And we are now in retreat mode.

bump

Bump

I myself am curious to read the opinions of the 'official' profs, however I take the liberty to write again, a little follow-up, on my previous post.

Austria: the coherence of moves is okay, purpose/understanding of rules still lacking. No problem, I see the improvement, so keep on. I have two problems: first, you could have lost Serbia again, if Russia were able to cooperate w/ Turkey, lucky for you, they were not. It wasn’t a big risk after Russia being in Galicia, so I give you a pass on that. Second, taking Bulgaria from Agean was a mistake though. The same outcome could have been achieved by attacking Constanti from Agean and moving from Greece. The problem with this is that you basically paralyzed yourself, and you are unable to expand further east. Furthermore you are unable to help Italy. Just grabbing SCs is not the objective of this game, you have to grow further, and now you can’t.

Italy: I see you’ve made up your mind, finally, yet I don’t understand the move to Tyrolia. Still, you don’t have enemies at this moment, but you just made it possible for France to build his new fleet in Marseilles if he wants. The problem with your long-lasting hesitation is, by now, you should have done Lepanto, and your Ionian fleet would be free, so France wouldn’t attack you. Now you are stuck and France may exploit it. We’ll see.

Speaking of France, I think you are also without enemies, so you should start thinking about how to continue. Being in Liverpool is nice, but you will not be able to conquer England without armies on land. Just like Austria with Bulgaria, you grabbed an SC, and then what??? If you must stay there, then it’s totally useless, if you move out to convoy, you wasted time and helped Germany to expand further as England is shrinking because of you. As I said helping your enemy’s enemy may not be beneficial. If England disbands a unit, Germany benefits the most.

Russia, now you can see that too. You have also helped Germany against England, now you pay the price for helping your future enemy. After England disbanded Finland, it was quite clear, he won’t go after you, still, you went after him, and the only benefactor was Germany… You are also lucky, because if Austria had taken Bulgaria from Greece, then you would probably lose Rumania. Now it’s safe for quite a while I assume. Good luck with guessing Germany’s moves :) And the move attacking to Budapest was wrong! You could have lost it, if Serbia attacked Rumania. Both you and Austria should learn more about how supports work. You guys are playing casino here ...

Germany: You are full of options, you may get new SCs just as lose one. We’ll see, it’s a good guessing game. However I don’t like the retreat to London that much. Retreating to Denmark Holland would have forced England to double attack Norway to keep his 3rd unit, so you could secure StP for 100% and cover both Sweden and Munich while France would not be able to leave Liverpool, and there you have the weak Russia! Now you may not get a build and you are wide-open on many fronts. We must see how this turn ends, you might be very lucky, or find yourself being attacked by 4 countries. I often speak about coherence, your units are sporadic throughout the map, in a full-press game, where the others could cooperate you would implode right away.

Turkey: Well, the move can be good to cover against Lepanto, and may grant you a long time (long enough) survival. Your hope is, France (rather sooner you wish) goes for Tunis, so Italy will be forced to turn back. And of course you can attack Russia, but ask yourself how will it benefit you and others.

England: well, not much to say here I guess, but you still have options. Just like before, you can help your enemy’s enemy.

bump

3 more hours for professor commentary.

Bump

bump

Me again ;)

Retreats were great, you both figured you are better off with disbanding rather than retreating. It was the good choice. But if you are better off with disband, then for someone it’s worse. Start from here with a little remark.

In my view, in every game there are two types of powers. One, that are big enough to have an agenda, how might choose who to ally with, and so on and there are the ones, who I would call the ‘triggers’. Triggers are those countries who have no choice what to move, hence they trigger the exact set of moves, why bigones dictate the general strategy and long-term dynamics.
This turn England and Turkey were the triggering countries.
England, I don’t like your set of moves. 1st, support holding Norway??? Seriously? What’s the point of that. You should have moved to Clyde (to prevent france moving away from Liverpool, also to take away future support from wales) or you should have moved to north sea and north sea to Denmark or Holland.

As I said I didn’t like the Germany retreat to London, so you should have let it there, make it France’s problem. “Help your enemy’s (France in this case) future enemy (Germany)” If Germany was in London now, then next turn France would attack it (as he will attack you) The difference is, if you had let him in London then you just made two of your enemies to fight.

Meanwhile if you had taken Denmark (helping Russia basically, your enemy’s (Germany) enemy) then next turn you have an empty Kiel, an option to support Russia->Sweden. If you had taken Holland, then an option for Belgium and Denmark (assuming you don’t disband North Sea)
All in all, I think these moves were terrible both short and long term. France can convoy to wales and you can do nothing about it.
France: You made a choice, a good one I think, by committing to north. You have a clear path to take out England, and nobody can really do anything against it. You not moving away from Marseilles also send a clear message to Italy, you won’t build a 3rd fleet there. The others should be worried who will you attack after England is gone?
So, the other triggering country was Turkey. His set of moves were predictable 100%. I think he has a very good chance now to survive this entire game and make it to the final draw. Turkey, you must be wise what unit to disband this turn. Think about you future enemies, your allies, and how can you help both your allies and your future enemy’s current enemy the best way? What 3 units do you REALLY need on the long term.
Italy’s moves are a reaction to Turkey I think, as he realized Lepanto is no longer an option (great job Austria, you closed the option both for yourself and Italy) now Italy had no other choice. Well, that’s not entirely true, as waiting and patience is always an option. I think Italy’s move on Austria is a mistake., but I see no turning back here, as in a gunboat it’s hard to apologize. On the long run, without further explanation just my experience, I think all Italy has achieved is a Turkish survival to the end. But, it’s a long way to go, and Italy has made a coordinated, determined and cohere attack, and with a little this might actually work.
Austria: you were greedy! It was quite obvious Russia will not attack you, thanks to Germany, all you had to do was to bounce yourself in Trieste. You trusted Italy, after you basically shut him off from Turkey. Well, actions have consequences. If I were Italy, I wouldn’t have done it, but that doesn’t mean I’m right, or that there’s only one good solution. You fate depends on how Russia/Germany will get along and what way Turkey chooses to continue. My suggestion, as always, help your enemy’s enemy.
Russia, great guesses and a new build (sort of) makes your position more solid. Sadly you didn’t get the support from England by taking Denmark, but the way I see it your chances are better, especially since Austria has a new enemy to play with, you got some breathing room. As your future, the only question is I think, how quick France will be in England, forcing Germany to turn back. You have some hard work ahead of you, to secure your survival. But with Italy’s move I think you have pretty good chances, maybe better than Germany’s.
Now, we can see how the smallest countries’ (England+Turkey) moves affect everybody, and how big countries, like France, can focus on long term strategy, like choosing to go after England. Small countries must do the right moves, while for the big ones it doesn’t really matter, all that matters who they choose as their next ally/enemy. France could have bounced himself in Brest again, or move out from Marseilles. Trigger countries do not have this kind of dilemma. You have to be able to focus both short and long term goals, the bigger you are, the longer you must think ahead.
Germany: bad guesses, still sporadic units, even with your new build, you are still exposed in Holland/Denmark/Sweden and with a more stable Russia. Just like England earlier, you had options, you chose wrong, shit happens. Still, I think you were lucky, England didn’t take Denmark. You have to be careful with your build and your long term goals. Despite you are the biggest power, your units are still not in harmony, you may be able to grab a Russian SC, but in the meantime France is growing and you can do nothing about it. The time is clicking, and it’s clicking against you. The longer Russia keeps his position, the bigger France will be, and you’ll find yourself in a two front full blown war, where neither Italy (as he is busy) or Austria can help you. You don’t have the luxury to waste too much time here.
As a conclusion Turkey’s move triggered Italy’s reaction which gives breathing room to Russia, making Germany’s life more difficult. As a result France thrives, England falls. That’s how a games dynamics are driven. And all this was triggered 1 round earlier, by Austria taking Bulgaria with his fleet!
You must see, that there are always 7 countries on the map, and your moves affect all of them. But if you are a small country, or even a dying one, then all bets are off, and you can move whatever you want. Big countries’ responsibility is to contain or direct the effect of triggering moves in a way that benefits them. I think this turn France realized that the Turkish trigger benefits him, hence there’s no reason to go south, moreover it’s even better for him to help Italy, hence not moving out from Marseille is clever whether it was deliberate or not.

@rokakoma: since you seem to contribute quite often, could you answer the question i posed above? (why must germany always give sweden to russia in '01? )

@kasimax: I already answered it in this very thread (page #2), that I disagree with that, and I wrote exact gameID-s to support my argument.

In general I agree with letting Russia into Sweden, I also linked a threadID supporting this argument, however there are exact situations after Spring 1901, when I think it's not advised.

guys, sorry about the typo errors, and the unseparated paragraphs ... I will proof read it next time.

i saw the discussion but must have missed the link to the thread, thank you.

@kasimax "why must germany always give sweden to russia in '01?" - nobody in this thread said so but if the question was "why must germany always give sweden to russia in '01 in a proper gb game where all the seven players open reasonably with a few slight variations in the spring '01 moves?" then the answer would be: "because Germany needs Sweden to be owned by Russia at the end of '01 rather then to remain neutral.
Russia is the hardest power to play (along with Turkey) and to survive with in a HQ gunboat so what Germany does with letting him into Sweden basicaly is he helps Russia to survive and keep the game balanced on the east while he's dealing on the west side. In a proper gunboat it's allmost impossible to have a solo playing Russia as he allways seems a bigger solo threat in the eyes of the others when he starts expanding then he actualy could possibly be.Because of his geographic position.
Germany on the other side needs to take care of his game and he doesn't need a Russia who could attack him because of the Sweden bounce. He also should know if he bounces Russia England could reach Sweden before Germany easily and then Germany would be in a big trouble...
But most importantly as Germany you earn nothing if you bounce Sweden in '01,if you want to have it in '02 you allways need to take Baltic in spring '02 so you could be able to have Sweden,no matter if you have bounced Russia before or not.
If you are planning to make Russia your enemy in '02 why would you make him your enemy in '01?

For a better understanding take a look at the professor's last proper German gunboat game and what happened to him when he bounced Russia in '01 when he had absolutely no reason to do that. And then think about why germany shouldn't give sweden to russia in '01.
gameID=131833

@split: yes, that is the question i was referring to. thank you for the detailed explanation!

@kasimax,I see now you bounced it too,in your last German gunboat.So tell us what you think about the thing?

As I said earlier:

"But there are cases when germany needs a strong russia, for example [...] england opens to Edinborough [..]" Split's example is exactly supporting that. England opened anti-russian, and Germany helped him, fueling his own demise. It was a bad idea, as Split said, you want to keep the balance.

bump

bump

again.

One of the students needs a pause till late Sunday, so I've paused the game. It will be unpaused in 3 days.

*I will be pausing the game after the phase goes through since everyone has orders in.

Bump - builds are in.

bump, this will be unpaused in under a day so be ready TA's and students alike.

bump

Helloo ... oo ... o ... o (fades to silence)

@Bob, if you would like to see some situations from the last year explained or commented further name it,please. I thought rokakoma explained the last year happenings perfectly.
The builds were preety much by default,I believe,especialy the Russian and the French build.
I was thinking a bit about „wait/postpone build“ for France but the army in Paris has its purpose in the current year and it should be usefull.Germany,on the other hand needed a fleet more,IMO.He could use the army as well though.His last fall moves were very bad,he had a couple of „safe“ moves by which he should have gotten both a new fleet and an army.
But generaly,attacking Russia as Germany in these circumstances is a pretty bad strategy and I myself would never choose the course.The same as what Italy did regarding Austria – the stab was a disaster idea for Italy,usualy it would lead to your defeat pretty soon but in this kind of game everything is possible.So if you manage to survive till the end of this game don't think it's a good strategy to attack Austria as long as Turkey is alive. And Turkey is still pretty much alive,especialy now.
The game I liked the most so far is the Russian one.He only made a mistake in spring '03 when he gambled with Rumania by that set of orders. He should have seen the German attack was about to get going.But I don't blame him for not realizing it because in a „normal“ game that sort of things you wont see much often.
Germany plays totaly „the other way arround“ the whole game,all his turns from spring '01 till now were wrong. But after three years he's still the leader in the game,tells pretty much about what the others do regarding keeping the game „balanced“.
So,to conclude – in order to keep the school meaningfull I suggest the students to make some questions instead of bumping because the game is pretty hard to comment as it has gone „in a wrong direction“ a long time ago so the professors just don't know what to say about it,I believe...

To show Italy how he should base his strategy towards Austria and Turkey I suggest him to study the Italian play from this gameID=132073,to see how not stabbing Austria the whole game and making sure Turkey is defeated first gives you the best chances of surving the game.
And to show him how the Austrian stab is never an option unless you are the strongest power and about to win the game you need to study this one gameID=131689.
And to show Germany what could happen to him when he decides to take care of Russia before the west side of the board isn't „resolved“ I suggest him to take a look at this gameID=130916,to realize Russia can hardly be a threat to your game the way France (or England,the same,the one who gets bigger) can and to realize why moving eastwards is a waste of time...