Really? Thinking outside the box a bit (or tabs a bit), you could make a drop down menu with the country combinations in it. Saves a lot of space.
In real life I can imagine there would have been discussions and plans made with more than one country in the room at once. Yes this is a game, but it would add another interesting layer. A layer of safety for some, another way to deceive people for others.
It came up because I started playing this game in a classroom where we could do that. It was interesting. This is probably a topic for a different thread though.

Conquest of Nations is a diplomacy website that has the feature you are talking about Andrew Wiggin. I tried a game on there and personally found it a bit clunky, and personally think the simplicity of this site better (in particular, it is very easy to simulate 3 way conversations if you want to, and you (and by you I mean I) never really want to anyway). Having said that, this site is what I'm used to, and I wouldn't be surprised if it were the case that if I played on that site I would feel different.

The other professors' disagreement about England's motives are partly why I was waiting until after the build, hoping it would provide some light, for a longer lecture (and since there's such uncertainty now I don't even know if there's a point in doing 1902 grades, since the behind-the-scenes-diplomacy is what would tell us what is really happening). It's reasonable that Norway was supposed to do something anti-Russian, messed up, and it was a missed stab. But I think it far more likely that England is stabbing Germany, and it is (as jmo suggests) almost perfectly set up:

-London fleet staying in place until time for the move to North Sea
-Germany getting out of position in Bohemia, to ensure the Russo-German conflict, without a build to support it
-Russian moves that allow for plausible deniability and protection on both sides (same bounce in Norway as before, armies that could be aimed at either Germany or Austria)
-Bounce in Norway, as suggested above, in case Russian does go full anti-German and moves to Baltic (although I think Russia would have made a considerable mistake in moving to Baltic - putting too much power in England's hands, which, we see where that got Germany)
-I don't want to give too much away, but, if this is indeed the plan there are moves available in the spring to guarantee taking at least one and likely two and with some luck three German centers in the fall, although perhaps at the cost of gains in other theaters

All that said, it doesn't mean this was definitely a stab, but that's the way I would bet. If it's not, I will be interested to see how Germany and England try to recover (but they won't, because it's probably a stab).

I know I have said it like ten times but again for the players: EVERYTHING on the board matters to you. 2WL and I disagree about whether an Austrian retreat or disband from Greece is a better move because we aren't sure what English moves in the North Sea and Scandinavia mean. I think such moves suggest that Germany is in trouble, which means that Russia is going to be able to carefully dismantle the two central powers with English and Turkish help.

Before the fall, it looked to me like we had a neat situation where there were multiple overlapping alliances/ententes: EGI, EGR, RT. Now one of those is (I think) broken, and apparently instead we have pairs working together: EI, ER, RT, (GI???). As with last year's exciting revelation of the anti-French alliance, I am interested to know who is the brains behind these moves, if it's one player manipulating others, or temporary one-term decisions, or if these are genuine partnerships. Will some new combination emerge? If the relationships are good and nobody runs into surprising roadblocks that slow down growth and let the other powers jump ahead in size, I wouldn't be surprised to see England, Russia, and Italy or more likely Turkey (who I haven't talked about much but who has played a real solid game so far) combine a couple of those pairs.

Last thought: If you're not a "power couple" and really if you aren't certain you're at least an equal member of one of those pairs, it's time to start radically reconsidering your diplomatic options. Nothing in this game is set in stone. Talk to your TAs about how you can possibly go about turning this around, both in terms of the tactics to hold off potentially or proven aggressive neighbors and in terms of how you can reshape the diplomatic landscape more in your favor.

Bump

What did you say, was it bump?

I think it was

Lecture 5 – Fall/Winter 1902
I’ll start by addressing some of the questions and discussions that have bounced around the thread since my last post. First, sorry about the length of the last one. I’ve been typing all my commentary into one document, and I carelessly pasted the entire document, including previous commentaries, into the thread instead of just the current commentary.
I really learned to play the online game at Bounced, where “partial press” meant that you could send press to any subset of the powers in the game (and the GM). It definitely changed certain subtle elements of the game. It was much easier to coordinate triple alliances, so I saw a lot more western triples (and other triples) than I see here. In some games, that could lead to a “care-bear” alliance sweeping the board and then drawing very early. However, it also made it much easier to stop solos, as the smaller powers could communicate clearly with much less effort than here. Each system has its advantages and disadvantages, but I think the fundamental principles of press remain the same and that the differences aren’t so great that good players cannot adjust and do well with either system.
uclabb asks about Germany stabbing England last spring. If I had been playing Germany, I would have pressed hard for Russia to move mos-stp in the spring while I moved hol-nth, bur-bel. In the fall, Russia could have taken Norway from Sweden while I convoyed from Denmark into Edinburgh, with the result being England reduced to two centers while Germany has an army on the island and control of the North Sea. There are, of course, a few tricky spots to navigate: Russia must be persuaded that this is his best plan, as he could easily mess everything up by telling England or by stabbing Germany for Denmark instead of taking Norway. I’m also not the biggest fan of convoying armies into England, as it simply takes too much time to get them there and then back one England is done. (I am, however, a fan of getting my allies to convoy armies into England, as it leaves them open for stabs while making it much harder for them to reconcile with England). However, if Germany had pulled this off, he would have had enough centers to spare the army, and possession of the North Sea would have put him in the driver’s seat in the west, while his proximity to the middle of the map allows him to quickly expand in any direction. From that position, as long as he can prevent a stop-the-leader alliance, he has several promising paths to a solo victory.
Having decided against that option, however, Germany became a bit more reliant on England. I’m not sure exactly what happened in the north this year. However, what Germany needed to happen was for him to tap Paris so that England could take Brest in exchange for English support into Sweden. He also should have told England that he was moving to North Sea and expecting a bounce. Because the Channel was busy supporting the army into Brest, London had nothing better to do than go to North Sea, and Germany allowing it to make it there may turn out to be a serious mistake. If Germany could have made that happen, and then combined it with the move east towards Russia, his position would still be admirable. However, that England chose not to support Germany into Sweden, while Germany was apparently expecting to take Sweden, as otherwise he would not have moved to Silesia, makes me think that this was not a miscommunication, but an intentional and somewhat subtle stab by England. The best part is that, if England decides he’d rather stick with Germany, he still can, most likely by offering support to Sweden or offering Germany Belgium. However, while in 1901 it looked like Germany was probably running the show in the west, England is now in control (as much as anybody can be this early in the game). Where England puts the new army this turn will play a large role in determining the direction of the north for the next year or two, and Germany, Russia, France, and Italy all should be lobbying hard for a move that’s beneficial to their position and strategy.
Italy and England can now decimate France without German help, and Germany is out of position to do, well, pretty much everything. French strategy must remain the same: turn his attackers against each other, and also point out potential gains and dangers in other places. For example, he needs to both work on pointing out to Italy the Austrian fleet in Ionian and its dangers (as well as the Turkish fleets that will be coming west) while also hedging his bets by convincing Austria AND Turkey to both be hostile towards Italy.
Unfortunately for Italy, the Austrian retreat to Ionian does pose some real problems. Does he press against France for hard-earned builds, or does he try to defend against Austria sneaking into his home centers? Both are risky. I’m a bit surprised that Austria finalized such a bold retreat so quickly. It’s not necessarily a bad move, if backed by the right diplomacy, but I’m not sure that such diplomacy was taking place before he went there. Rebuilding in Vienna would have been much safer, but could have led to a downward spiral of “safe” moves that still result in defeat by a numerically superior force. Being in Ionian definitely gives Austria more options than rebuilding in Vienna, and it will be interesting to see if he can make something out of it with Russia and Turkey bearing down on his home centers.
Moving further east, I really like Turkey’s position. He’d primed to control the Med and to break from the Balkans into the Austrian home centers, two important routes for Turkish expansion. Because he’s so far away from the center of the board, the challenge of playing Turkey is to translate the strong defensive position into a breakthrough either north through Russia, northwest through Austria, or east through the Ionian as early as possible, and then to convert a breakthrough in one of those areas into breakthroughs in the other. If Turkey can break out on one front, he’ll be a player in the mid-game and most likely end up in the draw. If he can break out on a second or third front, then he can start thinking about paths to a solo.
Finally, we have Russia. There are two ways to look at his precarious position in the north. If he can pull it off, most likely it is through brilliant diplomacy with England and well-placed trust. Leaving only the fleet in Sweden to hold the north should allow him to make quicker gains in the south. However, it’s a big gamble, as if England decides to move against Russia, there’s very little Russia can do about it, especially if England can convince Germany to continue attacking Russia. The EGR triple illustrates two principles. First, alliances are much more stable when built on mutual trust. They are even better when they reach a point of not requiring trust because a stab would be tactically impossible or strategically disastrous. Russia obviously trusts England a lot, and so far England has repaid that trust. However, England has also put himself in a position where he doesn’t need to trust Russia at all. England then has a choice: to stab devastatingly, or to continue being a good ally, possibly in order to set up an even better stab later, or simply because it’s nice to have a flank where there’s no chance of being attacked. This is one of my favorite strategies: get an ally to trust me more than he should, hold off on stabbing so that he trusts me even more, and then to stab devastingly, often for a win. The second principle, which I mentioned in an earlier lecture, is that whenever you’re in a triple alliance, you want to work to get the other two to both see you as their primary partner. Then, when they stab each other, you get to pick the winner. England has also done that well here, putting himself in a position where he can side with either Russia or Germany, and where each of them needs him much more than he needs them.
Some things to watch for this turn: where does England put his new army? How does the EGR triple finally shake out? What does Austria do with his fleet, and how does Italy react to the fleet? Can France hold off his invaders? Do England and Italy work together against France, or do they bump heads?

Professors I would like to request a Pause on the game so that another player can be found to take over Germany.

I thought I would have the time to play this game but my classwork has been a lot heavier then I thought it would be and I just do not have the free time.

Thank you for this opportunity and I wish everyone with the game the best of luck!

Sorry to hear that. I just emailed the Mods, in case they miss this.

It would probably be worth keeping the pause on for a couple of days after the new Germany arrives in order for them to get acquainted with their TA and send go through the press etc.

I can step in (had offered in the set up thread to be a replacement if needed). I defer to Thehamster and other organizers, of course.

It's sad to see you leave Davion, you were a great Germany. Hope school goes well for you!

I've paused this pending thehamsters decision on the replacement process.

I agree with mendax. To get the most out of this experience, the new student would like to talk to his TA, read up on all the commentary do far, and maybe even do some extra negotiation. LordDavion, it could be useful if you also write a few notes to your replacement about your impression of other players, plans etc.

Sure just have him PM me his E-Mail and I will tell him what is going on.

Sorry again guys

This ruins the game, I understand you might be busy,but this looks like your trying to get out of the shitty position you got yourself into

it doesn't ruin the game - we survived people leaving fairly well in the last SoW game, and I think we should be ok this time around as well

@ssorenn, yep it sucks, but you will find that even in the highest class games like the Masters Tournament that people will leave partway through games. Part of the game is being able to adapt to it.

I understand and I'm in a crappy position,but I am going to see it out even if I only last for a year or two..put into perspective ,how much time do you really have to allocate to this this,your a student. Now if you had a job that required travel,or you had sick family member,or getting divorced. I get it ,but this,hard to chew

Well next school of war,you need to take a long look at the people and tell them the requirements that they must make...yes someone else can step in,but as you all know,it's happened in many other games you all have played in,you are going along working with someone and all of a sudden they CD and someone else comes into game and they don't go along with what you have been doing. It sucks

There's a large difference between somebody NMRing for two turns, then going into CD, during which they may NMR several more times, before being replaced, and this case, where he's being replaced with no missed moves. Yes, the diplomacy is affected, but it's a much smaller effect on the game. Some sites don't allow any NMRs at all and will just replace players who don't submit orders, and you can end up with games where the majority of the players at the end didn't start the game. As long as you can find replacements efficiently, I think it's a much better system.

again i understand,and the world has not come to an end, but this game, in particular changing the diplomacy matters..my opinion

this is not a personal attack on anyone, LordDavion has to do what he thinks is right for him, how would it have looked if I bowed out

Life sometimes happens, ssorenn. Judging by your 7 resigns, I'd say the pot shouldn't be calling the kettle black.

I have a job, a pregnant wife, and Graduate school. I was able to keep it together for awhile but I just found out that I am going to have to start doing additional volunteer work beyond my school hours to pass my course.

Sure I could just log on for 2 seconds and make some moves and for my other Diplomacy game I am playing right now here on the site that is exactly what I am currently doing. This game though demands a greater commitment to really get the most out of the experience and I thought it would be better for everyone to have someone playing Germany who has the time for that.

Again I really am sorry guys.

Grad school is no joke. We've lost mods to Grad School

Okay, just noticed this whole thing... Sorry to lose LordD. Ssorenn needs to relax ;)

I've invited Virtuslex into the game. Once he takes over for Germany I'll restart the spring phase, so you'll have a full 2-days to engage in diplomacy with the new Germany. Even though he's taking over a lousy position, he's a great student with a great TA, so hopefully he'll make lemonade out of the lemons.

Fuck all of you. I'm entitled to my opinion. I said it wasn't personal. As for the resigns, they were all when I first joined the site and had no idea that these types of records were kept. Other than that lord said it was about school,never mentioned the wife and job till now.

2wl -- tell me what you know about life!