now really confused lmao

Gold has just shown how far he will go to win this. He has already shown his padawan learner how to so confusion in the minds of his opponents.

OK, sorry for the confusion. I'll unpause.

I am right in thinking its ok for me to read this thread and comment as long as its not specifically game related?

or should I restrict myself to bumping?

Once commentary starts, you're restricted to bumping.

looking forward to the first commentary

Yes

Spring 1901

England:

You're starting out well, I'd say. It's always nice when you don't have to spend a season bouncing with France. Of course, if you bet wrong and end up with a French fleet in the Channel, it will really slow you down, but it seems to have worked out for you this time. Moving your army so you can convoy it with either fleet was a good move; that's something that is occasionally neglected. You should pay close attention to BEL. What happens there will be very telling of the next few moves. Also, take note of Russia moving South. You'll have to decide if you want to leave him as a friendly neighbor or take advantage of his absence in the north.

France:

A good opening for you as well, I'd say. For the moment, you have no need to worry about England or Italy, which allows you to solely focus on Germany. You could easily strike deals with both England and Italy regarding MUN and BEL. Just be sure not to needlessly wall yourself in.

Germany:

You should be a bit concerned, but don't panic quite yet. Leaving DEN open is not something I recommend, because it gives you no ability to bargain with Russia and very little to bargain with England. If you were in DEN now, you could have bounced Russia in exchange for England's supporting you to BEL. Or you could have not bounced Russia in exchange for him building a northern fleet to defend you against England. Unfortunately, that opportunity has passed. Italy's move to TYR is a concern, but not an excessive one. Hopefully, he told you about it, but even if he didn't, I don't think it's at great risk. Italy is not well positioned to keep MUN even if he takes it this turn; it will quickly fall to France. Make sure he realizes that.

Russia:

You lucked out with Germany moving his fleet to HOL. You can now take SWE for free. Be wary of England, though. If he lands an army in NOR, he's looking for a fight, no matter how sweet his words. Make sure he understands you would see that as an act of aggression. In the south, things seem pretty standard. I'm assuming both bounces were arranged, but if not, you'll have a little extra diplomacy to do this turn. You are excellently positioned to make deals with both Austria and Turkey, which is a very nice situation to be in.

Italy:

I will be honest, I'm not too sure what you're planning. I suspect someone lied to you, which is how you ended up in TYR completely alone. You could very well go for MUN this turn, but consider carefully how you plan to keep it. The move to APU at least was good, as it allows you to convoy to TUN or GRE and would have defended VEN if Austria had stabbed you. Plan your next set of moves carefully; you can afford to have a rogue unit wandering the north not advancing your plans.

Austria:

I think your moves were about as strong as the could be, considering what your neighbors did. Bouncing in GAL is always a good decision, as it doesn't slow you down much and is a strong deterrent against an assault from Russia. I also like the ALB move, as you really can't afford to waste time bouncing VEN. You've set yourself up to get at least one build, even if you're attacked by Italy, which is very good. Be careful of that Italian army in TYR, though.

Turkey:

It is a shame you had to bounce in BS. In general, it is more important for Turkey to mobilize his fleet than for Russia to, so a BS bounce is not as even as it initially appears. Luckily, given Italy's position, I do not think a Lepanto is likely. Even if it does happen, I don't think it will be all that effective. Given the position of the board, I'd say Italy is your best shot for a friend at the moment.

Abge - your final sentence to Italy seems to be slightly contradictory.

Spring 1901 Erratum:

"Plan your next set of moves carefully; you *can't* afford to have a rogue unit wandering the north not advancing your plans."

Thanks to the several people who pointed that out.

Spring 1901

Usually, the first season is a bit bland. In experienced games, very little occurs that really turns heads. With the first season, I always try to look at certain things because they can give insight into what might be going on around the board. I look at Burgundy, the Black Sea, Piedmonte, Galicia, Denmark, St. Petersburg and the English Channel. Where there are variances around the map for opening moves, they most often occur here. I will talk about each country's moves centered around what I expect, what I saw, what I like and what I avoid.

Each season, I will separate the map into the two different spheres of influence: the east and the west. This will occur while there is a discernible east and west. In each sphere, I will rank each country based o several factors: the number of units, the position of these units, and the opportunity available to that country. I say "if each country went into Civil Disorder and I was going to take over a country, which would it be, in order.

The East
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The east was difficult to rank. First, this early, rankings are highly susceptible to country preference because, even though the first year is the most important, as long as you don't butcher S01, you stand a strong chance of seeing the midgame.

Turkey
I ranked Turkey on top because this opening is the most standard. It's neutral, expected and the default. His hand isn't telling and everything comes down to the diplomacy. I am one of the worst Turkish players known to man with NO solos with this country. Therefore, to rank you above the others indicates things I'm looking at in your neighbors that raised eyebrows.

Italy
Most people dislike a Lepanto. I for one am in favor of it. It's non-committal. As Italy, you have to be sure there's not a long-term RT, and if you can't make that call with a fair degree of certainty, then you should be considering Lepanto. The only problem with the Leoanto is that it doesn't move that third unit. In many cases, it's left to hold. Sometimes it pesters France and goes to Pie, while other times it hits Tri. Here, it went to Tyr. This raised my eyebrows because a move like this comes with a plan. This means you've already got an idea of what you want it to do. The only issue is that it's just one unit, and it's sitting in a very sensitive spot. It's too early to say whether its for the good or the bad, but it's very curious.

Russia
Russia is in a tough spot at the beginning of the game. He either starts off strong or goes down in flames, but nothing Russia does is slow. 1901 is also a pivotal year, and S01 is important to get those units going where they need to secure my future gains. Your raking fell because of the number of units doing nothing. I tend to frown on security bounces because they're not risk-taking, and if they're not risk-taking, then they're not maximizing my efforts. At various points, you have to trust that others are going to do what they say they will. I want my units to move and get to where they can issue supports, take centers, and successfully help an ally or hinder an opponent. Spring bounces prevent that. In fact, spring is the season to take chances. If they don't pan out, you still have the fall to clean things up. It's like 1st down in football. It's ok to go for the Hail Mary because if you miss the pass, you still have 2 more downs to pick up 10 yards. The BLA is the exception. Care has to be taken in deciding how to handle the BLA. A bounce sugnifies nothing and has the rest of the map carrying on its normal routines. A DMZ sends people into a silly premature panic if not done well. Gal, on the other hand, is the one you should avoid unless your opponent really pushes the issue. Even still, I try to tell them, you can move there if you want, but I won't be there. If Austria got in, so what? You're out nothing. But if you told him you won't be there and he goes there anyhow, you look like the saint and he the devil and it can go a long way to making an ally out of him. Plus, the bounce limits what you COULD have done with the unit, and that is more important than sitting at home.
Now, all of this would have put you at the bottom. The German opening guarantees ou Swe, and anytime Russia can get Swr, it's a good year. I hate playing Russia in F01 sweating over whether Germany is going to bounce me out of Swe. Here, there's no fuss and no muss (whatever that means).

Austria
Your position is highly debatable. The Gal bounce is better for you than Russia because you can never have too much security in the first year. You did everything fine, but the presence of the Italian fleet is an irritant, the Gal bounce means you and Russia aren't clear-cut allies and te BLA states nothing. This means that the S01 diplomacy wasn't enough to earn you everything you wanted and you'll have to keep campaigning in the fall.


The West
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The west was a little more bland. All of the moves were pretty standard and a leader could be declared everywhere.

England
I put you on top because you don't appear to be in the Bel clash. This doesn't mean you're not plying for build #2 but that you're the least likely guy to war for it and win. If you don't get it, you probably have an ally somewhere from the other two, and if you do get it, then your diplomacy won out big. There's no Russian army in StP and no French fleet in the ENG. This is really what is ideal for England. Any more and you're getting icing on your cake.

France
There's a lot going in this with you. Burgundy was either discussed and you went there anyhow, or it was not discussed and you went there. Either way, you're putting a strain on someone early on. I like this kind of pressure because its bold. The Holland Blitzkrieg by Germany will leave you with a bit of a choice to make that is never fun. Had he opened to Denmark, your 2 builds would be guaranteed. Here, there's more at stake. As a general rule, France taking Bel now with one Iberian center is a nice alternative to taking 2 Iberian centers in 01 because (a) there are fewer units to have to recall, (b) it puts both armies to the front and (c) it stakes your claim and gives you strength going forward without spooking the map with a 3-build France. As a general move, though, I do try to open to Iberia because I like to try to get 3 builds. I don't care what message it sends because others don't want war with a 6 sc France in 02. If you are happy with 2 builds, though, this is the way to do it. Normally I would have you in at 3rd because Germany would see 2-3 builds while you would see 1-2 putting you in an inferior spot, I believe there's more here than meets the eye.

Germany
Yours is a debatable third. You have more to your benefit than the other two, but have several things going against you to boot. I think the luck of going with the Holland Blitzkrieg played out well for you. It's not something I would always choose and it has to be the exception to the Danish rule, but when France is in Bur, I think this option is more superior. The things going against you are your neighbors and their proximity to centers you want. I won't go into detail here, but your position, while it has the greatest opportunity for success, also comes with the largest margin for failure, and that's something only F02 can spell out.

Tru makes an excellent point about Russia's lack of movement. I tend to play very conservatively, so I was not as concerned by this, but had Germany moved to DEN, Russia could very well have found himself buildless this year. That would have been very bad for him indeed.

I also liked Abge's post concerning Turkey. The BLA is better as a DMZ for Turkey and he suffers less when the map has a juggernaut scare.

I was asked a good question via PM, so I felt I should expound on Russia here. The question was "why do you feel Russia should grow quick or die? I push for bounces to slow Russia down..."

Here was my reply and I hope it gives insight into the way I see things in 1901:

It's merely the nature of Russia, not a necessity. Russia tends to keep safe when they are 1-2 units bigger than those around him because it sends a message to those that would attack. It's a very hard country to defend when others move in because of its massive size and no natural borders other than the edge of the board. Sure there are stalemate lines all through the country but they are not held the way Russia wants them to be.

If I'm going to bounce as Russia, then I limit my ability to make the most of my units. Gal could have gone to Ukr while Mos went north, or it could have gone to Lvn to get convoyed to Swe.

Anytime I play Diplomacy, I go for broke in 1901. I would have said "Austria, I'm not moving there. I would ask you to stay out as an act of good faith between us. I'm not moving there because I want us to be allies and we can get more done with our units".

Now, if Austria chooses not to move there, I have demonstrated my truthfulness and laid the framework for me being an honest guy and Austria reciprocated indicating his desire to ally with me. If, on the other hand, he moves there, then I look truthful and trustworthy while he looks like a liar. If he wants to ally, he will apologize and back out later and when you turn on him, you use that as the basis. Your hands stay clean. If he does not vacate, then you have determined he is your enemy while attempting to maintain peace.

1901 is about buying allies, not protection. EVERYONE is looking for an ally early on and most people feel like they need to earn that ally. They're looking for someone to tell them the truth and mean it. 1901 is a sketchy year and you make it a better place by honoring what you tell others, and honoring a DMZ is a great place to start.

If you're reduced to defending yourself in 1901, this probably isn't going to be your game. Better to find out that you're going to struggle early on instead of in S02 because when I find out in F01 I can use that info during my build phase to place units where they will be needed to keep me safer. There's little worse than building in StP to find out in S02 that you're being attacked by A and T and should have built in Mos instead.

Boing

bump

Bump, orders went through

bump phase has changed. it is now on builds

Fall 1901

The fall is really where the action begins. Alliances form and take shape, enemies become more clear, and sometimes the game sees its first of the retreat phases in particularly aggressive games. This game is no exception. While I will have more to say about some countries as opposed to others, there were certainly things I liked and things I did not.

The East
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The east was filled with standard center-grabbing moves, and a few moves of note that I will cover under each country's heading. The rankings are a little more clear from last season, but there is still some measure of flexibility.

#1 Austria
You're my clear top choice. You received the two builds you needed going into 1902. I liked the decision on your part to not bounce in Gal. In addition, your vacant home center selections require two armies, so there's no needing to explain why you are building where you choose. The reason I have you at the top spot is that we see no clear Italian or Russian threat allowing you to survive long enough to get your footing and establish yourself diplomatically. I've tended to notice that over the years more countries tend to be sympathetic toward Austria. I believe this has to do with the negative view the map has on an early-start RT. The absence of a strong RT early on allows Austria more time to negotiate a positive start for itself. Only time will tell if this is a lasting trend or passing fad.

#2 Russia
I loved the fact you got both Rum and Swe. This also helps you expand your options in the coming year. Now, I see the BLA DMZ and many look on it as a sign of a RT. Here, I tend to disagree. I see it more neutral. A DMZ in the fall does not necessarily mean the presence of a Juggernaut. Players must read the whole map, and not merely one zone. In addition to the BLA DMZ, we see a Gal DMZ. Does this mean that there's an AR? Not necessarily. Another thing that points against a RT is the presence of a Russian fleet in Rum as opposed to a Russian fleet. There's a VAST difference between
A Ukr s F Sev-Rum and
F Rum s A Ukr-Rum.
If you don't see a huge difference, ask your TA to go into more detail here. This difference is pretty common knowledge at the veteran level and they would love to take time with you to go through its meaning. In order to determine what Russia will do, we will need to look to his builds, because he has a LOT of options.

#3 Turkey: It's debatable as to whether you should be here or at the #4 spot. Your moves were hum-drum at best, and somewhat given under the present circumstances, but I'd like to offer some alternatives you might have considered. Let's discuss my primary alternative: another BLA bounce. To do this, let's break it down in pieces. First, let's look at the problem. You clearly wanted your fleet in the AEG. It's more defensive given the variant Lepanto, and if you can negotiate a BLA DMZ, this gives you the fall to begin moving there. Therefore, you naturally order F Ank-Con. In order to get it there, you have to issue A Con-Smy. So, what's the problem? The problem is that you now have to consider your builds. You want another fleet in the EAS. Ok, so that means you build F Smy. Uh oh, you've got an army there. Ok, so build F Con. Wait, you've got a fleet there. This means you build F Ank. This sends a negative message to Russia, after all, there are now *two* Turkish fleets bordering the BLA. This can add tension to a situation where you don't want any. Ok, so you talk to Russia and let him know you'll have a fleet coming into play and you'll just move it to the AEG. Darn, there's an Austrian fleet in Gre. This is going to slow down any movement you make into the EAS/AEG. Now, if Russia isn't happy about a fleet build, your alternative is to build an army. Then this begs the question as to what you do with a THIRD army in a tight space not meant for three armies. To see the problem this poses, look at games where France builds 2 armies in 1901 (in a game where it only gets 2 builds) and see how it bottle-necks.
Here's my proposal: I would have liked to see another BLA bounce. Why? Well let's start from the beginning. If you issue Bul to hold and Con to support, you can easily build F Smy. This fleet then has the freedom to get into the EAS where it's less clogged. This means Russia isn't put off by a F Ank build in 01 and there's only 1 Turkish fleet bordering the BLA. Then, you shuffle things around and get two fleets into your waters.
So, why the bounce? Simple: a bounce in the BLA means that Russia's fleet stays in Sev. This in turn means that Russia can't build a fleet in Sev and also only has 1 fleet bordering the BLA. You then have Russia move his ARMY into Rum (also better for you. If you're not sure why, ask your TA) and you issue support from Con. Therefore, the benefit is three-fold:
--1 Turkish fleet bordering the BLA reduces Russian tension
--1 Russian fleet bordering the BLA reduces your tension
--A Bul s Russian A Ukr-Rum: he presence of YOUR support adds weight to your claim that you want an alliance.
This then, turns a less-than-desirable move into a win-win for the two of you.
Good luck on your build.

#4 Italy
In at the #4 spot, you could have been in at #3. I was fine with the Lepanto but was dubious about the Tyr move. I left it alone because of what it COULD have meant in the fall. Your A Tyr-Mun falls into one of two categories: agreeable or abysmal. Let's look at agreeable.
Agreeable: I'm *hoping* that you were told you'd have support into Mun from a certain Frenchman. If you did, then I applaud the move. Many would say it's a bad move because you can't possibly hold it. I say it's not bad, but shouldn't be done all the time. Had France offered you support and given it, then he would help you hold it as your other armies pour in making quick work of the German. Therefore, I applaud your efforts. It's best to sometimes try something rare because it throws the board off-balance in a way that you can sometimes capitalize on. Now, the fact it didn't pan out means you're back to the drawing board with some shame in tow.

Abysmal: It would be abysmal if you moved there *knowing* you wouldn't have French support or you didn't have his word you'd get it. The reason for this is that without sure French support, you're sending a SINGLE army into a distant land to target a foe that is no threat to you to try to gain a center you can't possibly keep by moving a unit into an area that your neighbor won't particularly care for. Italy, like Russia, an only meddle in western affairs when invited. Without that formal invite, it's best to stick to the east. Now you'll have to decide where to go, because your primary concern should be making sure that you have a 1902 build.


The west
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have considerably less to say about the west because there were fewer things I disagreed with. I will focus on what I liked in each country.

#1 England
I liked your moves this last season. Based on France's choices, it's clear that you landed the ally and not Germany. I can tell that you have talked with Russia and agreed to not land your army in Swe and I loved your choice to make a move to Denmark. Throwing in the convoy, even though it was guaranteed to fail, was a reasonable touch. You never know when Germany will botch an order and you'll take something by stroke of luck. An ally, a build and a target all are reasons why I had you in at the top spot.

#2 France
You're a clear choice for #2 and arguably #1. I put you in at #2 because of the things going on with Italy. I'm going to assume that you talked to the Italian and promised him Munich if he helped. If you didn't and he went there knowing he may not or would not have your support, then ignore the rest of this section. If you promised someone something in 1901, you really need to either stick with it, or stab the guy you lied to. There's no sense in telling someone something, lying to them, and then not attacking them. It only strains future relationships, especially where Italy is concerned. If you had lied to England, you might be able to outlive that later on, but if you lie to a guy that you can't hurt and can't hurt you, you're really only doing your future a disservice. It may be a fault of mine, but I almost always try to tell everyone the truth in 1901 because I need time to determine who is lying and who is telling the truth, so there's no sense to lie, it only burns an early bridge. (notice that's true in ALMOST all occasions). I would have rather you forego a build to guarantee an Italian the spot in Munich because it gets you an ally behind the French-German stalemate line that can help you out next season.
That being said, I'm more than just fine with the rest of your moves. Two builds for France is typical, and even better when one of those two is Bel instead of Spa or Por.

#3 Germany
Your spot is a matter of circumstance instead of poor moves. My guess is that the bad lot fell to the guy who talked the least. This is usually true. Therefore, it's best to log on early, log on often, and fill your text boxes with something...anything...everything. Whatever it takes to earn you that ally. You'll at least have a build coming in and some room to discuss some things with those around you. All is not lost, but you'll have to put your time in. Good luck on your build selection because you want it to send the right message to those around you without sacrificing functionality. What i mean is that there's no sense building F Ber if you need to protect Mun, even if your England says "build F Ber and we can talk". Likewise, there's no sense building A Mun if you're talking France into an alliance. Poor builds can either send the wrong message to those around you, or they can cause you to hurt your own defense. Talk things through with your TA and good luck.

It's late, so I'll be brief, but I wanted to get something in before builds end.

Fall 1901

England:

There were a number of good moves you could have done and this was one of them. By taking NWY with a fleet you are (hopefully) signaling to Russia you want peace. Staying out of BEL was probably a good decision. As was hitting DEN, so long as you plan on attacking Germany.

France:

A very good turn for you. You get two builds and you'll be getting one next year for free. Best of all, you have no real enemies. You're in an excellent position to attack Germany with England's help. Or, you could take advantage of the weak Germany by moving against England. You pretty much can do anything you want at this point, which is a very nice position to be in.

Germany:

Not a great turn for you. Without seeing the press, it's hard to tell what went wrong. Looking at the board alone, it was a guessing game and you just guessed wrong. Your move to BEL concerns me though. Offering BEL to England would have been a much better play. You knew you weren't taking it alone and should have known England's offer of support (if there was one) was disingenuous. You do have a build though and Russia seems to have no interest in you, thankfully, so you still have time to recover.

Russia:

Getting into RUM and SWE was good, but practically guaranteed based on the board. The move to MOS is odd though. Clearly, you have no interest in Germany or Austria, which is great for them. If you were concerned about England, you should have moved to LIV, so that you could have built in both STP and MOS. MOS doesn't advance any of your fronts, nor is it a particularly good defensive move.

Italy:

Not a great turn for you, either. Moving to MUN was a waste, imho. Even if you had taken it, the rewards would have been short-lived. Worst still, you've now annoyed Austria by making him waste a unit defending TRI. Looking to the south, things aren't much better. Taking TUN with a fleet is sometimes OK, but usually if you're going after France, which you clearly aren't. Even worse, your army in APU is now sitting there completely worthless. I'm afraid you've fallen for the most common trap of Italy: getting to TUN with no plan of further expansion.

Austria:

A good turn for you. Personally, I would have held in VIE rather than moving to TRI. The reason being, you were likely to get 1 build even if Italy stabbed you. With units in VIE, BUD, and SER, you could easily have kicked him out TRI. If you allowed Italy instead to move to VIE, you would have had a very hard time getting him from behind your lines. (*Note to everyone: Always pay attention to where enemies can retreat to; you never want them behind your line*). Don't get too cozy though, as things are about to get much harder: Russia and Turkey are much too friendly and Italy and Germany are in no position to help you.

Turkey:

A fine turn. You're still going to be a bit slow positioning your fleets against Austria, but you have the time. Unfortunately, you are going to be reliant on Russia for support for a while, but he doesn't seem all that interested in moving against you.

I agree with almost everything Tru said, save for MUN.

Here's how I see it:

Assuming France promised to support Italy to MUN, there were 3 outcomes if he lied:

1) Italy decides it isn't worth the risk and does something else with TYR. No hard feelings either way.

2) Germany doesn't defend MUN and Italy gets in. Italy is a bit annoyed, but no real harm done as he still gets the build. France makes out because Germany lost MUN in the first year.

3) Germany does defend MUN at the cost of losing BEL (maybe DEN, but that's highly unlikely). Italy is annoyed, but so what? France gets a build and has strained Italian-German relations. Italy is no position to retaliate and in fact has annoyed all his neighbors.

Seems like an excellent plan by France to me.

Everyone: reread what Tru wrote about Russia and especially Turkey. It's very good. I also like abge's point about Austria's choice between moving to Vienna versus Trieste.

I just wanted to emphasize a couple moves that to me jump off the board as notable:

A War -> Mos

This is a strange move because Russia had 2 builds coming (literally for sure) and in almost all cases Russia was going to use one of those two builds in Moscow. This should send alarm bells to England and Turkey (especially Turkey). The only real reason to move that army to Moscow is to set up builds in St. Petersburg and Sevastopol. Paired with the DMZ in Galicia and the Russian fleet moving to Rum instead of the army, and it's clear Russia at least is pursuing a R/A alliance.

Given that, I wish that Russia had been a little bit more bold and moved army Ukr-> Rum, F Sev -> Black Sea, War -> Ukr. This would have been an amazing jump on Turkey and locked Austria in as an ally. Now you have simply shown your hand without anything to show for it.

F Ank-> Con, A Con-> Smy

Seriously, read what Tru wrote. These are bad moves.

F Norwegian Sea -> Norway

This is maybe a good move, but probably a bad one- it is a choice strictly to try to make Russia like you. If you see a build in St. Petersburg and Russia helping Germany next turn, then it was a mistake. Further, this seems fairly likely. With Germany under siege, he is likely to build an army, which may make Russia think it is in his best interest to help prop Germany up for a while. If this is the case, you forfeited a lot of flexibility by not convoying into Norway. This is because you now can't defend Norway without using the North Sea, which means you either have to lose Norway to Russia or stop your progress into Germany. had you convoyed, you would have had an army in Norway and a fleet in Norwegian, which would have allowed you to support Norway's hold while still convoying your new army into Germany or shifting your new fleet, or whatever. Further, having an army in Norway gives you more leverage on Russia. Assuming Germany builds an army, Russia should be just as concerned that you will cut a deal with Germany as you should be that Russia will but a deal with Germany. With the right diplomacy, you could actually convince Russia to support a convoy from Norway into, say, Denmark to get that army away from his precious centers. The lesson here is that it is better to negotiate from a position of strength rather than make weak moves to make someone who has made no promises to you happy.

bump

I don't see the Munich move by Italy as a problem IF he was assured French support. Ultimately, what's the repercussion of having an irritated German? Nothing. He can't afford to reciprocate an attack, and you get a build out of the deal. You then have a full year to determine where to get your 02 build from, because Italy HAS to have an 02 build to keep momentum, but he gets to do it with 5 units instead of 4. Italy could have later turned on France to cull German favor, especially if it looks like there's a EF alliance on the board.

In general, German gambits do not work. This I agree with on Abge's point. The focus here for Italy shouldn't be a German gambit but merely "borrowing" a center to have that 5th man and keep it for as long as possible. It's a similar situation to Russia gaining Swe. He can't keep it if England and Germany don't want it there, but it's used to give him that additional unit on the map to make moves in the south where he wants them. If Russia keeps Swe for a year, then he keeps it for a year, but the extra build allows him an additional unit to move where he wants to make gains.

Now, that said, given the present circumstance where there WAS NO FRENCH SUPPORT, it was a fruitless venture at best. As I said earlier, in order to make gains, you have to be willing to take risks. The question now, is where does Italy go from here.

Winter Adjustments 1901

Usually by this point I have a lot to say to at least one country because of a botched build. This time, I don't. While I may not completely agree with everyone's build, for those that are unusual, I have the feeling that the build is the result of some negotiations among neighbors. Therefore, I will spend this time discussing common errors in builds or builds that raise eyebrows. I will go alphabetically by country since this bit of commentary doesn't revolve around rankings.

Austria
In most games, Austria sees 2 builds. If Austria sees less than 2, they are generally in serious trouble (barring things like the Key Lepanto). When Austria has 3 builds, it's not a guarantee that things are going great, either, although it helps. Austria doesn't have need for more than 3 fleets at the end of the game, and 3 is the upper limit (I've seen games where Austria had NO fleets and still won). Therefore, when Austria builds a fleet, it's eyebrow raising and has strong implications, and is usually a mistake in 1901.

England
England usually maintains a 60-40 or 70-30 army-to-fleet ratio with emphasis on armies over fleets. It's usually a mistake to have more fleets than armies because you don't make progress inland of the mainland and limit yourself to the coastal areas, and there are only so many places you can put fleets. England can gain 1 or 2 builds in 1901 and never 3 because of the need to convoy. If England gains 2, they have favor with someone. In a 1 build situation, the build location is dependent on the target and can be either a fleet or an army, although I tend to prefer an army. It's less telling and less restrictive. Plus, in a pinch, it can hang out on the island and provide strong stab -resistance.

France
France usually gets 2 builds in 01. 1 isn't great, but also not lethal. 3 is awesome but CAN project am aura of fear. As France, if you have the opportunity to take 3 builds in 01, I say go for it. It's worth the risk. A good build (in a 2 build situation) is a fleet and an army. If its F Bre/A Mar or A Par, it's a non-telling build. Anything else carries an implication with it. A BAD build is 2 armies. Never build 2 armies in 1901 when all you get is 2 builds. Never.

Germany
Like France, 2 is normal and 3 is great but can cause fear. There's less fear of a 3 build German as opposed to a 3 build France, tho. 1 build in 1901 is usually bad news. With the standard 2 builds, the most common is F Kie/ A Ber or A Mun. Please avoid 2 fleets. You're asking for a French stab. 2 armies is usually not helpful, but not completely frowned on. If you're part of a Western Triple, 2 armies makes sense. Barring that, try to avoid it.

Italy
1 build is normal, 2 is great, 3 is obscene. The rarity of a 3 build Italy ALWAYS draws eyes and requires extra diplomacy to quell uneasiness. In a 1 build Italy, A Ven and F Nap are common. A Rom isn't a great call because it takes 1 full move to do the same thing as A Nap and A Ven. F Ven is likewise a mistake because it can't do much other than hit the ADR or Tri. You're better off with an army in this case. F Rom is a telling build indicative of an Anti-French move.

Russia
Russia usually sees 2 builds, with a possibility of 1. 3 builds scares people and 4 builds means either means the WHOLE board will turn on you, or you're playing fools and have your victory sewn up. Builds depend on direction. As a general rule, for a 2 build Russia there's almost no wrong choice, although 2 fleets is probably not very wise because t neglects to defend your exposed belly. Builds come in at home centers, and thus provide defense as they come in and filter outward. Attacking countries have to move against this flow to bring you down, and 2 fleet builds simply don't do Russia justice because of the number of army-only zoned that need to be covered.

Turkey
1 build is normal, 2 is awesome. 3 means something went wrong around the Balkans and several countries dropped the ball and need to prepare for a Turkish raping. With 1 build, there's not really a wrong build but needs to be made with diplomacy and direction in mind. With 2 builds, don't build 2 fleets because there's nowhere to put them. Don't build 2 armies because there's nowhere to put them. 1 fleet and 1 army build made with direction in mind in a 2 build Turkey is sufficient,

Use this as a guide. It's useful to use when you think about your builds and the builds of those around you. A build indicates both need and direction. Players make builds based on what they need NEXT year. Almost no one builds based on what they will need 2 years from now because 2 years from now could look drastically different than next year. Players also build based on direction. No one builds in one spot when another spot is closer to their goal. As an example, Austria doesn't build a fleet if they're attacking Russia. It neither suits their need nor their direction. Likewise they don't build A Tri in a Russian assault because A Bud and A Vie are much closer to the action.

Sometimes people will try to mask direction. They don't mask need. Direction is masked when a build is placed in a location that carries the same use as another location but appears to be farther away. For example, F Kie and F Ber can both be brought to bear against Russia but F Kie APPEARS to be more anti-English because t doesn't LOOK like it will sail to the BAL, even though it can.

In each build phase you need to be asking yourself a)what is my need and b) what is my direction. Also ask "what does this say to others around me" because builds send messages and you don't want to send the wrong message. Try to build based on your need that does not send the wrong message to allies.

Likewise, when you look around the map ask yourself "what does their build(s) say about their need and their direction. Is it stacking up with what they're telling me? If England builds F Edi and tells Russia "Don't worry, my fleet is attacking France", you should have your doubts. Expert players don't build in such a way as to significantly hurt their attack in order to "trick" their opponent. There's no sense in building in a location that is a full year or more out of the way. You need those newly acquired units to start paying for their production by gaining centers and lending support. If you keep these things in mind, it can help you in the long run.

I hope this helps. If you have questions, post below.

@TRU
In regards to your England write-up : I find I make too many fleets 100% of the time when I play England, despite the fact that I have read that England should be more army based. Early game, I cant seem to resist the temptation of the short term gains a fleet provides (quicker mobilization, no convoy requirements, less worry about someone bouncing an unsupported convoy, coverage/blockage of water ways). But then I find myself stalled out mid-game.
I will admit, I have never once considered an army build in 1901. But based on your writeup, I amwill looking forward toto trying it in my next game and and breaking my fleet addiction.

I realize I didnt ask the question I originally intended, You can make the call on if the answer would unduly influence the game :
You spoke of a 70/30 60/40 split of armies and fleets. I assume you meant at the end of the game where there is an English solo. Is there a particular spread you find is best at different stages of the game or is it entirely situational?

It is primarily situational. Each country needs to keep a long term focus in mind that is somewhat fluid. When you draw that country, you need to first find out who your allies are. After that, you ought to find your best path to the solo and try to get the rest of the map to allow you to go that way. Your builds need to be whatever it takes to make that happen year after year. I say things are to be fluid because sometimes one door closes but another one opens. Recognize those times ad be prepared to react.