"^Also, Germany had no way to know that Russia would be under so an intense fight on the South"

Austria opened to Rum, Turkey opened to Arm. All our tactical what-ifs aside, it's pretty clear both countries were planning on anti-Russian play.

@principians: But the point is - Italy was in Piedmont. Germany has zero need to waste a fall support signalling "be friends with me" to France - France is guaranteed busy dealing with Italy. He's not gonna come after England, or help Germany out in any way, support signal or no.

And ditto Russia - Turkish army in Armenia, Austrian army in Rumania, and no Russian army in St Petersburg. C'mon. What's Russia gonna do, turn away from A/T and make war on England? Nooope.

This comes up in School of War threads all the time, BTW - *don't* waste unit orders. In gunboat, even more critically so. Yes, you can pretty much only communicate *with* your unit orders, but definitely don't waste them "talking" instead of ordering a support that you might need for yourself. Just don't. It's suicidal. Talk with *where* your units are and what they can do, not by giving unnecessary orders.

My reason for the German choice being bad is multi-faceted. Obviously he didn't get the build, but his two allies are both under attack and may not be able to help against England. He also has an army in Kiel, preventing a fleet being placed there. Austria is not just the strongest player in the East, but the strongest in the entire game. Germany should be standing alongside him as the strongest in his region, but instead, we'll see if he even gets started

Well, obviously you all are right that Russia was under attack since spring, but that's actually why letting Russia in Swe is a good decision (I think). Thanks to it, Russia has a chance (I still think) of getting Norway and defending his south at the same time. Need to be very smart but

go Russia!

And well, I'm not saying that supporting France was a good move, all I'm saying is that it's not soo bad... especially *IF* Germany had got right that England would bounce Belgium instead of Holland: while France cannot really help against England, at least that way you avoid England just walking over Bre.

(but of course, Germany should have noted that England opend Lvp-York instead of Lvp-Edin, so England opening was either too oriented towards Russia, or rather weak, but this point might have been somewhat subtle). Anyway, I think Germany's position is not so bad, he can recover easily, only has one enemy whose position might not be much better.

Oh, Germany isn't dead yet, no. But not supporting himself into Holland given the context was a poor life choice. As for Russia getting Norway... surely not unless he wants to suicidally build F StP(nc) or A StP instead of A Mos. It's not even certain he'll keep StP, although I imagine England probably won't try to take it off him, since having 3/3 neighbours as enemies is also a poor life choice.

Well, Russia needs, besides smart moves, some luck, and Austria refusing to allow Turkey in Sev, which is not extremely hard to believe. If Austria prefer to get strong alone, and keep Turkey in his corner, then Russia basically needs to outguess Austria, it's almost 50%.

And there are other posible scenarios (but not very probable, to be fair)

As a player, I've got a quick question. Are we never readying up, or only on retreats/ builds, or what?

Seems like readying up on retreats should be okay. Builds, too, as long as nothing crazy had happened that warrants discussion.

what friga said.

In a full press game, readying is an added bit of information... i.e., if a neighbor readies before even talking to me, I'm pretty sure he doesn't care if he hears from me. In regular gunboat, this wouldn't matter.

In PG gunboat, it seems like readying only really serves to indicate how much a player cares to hear what the gallery says, or when they've heard enough that they feel comfortable readying orders. If you're playing gunboat on hardcore mode, that might provide information, if you can establish that an opponent player listens to the gallery.

That said, games tend to move faster when people ready up, which could just be a good manners thing. I don't see a reason not to ready up for insignificant builds and retreats.

England, France, Austria, and Turkey made moves that I think are fine and benefit them.

Germany built an army in Munich. The why is answered by one of the biggest problems I had with his move, he couldn't build in Kiel. His options were either to antagonize Russia with a build in Berlin or Franc with a build in Munich. He has a few options, so I don't think it's a terrible choice. He could either pile on against France with a move to Burgundy, or he could move into Tyrolia to give France aid against Italy. The issue is he'd be opening himself to a two front war in the North and South, antagonize Austria, and leave his East open for a greedy Russia (not saying Russia would take that bait, but it would spell disaster).

Italy built an army in Venice. I don't have a huge problem with this move, but it plays to the fear Italy has of Austria stabbing him. Had he built an army in Rome and a fleet in Naples, he would have had the exact some options for this turn without planting the seed of mistrust between Austria and himself.

Russia built an army in St. Petersburg. I'm not going to speak to the fact that he's making things incredibly hard for himself in the south. His southern situation was mostly the making of a bold Austria and a northern looking Turkey, so I'm not going to call the build in the North the worst thing he could have done, looking for a few easy SC's.
My problem with this move is building an army! I could understand this if he already had another fleet in the North, you could put the army in Finland. You have no fleets in the North, though! Even if you get England out of Norway, you can't launch an assault on the English island, leaving Germany and France to gain from your work.
I am changing my worst move to this build. I think I subjectively hate that it's in the north, and I think it is objectively ridiculous to build an army.

Please, anyone who thinks it's a good build, I'm genuinely interested to hear your argument

@patburu:
I'd rather have seen St.P build a fleet rather than an army too. The only nice thing I can see about it is this: if Russia manages to take and hold Norway, then neither England nor Germany has to worry about Russia having the wherewithal to advance any further. This gives them breathing room to deal with their own politics, perhaps deal with a weakened France. Granted, that won't mean anything if England is still sore about losing Norway, or if E or G decide they want Scandinavia. It's a pretty slim silver lining, but I was stretching to find one for you. :)

"Italy built an army in Venice. I don't have a huge problem with this move, but it plays to the fear Italy has of Austria stabbing him. Had he built an army in Rome and a fleet in Naples, he would have had the exact some options for this turn without planting the seed of mistrust between Austria and himself."

A Ven can defend Mar this year; A Rom can't. That's a pretty significant difference. France can easily put 2 power on Mar this year, but 3 is impossible without moving from Bel, and that isn't going to happen. Assuming Austria understands this, the diplomatic strain is also reduced. That A Ven also defends against the (improbable because stupid) Austrian stab is a bonus.

^ Great point about A Ven. Italy would be stupid to stab Austria at this point. Yet as regards France: Yet, what do you think of this?

France: F Por - Spa(sc), A Spa - Gas, A Par - Bur, A Bel s Par - Bur, F Bre s Spa - Gas (or F Bre-MAO)

This puts 3 power on Mar for A02, and a fleet near the med, both of which are useful for rebutting an Italian assault.

@teacon -- The simple A MAR->SPA costs nothing and prevents the 3rd unit from getting into place.

@leth @vbob
I.... that's... that's fair. Good point.

If i were turkey id be looking to switch sides now. Austria isnt likely to offer anything in the balkans but working with russia there are chances.

Good point about army venice Lethologica, I overlooked that.

Turkey needs to work with Russia if he wants to stay long in this game. Even if he's ble to expand north, it's going to be difficult and at Austria's allowance. With Italy at 5 SC's already, it's difficult to see how Austria gets past 5 or 6 SC's without going through Austria

So even if north sea supports norway denmark can cut the support to allow russia in. Think england shouldve taken norway with the army then nwg couldve supported it.

Germany shud def get holland irrespective of other moves. France has hands full with italy and needs germany to distract england. Should france block move the eng? Im not sure

With three armies i think germany should bite the bullet and go all out against france.

Italy should back stab Austria. this is the most aggressive Italy i have ever seen and with that backstab Italy will be extremely powerful.

That's a terrible idea. Italy has gained from being bold, but he's going to have to work hard to keep Marseilles, never mind moving farther into France. If he were to stab Austria, he'd throw the entire game into chaos, which benefits everyone who isn't in a good position at the moment

do you think he is in a good position?

he definitely is. stabbing austria sounds like a horrible idea indeed.

I think reedeer is being sarcastic.

Italy *could* reconstitute himself as an east-facing power with ease. But it's not clear that it would make him stronger. Why waste a full year of good signals and effective moves?

Mmh, since Turkey is gonna take Black Sea anyway, I'd say both Sev and Ukr break rumanian support and War-Gal, then Russia must pray Austria does not break Ukraine in the fall, (but of course, Austria could be pissed off). Anyway, what wuld you say about Munich-Tyr?