent. I'm tempted to say beginner's luck with the early stab, but as we all know, luck has no real part in Diplomacy.

Hamilton, you've certainly got the diplomatic chops. I was very impressed when you snuck into Belgium, and at the time, you were my favourite player on the board, in terms of play style. The situation didn't really give you a lot of room to work with, and I thought it took you a little too long to consolidate within the defensive alliance but perhaps this is a vestige from PPSC play. Once on board, I think you showed the most impressive amount of co-ordination, at two simultaneous fronts, and with three different players.

spyman, despite your NMR and your various tactical bungles, you stayed a significant player through the entire game. While France is notably friendly to mistakes, I don't think I can avoid giving you credit for your diplomatic play. Lesser players would have been quickly gobbled up in your position, but you managed to avoid this plight quite admirably, successfully fending off aggression from all three of your neighbours at different times! I was sad to see the game drawn in large part because I wanted to see you take this final opportunity to develop and expand in a way that the situation never allowed you to earlier.

wooooo, you're currently ranked higher than me on Ghost Rating (by 4 points and 3 ranks =P), but perhaps I can still offer something. I immediately liked your moves to Tyrolia and Bohemia, and they showed maturity and foresight and a good innate sense of the board's balance that so many players lack. Alas, you were foiled by the solidarity of I-R, despite valiant attempts on your part, and by England's short period of waffling. I suspect you might have been a little hampered by your imposing status as a veteran.

Thanks everyone for an interesting game. It was a pleasure to commentate for you all, and I hope I was helpful.

thanks chrisp. this is where i get most frustrated, and usually the most stymied; the end game. i'd love to hear more insight into what specifically i should have done differently. i talked my ass off trying to peel England and France out of the triple, and if i turned on Italy while they were intact, they would have all just ganged up on me, no? France's unwillingness to consider joining Italy and I for a 3-way draw made it clear to me that even stuck behind the lines he wouldn't stab anyone if it meant I would get the win. So I couldn't figure out how to turn this promising position into a solo.

As for the draw, Im not sure it was a soft draw. I was getting nowhere, and we were going to be lucky to resolve things in the south. Plus, honestly, I grew a bit tired of the game (as I've noted elsewhere, I had too many games going on at the time). Of course it was a disappointment to end it at that time, but it seemed warranted.

SOW3 Game id- 11113

Alright, with 4 major powers down to just three I think we need to have "the talk."

By the talk, I mean of course "the end game talk". Up till now its probably pretty easy to avoid that conversation, but now everyone should be asking everyone else "what do you want out of this game"? The truthful answer should ALWAYS be "a win." Remember, School of War isn't just about learning diplomacy, its about being indoctrinated in Babak's favourite game type: Winner Takes All.

In that spirit, I will spout my views quickly. One's primary goal should always be a win, but sometimes thats not attainable. That doesn't mean you should EVER let someone get to 17 patiently so you can draw them. That makes for a boring game, and is bad for your ratings etc. This game isn't about being chum buddies in the face of adversity. But if you can't win, for example if you are someone who isn't England, France or Turkey in our game, then your next step is a draw. A draw is not a win. Its is slightly worse. Two way draws are the best draws and three ways sort of the average draws. Four ways are bad draws and anything more than four is just a bad game of diplomacy that hasn't been played to its fullest.

So, Centurian (I assume you are asking in your head) how do I win a game? Well in PPSC I'm sure you found it moderately easy, especially if you were an early leader. You just entice the cooperative lesser players into helping you along, because its in their interest. In WTA, its not (or so the theory goes). Thus, if you are going to have a hope in winning you are going to need to take at least the final steps with pure force alone. No one should ever allow you to get to 18 using diplomacy, although of course it could happen. How close you get is your choice.

If you see anyone "dashing for the finish" then it is your RESPONSIBILITY to stop them. You do this generally by building a coalition and holding the line. You should have a constant eye on everyone to make sure they can't win without being stopped. Everyone should be making contingency plans in preparation for a stab (looking at E/F) for the third power to hold the line with them. The three major powers should be counting to see where their 18 comes from. Remember, the last centre is always the hardest. 17 is so close so far.

The end game often comes down to stalemate lines, whose got em, who could get em, and whether you need to cross them for centres. An exhaustive guide to diplomacy stalemate lines can be found here:
http://www.diplom.org/Online/StalematesAtoY/

Particular attention should be given to the article "Minimal Southern Stalemate Positions" found here:
http://www.diplom.org/Online/StalematesAtoY/southern-min.htm

I point out those positions because thats something that Turkey (or possibly Austria/Turkey) should put every effort into occupying. I single out Turkey because he is most likely to fear being overrun by a super alliance. If he can sit behind an unbreakable line then all he has to do is wait for E and F to start fighting and then he can break free.

If it degenerates into a simple 2 on 1, then a nifty trick is the "threat throw". This is where you only defend against one of the attackers, putting major pressure on the one losing out to switch sides. I've only used this tactic once, when faced with a two way draw without me in a league game, and it worked like a charm. Disclaimer: I say it worked because I broke up the alliance. It didn't work in the sense that the person I was throwing it too still ended up winning, but only because of a 50-50 shot he had before lines were drawn up. You should also be careful with this tactic, don't use it to be a jerk, use it to get ahead.

If you are any of the other powers there is still hope. You need to look at the stalemate lines as well. Stick yourself on the big ones. There are obvious choke points on the map. A rough line drawn from St Petersburg through Switzerland to Portugal is a good approximation of these points. But any centre in Italy, and some around the Black Sea (Rum, Sev) do alright as well. If you can get rival powers to incorporate you into your lines you will become indispensible. The key is timing. You want to be squished in between the two powers. You don't want to be able to move. You need to be "effectively unkillable" because doing so would jeopardize a position. A good way to do this (looking at Austria here) is to offer yourself up as a "janissary". This is where you are led along in front of a bigger nation allowing him to swallow up centres behind you as you advance. In theory this is in exchange for survival, but the front is often where things slow down to "draw territory".

So in effect, this time is a time to start ousting powers. The number of players should start dwindling now because the fewer players in a draw the better, but everyone should be jockeying for position in an attempt to "dash for the finish."

Good Luck!

And that gentlemen, is what happens when Centurian is too tired to go out on a friday night.

Thanks Centurian. Stalemate lines personally do my head in but I guess we can't avoid them at this stage of the game.

Hey i'd like to get in on one of these games as a student

@centurian- WOW that was possibly the longest single post i've seen on here. congrats. and with most long posts they seem pointless, but that post actually had very good info, and has helped me.
you should stay in more often, maybe write a diplomacy book ;)

Is another SoW going to start soon? Since the 4th one ended? I've been waiting to learn something before starting another dip game =) Don't want to just play for no reason, after all. And I've always been dying to hear feedbacks, too

[comment for SoW IV]

Although I haven't been commenting, mainly because that I am still learning the game, I have been following this particular game closely. I, too, agree with Chris. The game does have potential to keep on going....but the this process might sacrifice some players (turkey, for instance). But the part that interests me the most is how the map looks the same as it started! Purple to the East, Green in South, Blue in West, and Pink in North. =) oh, and let's not forget the little chocolate in the middle!

I think we should let more games finish before we start some more.

also - i think the SoW community would work better if we focused on one or two games at the most rather than four at a time. Part of what makes these games so fun is seeing the diverse opinions that people have. When you only have a few people following each game I think you lose something.

I agree with Jacob. I think we should at least wait until another game finishes before starting a new one, and then maybe have 3 running at a time at the most.

PyroMancer commented about the importance of having a long term plan. I remember I read in a article that a good player should know exactly which centers he would need to conquer to get to 18.

But, although aware of need of having the way to victory planned from the start, on practice I have no idea of how setting such a plan, considering the changes that occur on the board. So I start with an inicial plan to take over some country and folowing step only at most. After that I just go with the flow to where Im able to expand.

This is something that I really would like to read commented here by some experienced player who took part and finished a SoW: a commentary on the game focused on the long-term goal and how to achieve it, what did they take in consideration to settle it and how it has been adapted along the game.

"don't use it to be a jerk, use it to get ahead."

Loved that line, Centurian. That should just be the catch-phrase for Diplomacy in general.

I also agree with Jacob and Texas that 4 games running at one time is too much. Im not being able to follow them all and Im only reading. Just imagine those who are playing and commenting!

I finished my first two games on this site and Im not joining any new one - except maybe a live one or a gunboat ;) - till a new SoW starts so I can give full attention to it.
But I dont mind it may take a little longer to begin, as there are 2 SoW games present going on and being commented, (plus one that is paused).

So, someone commented on not knowing exactly what a long-term plan entails, and how to go about creating one, so I'll go into a bit of detail. I'm certainly not the most experienced here, but I'll do my best to explain, and give an example of such a plan.

For the sake of this example, we'll pretend we're Turkey. At the beginning of the game, when making a long-term plan, assume for the sake of argument that you simply won't have allies. This original plan will of course change, but it will give you an idea of what you need to accomplish, who you need to ally, and who you need to back stab.

So as Turkey, the nearest 18 Centers are your home Centers, the Balkans, Italy, Tunis, Austria, and Russia. So, if you created no neighborly allies over the course of the game, those are the Centers you must have to win.

Now, lets assume that for whatever reason you decide on a longterm alliance with Italy. Assuming Italy takes, say Trieste and Greece, you need:
Home Centers, Bulgaria, Serbia, Rumania, Budapest, Vienna, Sevastople, Moscow, Warsaw, St. Petersburg... and this is twelve so far. So, you're going to have to expand your long-term plan to other regions. The nearest 6 would most likely be Munich (if your ally Italy hasn't taken it), Berlin, Kiel, Sweden, Norway and Holland or Edinburgh. As you march into Germany however, and 15, 16, 17 centers, you might consider a swift stab against Italy, taking that juicy Greece and Trieste for your final centers.

This of course bars Diplomatic relations. But this is mostly about basic unit-oriented strategy. It's like mapping your path through the country on a road trip. You can see the nearest sights, or you can go a little farther and see others more abroad, but miss out on some that are closer to home.

So that's basically the how things should go in your mind. Closest or easiest centers for you to grab based on your diplomatic relations. If you're intent on remaining allies with a player, factor that in. Otherwise, just be sure you stab at the right moment.

it generally helps to be realistic when making your plan as well. turkey in norway and sweden is a pretty good stretch :P

I think it depends a great deal on what power you are playing. If you are a corner power such as England or Turkey, you are pretty much going to have to invade your neighbours at some point to win. For example, Turkey would have a hard job winning without taking at the very least Sev, whereas Russia could still win without taking any Turkish home centres.

PallasAthena, you should join our live game group on google:
http://groups.google.com/group/live_diplomacy

Great set of comments and many important things have come up... I'll try to address them all, but if I miss anything, someone tell me.

1 - we will wait for a 2nd game to finish before we start SoW V. I would then suggest we wait for the last 2 to finish before we start SoW VI. I also have a very good idea for our first graduate SoW course, but we'll wait on that for a while longer.

2 - Thanks again to Chris, Pyro, and Centurian for a few great commentatriat posts... any player who is looking to learn a thing or two about this game would greatly benefit by readying the posts on here and by going to the blog that has the earlier posts listed... it'll be a LOOONG reading - but I promise you'll learn a ton if you follow any of the 4 games.

3. on Game IV. I wont hide the fact that I'm very very disappointed at the 6-way draw. This is an absolutely weak finish to a phenomenally played game, and if I was the professor in this class, I'd give an 'incomplete' to all the participants. I am particularly curious to hear from our 2 remaining vets in that game why they would agree to a 6-way draw??? honestly, I cant think of any good excuses. There were no stalemate lines, there was plenty of play left in the game... there was an italian unit in Edi, an English unit in Apulia, a one-center Turkey and a bunch of other reasons NOT to draw this...

A. Russia - at the VERY least - you could get rid of Italy+Turkey for a 4-way draw with 15-16 centers.

B. Russia - you could drop a few dots to lower the 'threat' of a solo and pick up France as an ally against Italy and EG...

C. Germany - you should have dangled a better result in front of R's face (3-way or 4way) and offered to stab E if Russia stabbed italy...

D. France - You could have offered Russia help against Italy in return for some concessions (ie being allowed to grow to 8-10) then worked your fleets down to form at least a 4-way draw...

E. France - could have worked a deal with Italy to squeeze out the few English units in between them, then turned against E while Italy turned to face R.


This game should have been an FGR 3-way draw... a 6-way is a really shocking to be honest with you all.



4. The End-Game - stalemate lines and counting to 18 are things you pick up with experience... but it certainly helps to read about them. there are some stalemate lines you simply learn or know about through experience... but I highly recommend each rookie/newbie reads at least 2-3 articles (many out there) on the importance and functionality of stalemate lines... even if you dont memorize all the positions, at least get a solid grasp of why and how they work. there are a few VERY key bottlenecks on the board... (the Mun/Ber line; the Mos/War line; Pie/Mar pass; TyS/Ion/Tun pass; the MAO/Iberia corner, and the StP corner) These will also help inform you as to what 18 are possible... for example if you are a western power, if you can get to 17 (ie to Tun or Rom or Ven) then StP can be your 18th... b/c any western power will eventually take StP from any southern/eastern power. equivalently, if you are a southern/eastern power, you should never count on StP as a dot b/c you cant hold it without northern fleets and sometimes not even when you have those...

that's why one of the most important things is 'breaking through' the stalemate lines... for example in game 4, where italy had a fleet in the north, this was KEY... it meant a stalemate line was broken until the western powers could destroy his fleet... similarly, if say Germany gets an army into Tri or Ser or if italy/AH get an army into Ruh/Bur, they have broken past a stalemate line and can then achieve a solo (not that its guaranteed, but that its then possible).

After a while you realize what these key moves/plays in a game are... but you have to get into your games with some general idea of those 18... so more important than anything else is that you play enough games TO the end-game.

NOTE: PPSC games DO NOT HAVE an end-game. b/c in PPSC games, and end-game is so easily manipulated... its easy to get slaves/jennisaries to do your bidding for a few measly points and forgo the entire process of stalemate lines that this game was designed with in mind. Any good player that manages to get into the mid-game in a PPSC should be capable of turning their performance into a solo at least half the time... but in a WTA game (its not just a variant... it is THE design of the game) the end-game is the exciting part... thats when you REALLY get into the tactical element, into the diplomatic mind-games... and into the really devious and well-planned stabs. before that... its all child's play.

up until the end game... really there is very little difference between a PPSC game and a WTA game... honestly - except maybe a higher likelihood of meta-gaming in PPSC games and pre-arranged alliances etc... so if you want to be a real dip player... and a real SoW graduate student - its the end-game that you play for...

it is also the HARDEST part of Diplomacy.



5- one final point... your #1 goal in Diplomacy is to "Win" of course. but your #2 goal if #1 is unattainable is to make as many other players lose as possible. so if you have 17 dots w/ 4 other players opposing you - its better to figure out a way to drop down to 12 dots but eliminate 2 of your opponents... so all draws are NOT created equal. this isnt about just the 'points' ... its about the 'goal' of the game...

Furthermore- you should all know that a 2-way draw is an unnatural occurrence in the Dip-world. Go take a look at Diplomacy Tournament play - how many games end in a 17/17 draw? a minuscule number... b/c if you are going to draw 17/17 that means one of the players was a complete idiot and could not pull a solo out... either that or the two players cheated (by colluding - metagaming). a 2-way draw is as rare as a coin landing on its side. it happens, but when it does, everyone runs over to watch since its reallllllllllllllllllllllllly rare. (this is not true in PPSC games where 2-way draws, in my opinion, are pretty normal and natural occurrences.... and should be as common as a solo)



so my personal advice to you all is this... when playing WTA games....keep your eyes on the attainable prize of a 3-way draw... dont give up hope or give up trying for the solo... but recognize that a 3-way draw is pretty much as good as it will get most of the time... a 3-way draw is indeed something to be proud of... a solo is an amazing and uncommon feat that should be celebrated... =)


I know that a lot of what I wrote above is my own personal opinion, and I dont want to start a flame war... but I do want to emphasize that the thrill and excitement of a solo in an honest-to-goodness WTA Diplomacy game is truly unparalleled in the strategy game world... its the ultimate gamer's-high!!! so don't sell it short for a 6-way draw or for the cheap-thrills of a PPSC game =)

alright - enough preaching from me...

great commentary all - and most of all, I'm glad to read that so many of you have taken away so much from playing in these games, commenting on these games, and even just watching and following these SoW games... even if you may disagree with my philosophies, I'm glad we all are enjoying the game of Diplomacy a bit more as a result of this SoW series.

SOW IV

Good post Babak. I feel so guilty now. But as I said in my EOG statement I was just grateful to survive after the way the game had been going for me. It honestly was a comedy of errors on my part. But it is true that things were actually looking up for me, but I convinced myself that the only alternative to a draw was a Russian victory.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

Jacob: "it generally helps to be realistic when making your plan as well. turkey in norway and sweden is a pretty good stretch"

It is, but I was mostly just illustrating a point. And I did mention that it might be easier to just backstab an ally at that point ; )

@spyman: yes given a choice between a russian solo and a draw i think you made the right one. It is russia who shouldn't have agreed.

So regarding what babak said, yes some of the players shouldn't ave agreed to a draw, but for other (like turkey) a draw was the best possible result.

As for corners attacking their neighbours, England-Germany or England France can work (especially if E builds only fleets and the other builds only armies, plus france can help get around the MAO-WesMed stalemate line with a fleet in mars) Turkey and austria can also work with Turkey concentrating in the med, and austria heading to germany (assuming they work together to take out russia) however it is much harder for turkey to get fleets into the atlantic... (and turkey taking edinburgh for 18 would be a rather impressive feat, but diplomacy can work wonders for any player)

Lastly regarding stalemate lines, it is often better to try avoiding them by using diplomacy than tactics. Most lines are 16 ish supply centres behind an impenetrable defence and so long as you don't have one player on either side it should be possible to break through... just my opinion.

haha well fair enough babak, but it was wooooo who was hell-bent on a draw. and thanks for the concrete ideas of how to move forward - i actually was trying to give england STP that last turn in the hope that it would shake up E/F/G but he didn't take it even though he said he would!!

anyway, it was a fun game, i was personally tiring of it a bit and it seemed others were, and i think it served it's purpose. so, i'm not disappointed ;)

I have no regrets about the draw. Some people have a strong opinion about the matter, but let me explain my rationale.
I had tried to organize some kind of change in the game so that Italy and Russia would fight. It was clear at this point they weren't going to. Given that fact, there was no reason for F/E/G to fight, as it would give the other 2 the win. Now I don't play for draws, but when a game has it's sides sets, I have no real intention of playing the game. It was not a game of diplomacy, it was a game of tactics, that I was sure would end in a stalemate. I had no reason to waste my time getting there, and since R/I would have to make the first move in any stab, they weren't going to. So i pushed for a draw, to get the inevitable over with.

Bump!

bump... more to write later...

[SoW IV - Official Commentary - EOG]

Firstly, like Chris & Babak, I'm slightly surprised that this game is over. I understand why the game has been drawn, but I've been there myself, but I would have thought that the elimination of Turkey from the draw would have been a minimum. Endgame fatigue is a real issue - when the sides have formed, those alliances are (in my experience) almost impossible to break.

Turkey - Taking over a CD, and surviving - well done. There was some sound tactical play, some innovative moves, and diplomacy with both sides of the board - how often do Turkish and English fleets co-operate?
I'd like to see you in SoW V/VI from the start.

Russia - Good game. It's a shame you never got your southern front as well organised as the north, as things could have been different. Also, the aborted stab on Italy would have made things very different ad you gone through. It's a real problem when your only way forward is through your ally..

Italy - Great early game, but your play faded as the game progressed. The unit behind enemy lines was your greatest asset in the end game, but you had been pushed behind the stalemate line from a position in front of it, and you can't be happy about that. Hopefully you've learnt a lot from the experience

Germany - Well done for solidifying the alliance, but I completely disagree with Babak - I think you are the one who would have been most likely to be eliminated - stuck in the middle. Good, solid play in the face of a strong opponent, and you deserve your place in the draw

France - I think, given the NMR and the misorders, lucky is a good word to use. Thankfully, you brought your A game at the end of things, and you and England we're set to push on in the Med

England - Great defensive play at the end - and some creative moves to try and outsmart the rogue Italian fleet. Well worth your place in the draw.

Austria - Unlucky - I like the Key Lepanto, but there is always that risk of a greedy Italy. Well done for surviving as long as you did

Overall, I would have expected this to end as a 5 way, not a 6, although Russia still had hopes of a solo when the next two units game into play...

300th post - woohoo :P