You said: "I think France is coming into a very golden opportunity. Anytime I am playing France and I have 5 centers going into 1902, I have a pretty solid opportunity."

Two questions:
1. You mentioned the golden opportunity, but then you talked about the problems. Could you go into a bit more detail on the opportunities here? Or would that be giving too much away?

2. Doesn't France usually have 5 centers after 1901, meaning that France usually has a golden opportunity going into 1902?

I will start by answering these questions and then going into the next year's commentary. Since the phase passed and I see more of the moves, I will go into a bit more depth than prior because I wanted the west to develop naturally instead of the fashion I saw was best.

Concerning France's 'golden opportunity' and my mention of France doing well when it finishes out 01 with 2 builds: yes, France usually does gain 2 builds. When France gains 1 build, it means that it either (a) botched something in 1901, (b) didn't work to claim what it 'rightly deserves' and undersells its own value or (c) has enemies that wish it to only gain 1 center. A 1901 botch usually spells bad things for a country because weakness in a country looks like opportunities for neighbors. I remember well my English botch when I misordered in 01 and it cost me getting a build. Everyone around me, Russia, France and Germany, saw that weakness and swarmed. I didn't live but a few years beyond that.
The reason that this occurs is because each sphere (east and west) desires to consolidate players by the elimination of one of them. This is because it's of great reward to eliminate a country in your sphere, thus giving you the opportunity to begin looking to start a fight in the other sphere while your new opponent's back is turned and it is embroiled knee-deep in a conflict that has not reduced itself. In France's case, the goal is to reduce either England or Germany and then swing south and fight Italy while Italy is fighting against Austria or Turkey. Many a French solo has come under those circumstances. (Please note that I'm not necessarily advocating this as the case for every game. Each game has its own path to victory and this path may not be the best approach for any particular game. All I'm saying is that this is ONE approach that can prove successful).

Now, when France gets one build, it limits its capacity to defend itself when others attack. If France gets 2 builds, it can build a fleet and an army. If France puts 3 armies along Pie, Bur and Bel or Par/Mar, it can lock Germany out. The two fleets are deployed to protect it against the 2-3 fleets of England, and without the help of Italy, a EG fighting against France is a slow-slog at best, and impossible if done wrong. Therefore, France has a golden opportunity when it gets 2 builds because when your opponents aren't making progress, relationships are strained and your enemies begin to invite notions of turning on each other for the prospect of an easier fight BECAUSE NO ONE WANTS TO GET STABBED BY A PLAYER FROM THE OTHER SPHERE THAT CONSOLIDATED EARLIER.
In fact, I have had the honor of playing France when I had to fight a war against England, Germany and Italy similar times. The 3 countries were not cohesive and the result was a 2-on-1 battle at any given time against me. I was able to fend them off long enough to get Italy to turn away, England to work with me, and reduce Germany to ash. I would not have been able to do this with just 1 build.

Now to my commentary.

Spring 1902
All in all, this is possibly the worst 1902 I've seen in a long time. The high number of support holds and holds by some countries, the cyclic movements of others, units shuffling back and forth, countries facing the wrong direction and low results left the map in the state of chaos. In some respects, one might argue that it would have been better for some random individual to come along and give the board a healthy shake and leave pieces in the zones they end up in rather than see the turn out that was demonstrated here. I'm going to go through all the muck one player at a time. I apologize in advance for some of my comments. My goal is to give insight into options and I understand that some things are the result of diplomacy. In the end, a bad move is a bad move.

The East
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Plainly put, the east is a mess. It's sluggish, only marginally organized and, in some parts, bizarre. Some countries moved in a way that was reasonable, others in a way I would not have, and others had some silly situations that result in trouble.

#1 Russia: Your top spot is more a result of the negligence of your neighbors. Let's start with the things I liked. The best parts of your turn were the movements into Gal and War--more so with the Gal move and less so with the War move because it was really just the flip-flopping of a single unit going back and forth wasting movement. This happens in games and is often the result of shaky diplomacy or poor planning with the unit. I've been there several times, and I will be there again. Sometimes you talk to one guy in one season and move accordingly and then in the next season you talk to another guy and change direction. It's never a great thing to move back and forth, but it's not necessarily self-defeating.
What I didn't care for, but understand to a degree, is the holding among Rum/Sev. This early, you want to reduce the number of hold/support hold orders taking place, especially in the spring. The springtime is the best time to take chances. Issue support moves or moves because mistakes can be cleaned up in the fall. Here, I would have liked to have seen you pop your fleet because when you're working with Turkey, a fleet in Rumania CAN'T be brought to bear against Austria. If you pop your fleet (meaning you force it to retreat and choose to disband the unit instead), you can rebuild in the fall as an army which is FAR superior. If Turkey is going to mass-produce fleets, yours is merely a crutch and something holding you back. If you're working with the Turk, don't be afraid to go all the way. Let him have the BLA, preferably in the fall, and then remove your fleet in the spring.
In the north, I'm not a huge fan of the way you attacked Norway. What I don't mean is that I don't like the idea to attack, but rather I simply don't like the follow-through. Since you attacked with StP and supported with Swe, you allow him to have a retreat option. His options are going to be the Barents Sea, the Norwegian Sea, the North Sea or Skaggerak. A retreat to the NTH was unlikely (even in the face that England moved out of the NTH, which I didn't expect) meaning the most likely retreat options would have been NRG, SKA or BAR. First, let's assume that England was forced out and had a retreat coming instead of what actually happened.
NRG: This retreat isn't an issue because you can support a hold on your newly acquired Nwy by using Swe.
SKA: A retreat to SKA means that Swe safe the way you moved and Nwy/Swe simply issue a support hold order on each other, and you're still safe.
BAR: This is the retreat you DON'T want to happen because now StP is a possible loss. This reduces you to a coin-toss as to whether you will protect StP or support a hold on Nwy. Swe isn't a worry, but the question remaining is (a) do you move to cover StP or (b) do you support a hold and assume England will double-attack Nwy and protect Nwy. Therefore, you have 2 centers you need to protect, BOTH of which are possible attack points by England, and choosing wrong means you don't gain what you wanted.
This holds true even under the present circumstances, so the SIMPLEST outcome would have involved a retreat. England made his choice instead of leaving things to a retreat. I would have rather had you use your Mos army to push up into StP and cover the possible location of a devastating retreat which would have GUARANTEED you the build. You could have then moved to Gal from War and Ukr from Sev and still had no problem squaring off against Austria. As it stands, right now, you're behind the 8 ball.

#2 Austria: Your second spot position should have been a #1 spot but poor movements mean you get nothing this year. The other thing hindering you is Italy. The fact that you'll be facing a RT alone is depressing. France pushing strangely south and Italy pushing oddly west leaves you alone to take on a monster. The biggest problem is this isn't an RT that warrants the board's attention as a whole, thus leaving you to try to pick up the pieces of what remains.
Now, to your moves. Yuck. Nothing moved. My commentary to Turkey last season concerning the AEG was given under the impression that your BEST route was to move Gre-AEG resulting in what I assumed would be a bounce, thus keeping Turkey bottled up another season. As it stands, his shuffling means that he remains bottled up anyhow, but the failure on your part to move to the AEG means that you don't have the leverage over him that you want. The presence of a Russian fleet in Rum means that you had every opportunity to take a chance in moving Gre out to sea without fear of loss of Ser. I know you were taking a chance on Bul, and I'm sure you were waiting for Russian support, so I'm willing to overlook that move to some degree. Just remember that sometimes it's better to set yourself up for certain gains in the Fall by choosing to not gain something in the Spring. So, to some fair degree, you can ignore my commentary for this move assuming you had Russia promising you a support order. The Tri move was a chance you had to take if you were going to move into Bul under Russian support. The biggest problem I have was your choice to self-standoff in Tri against Italy. The fact that Italy built a FLEET means that he has no intention of attacking you. Italy can't use fleets against you except ADR and maybe ION to help against Gre. A fleet build almost always indicates a Turkish attack. I would have much rather had you tell Russia that you were going to self-standoff in Gal, and then see you do THAT move instead. Such a declaration means that Russia isn't going to see any profit in attacking you and helps assure Russian support with Bul. As of last year, I know that a lot of the commentary you read indicated that there would be a AR alliance, but I intentionally chose to not mention it because I couldn't guarantee a AR. The Turkish build was a required build and NOT an indication of which way Turkey was looking. Nor was the Russian build an indication of a RT. Russia didn't have any option either, so it would have been better to simply spend this season protecting yourself in such a way that garnered an ally, and if I had my choice, I'd prefer a Russian ally.
Let's look at the worst-case scenario by going my suggested route: let's assume you protected against Russia but Italy stabbed you by moving into Tri and Ven (assuming you got into Bul). He still only has 2 units on Tri. In the fall, it would have been a very easy thing for you to deploy 3 armies to retake it meaning you lose nothing. Now, assume you DIDN'T get into Bul as was seen here. Not protecting Tri means that Italy bounces in Tri and your centers are still safe. Either way, by the fall, you're out nothing.

#3 Turkey: Just like Austria, yuck. I understand your moves if you were assuming Austria was going to move to the AEG and you wanted to ensure that you would take it, so you shuffled your units around for "maximum" opportunity. I get that. You're trying to take a bad first year and make it a bit more promising. It's going to be another year before you make progress. Last, I'd have Bul do something. It may not have meant much, but issue it a support hold on Rum. This sends a message back to Russia that you're his ally. Moves like that are not about function but more about sending messages, both to Russia and to Austria. It tells Russia that you're working with him and it tells Austria that Russia is working with you and you're working with him and that's not likely to change anytime soon.

#4 Italy: What are you doing? You look like a country with no clue. No offense, but I get the impression that you're not talking to your TA effectively. If your TA is telling you to attack France and ignore the war brewing in the west, then I apologize, but that's the LAST thing I would have done. Here's the way the game breaks down for Italy. In 1901 he has 3 choices on potential enemies: France, Austria and Turkey. Below I have detailed some pretty solid guidelines for when to attack who:
France: You attack France ONLY when England and Germany are fighting him (early on). You need to know there's a French gang-up because if there's not, then you're not going to get anywhere. Mar, Spa and Por are all at least a year or two away from ONE unit. If France has an army in Mar, a fleet in the MAO and a fleet in Spa, then you're not getting in anywhere. You need Germany and England there to stretch his forces thin allowing your fleets to apply southern pressure while England and Germany apply northern and eastern pressure. The result is a quick demolishing of France. If there's a EF or GF, then France is in a good position to be making gains somewhere in the west and if he survives your attack, he's gonna push south against you, no questions asked. On top of this, an eastern power will also push your direction since a country has been reduced there as well. So attacking France in most scenarios simply creates a 2 on 2 which slows down progress--more so for you because in 1902, you're not likely getting anything.
Austria: You want to consider attacking Austria when you have talked with RT and you get the STRONG impression that there will be an Austrian gang-up followed by the breakup of the RT leaving you with either a Turkish or Russian ally. You don't want to attack Austria if there's a deeply dedicated RT hitting the map because you'll only be helping them to destroy your Austrian wall and then inviting them into your centers.
Turkey: You want to attack Turkey if you know that Russia is working with Austria. It's easier in this circumstance for you to hit Turkey and then work with Russia and squeeze Austria afterward.
Note that most of your option should be pointing you to the east, not the west. Here, you built a fleet meaning that you're not attacking Austria and you've got a RT on the map. I would have MUCH rather had you shove fleets into the AEG. If things go well for you, you and Austria reduce a weak Turkey while Russia fights a slowly winning battle leaving a strong IR in the end. The other possibility would have been that Austria gets crushed slowly and the RT makes progress. At that point, Austria is more likely to throw her centers to you or consider supporting you into Gre or Tri or other centers to at least help an ally as a final dying form of gratitude.
The very last thing I would have done is to shove all of your units against France because his ONE fleet isn't going to amount to anything but a nuisance against you, and chances are, it was going to push north anyhow. The moral of this story is that if you're not talking to your TA, you should be, and if you are and he's indicating that your best results are to attack France, then you need to seriously form a strong game plan that leaves you with centers in 1902, because right now, I don't see them.


The West
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The west was better than the east, but only by a small margin. Let's begin with the best of them:

#1 Germany: The reason you're top dog right now is three-fold. (a) You've got a Russian ally that is helping in the Sealion, (b) you've got a build coming that will get you that much-needed fleet for the fight, and (c) there's no English fleet in the NTH.
The only problem I see is that I think you may have picked the wrong ally. France is going to be an a small war against Italy which limits his ability to fight England. Second, NO ONE is in the ENG. If France is going to hit England, he needs that fleet there to help support you to the NTH or to begin convoying armies to the Island. To fight England, you HAVE to apply pressure from multiple sides stretching his fleets. The great thing about the sea zones is that they're huge and touch so many centers and have so many convoy options. The biggest problem with them is that fleets are cumbersome and clumsy when moving around the Island and they are inept at defense from multiple sides. A fleet on the east side of the Island provides no support or protection to the west and vice-versa. Forcing fleets to defend from multiple angles is the only thing that can break the English stronghold, and that's not adequately present in this situation. It's going to be a painful fight. Fortunately, the east isn't going anywhere any time soon.

#2 France: I didn't comment on your fleet build because I assumed it was indicative of a possible Western Triple where France pushing south would have been perfect. What I saw, however, is a FG where France is pushing against the wrong guy. The southern fleet build here was a mistake, in my opinion. I also really disagree with your army pushing toward Spain. You're sending units in the wrong direction. The easiest target for you to make gains is against England while you have Russia and Germany fighting against him. Italy is something you can flesh out as you need. My guess is that you caught wind of Italy doing something ridiculous and moved units into position to defend. This is going to put you in a really tight spot for the next several years until you can get Italy turned around facing the way he needs to go.
You'll see a build this year that will play to your benefit and likely push you up into the top spot in the west in the coming year, but that will be based on the Fall and the Winter Adjustments.
My last thing is to ask "what's up with A Bur-Mun"? It's sending a strange message when you support with one hand and attack with the other.

#3 England: You don't have everything going for you, but you also don't have everything going against you. To the bad: you've got Russia and Germany attacking you. You've got a tough choice when it comes to the issue of StP/Nwy and only the Fall will determine if you come away with nothing or with a reduction in your forces. To the good: you've got a "neutral" France because there's no indication from where I'm sitting that the MAO is going to push north and the current state is that it may be tied up in the south for a while. You've also got Italy on your side, even if it's unintended. The reason you're in third is that, while your opponents face a build this year, you face nothing at best, and the loss of one center at worst. I've been in worse situations and come through, so your ability to negotiate, cut losses, and provide your enemies with a better target than you is going to be the one thing to get you out of this mess.
Now, the best thing I can probably say to you is that of all 7 players, I felt yours were the best this year. i disagree with nothing that you did and really hope that the end result of your moves is that you come out of this unscathed.

Lolwut Russia's moves are really bad. I'll probably write something up about this tomorrow.

Glad to see this game is back up and running:

Spring 1902

England:

Your moves to NTH and SKA were solid, I think. I'm less impressed by your move to BAR, though. There was no reason to willingly vacate NWY, as you could always retreat if Russia did kick you out. If you were going to move, though, I would have much rather seen you move to STP. You would have now been sitting in one of his home centers and he'd have no way of kicking you out. Even if you had bounced, you could have simply retreated to BAR and been no worse off.

France:

Moving to MAO and GAS were both good choices. I'm not entirely sure why you hit MUN, unless it was just to make sure he didn't move it, although I'll freely admit I'm not sure why you'd care. Supporting BEL would have been much safer. I suspect this is one of those times seeing press would help a lot.

Germany:

Keeping England out of NTH was a good move because it keeps you safe and makes him reliant on you if he wants to take NWY back. You decide if England or Russia gets NWY this year; that is a strong bargaining chip that you need to use wisely.

Russia:

Not moving MOS-STP was a big mistake. Not only might you not get a build, but you could now very well lose STP next year. By going after both Germany and England at the same time (and rather ineffectively), you may have just made allies out of 2 countries that would have otherwise been very willing to fight one another. Your moves in the south are equally suspect. You've moved to GAL and prevented Austria from taking BUL. Do you plan on attacking him as well? 3 enemies and no builds is not a position you want to find yourself in, even with Turkey being as friendly as he is.

Turkey:

I understand the predicament you were in. You wanted to move west, but your fleets were all out of order. If you were serious about moving west, though, I think you would have been better served just risking the move to AEG, expecting Austria not to bounce you. Even better, though, would have been moving into BS, which is completely undefended. You could take Russia's southern centers with little risk and then have plenty of units to move west at your leisure.

Austria:

I suspect your moves were based upon press from Russia promising not to move against you. For that, I can't really blame you, as his units were not really set up to attack you. Obviously, tapping RUM would have been the better thing to do, but I don't think you would have any way of knowing that. Luckily, none of your centers are threatened this turn, which is a rare treat for Austria.

Italy:

You've done an excellent job defending against the French advance. Unfortunately, you have no easy route of expanding. Without help against France, the best you can hope for is a stalemate and you don't have enough units to do anything other than help the Juggernaut take all of Austria's centers (not a good deal for you). You need to make peace with France or find someone to help you attack him and you need to do it quickly.

So, it seems Tru and I have some disagreements on the France/Italy situation, so I suppose it warrants further elaboration:

With France leaving Italy handing in TYR and building a fleet in MAR, I think Italy was forced to defend himself. Now that France sees Italy is serious about defending himself, hopefully France will back off and allow Italy to head East to help Austria against the Juggernaut. It is a bit of a waste, I agree, but given Italy's awful start, I think it was the best thing he could do.

I, too, expected a WT. If there is one, then I think France's moves are fine, if not great. It's very possible he was under the impression there would be a WT and didn't know EG would have a falling out. Given the moves, though, I agree he needs to rethink his Italian campaign.

The reason I really disliked Italy's movements is that I'm dubious about a French invasion. I think France feared an Italian one. If we look at French moves, there's little there to indicate an attack. The MAO, maybe. but it can't do much. With the absence of a WT in the west, France is clearly looking to push north. If France were really going to attack Italy, it would have been better to have a fleet in the GoL and an army in Marseilles. That army could be convoyed to Tus which bypasses Pie. The MAO fleet would have to swing south and provide further support on top of that. Without the army, tho, the fleet's won't cut it. To really hit Italy hard, you have to get onto the boot.
Finally, I think France risks a lot by attacking Italy this early and ignoring the battle in the north. If France pushes his units south early on, without a WT, he really risks having E and G make up and knife him while his home centers are devoid of units.

I would have much rather seen Italy ignore the fleet in Mar in the spring and wait to see what happens in the fall.

Now to Italy. If Italy was planning on attacking France, where would he go? Pie wouldn't get into Mar this year without fleet support, his fleet wouldn't even get to the GoL until the fall, and the odds of getting into the MAO were slim. This means there's no build for him this year but France gains a 6th unit. Not what you want in a battle. If he was defending, F Nap-TYN would suffice because he can only put one fleet into the ION in the spring, so why not make it the one stationed in Tun and use Nap to push to the TYN to safeguard his homeland. This way, he moves to defend against a possible French invasion while not neglecting his responsibility in the east.

At this point, as long as the two can't agree, they're locking themselves into a battle that neither of them can afford to take part in.


Last, I can't say that I wholly disagree with Abge's comments. IF Italy was moving to defend, then can't completely hate on Italy. He does need a solid game plan to go forward, though. 1902 without a build can be a game wrecker.
My point with Italy was made based on Italy being the aggressor. I haven't seen very solid moves from him so far and I don't think this was the best choice.

@ Abge
You commented that Russia is fighting Germany. Can you expand on that comment?

@ Both professors
I notice that alot of the comments regarding the players moves are specific to the moves themselves and what alternative moves could have been made. Are there any theories on what diplomatic events may have occurred over the past year which may have caused a few of the moves in question? For instance, I thought the comments last year regarding what diplomacy may have caused Italy to move to Tyrolia interesting.

@dyager

Moving MOS-WAR instead of MOS-UKR is needlessly hostile towards Germany and offers no benefit for attacking Austria. Either he was considering a move against Germany or just made a bad play.

In regards to Diplomacy, I think that gets increasingly harder to speculate as the game moves on, but I suspect the following at least:

France thought there would be a WT, which is why he moved south.
Austria thought he had a deal with Russia against Turkey, which is why he didn't tap RUM to take BUL.

I'm pretty much with Abge on this one. When you start to theorize about the possible press that's going on, it becomes very difficult. Even as a player it can be hard. I read press I receive very carefully and look at other things to determine what could be said between nations. Some of the things I look at as a player:

Did I send a message to a player with plenty of time and not receive a reply yet they saved orders.
Did someone log on and ready orders without talking to me?
Did I send a message to someone, see them log on and not reply, then many hours later see a response?
Is a player's press to me filled with vague responses and not anything specifically spelled out?
Do they ever agree with something I'm requesting or do they skirt making a commitment?

Each of these things, when answered with a "yes" can lead me to believe that they're talking to someone else and considering their words over mine.

When I look at a game and observe as a third party with no pres, you're really making assumptions about what was said.

I also agree with Abge that we can determine some broad specifics, like Austria assuming Russian support, Italy and France having some dialog about Munich, and Russia talking to Germany about attacking Enland.

I also find it peculiar that we both assumed the presence of a WT yet none was forthcoming.

Moves gone through.

Fall 1902
Wow, it seems like just yesterday that I was posting commentary for the Spring. On the whole, this was a much better season for most players. I don't mean that this was the expected 1902 where alliances made progress, some saw losses and others saw gains, I simply mean that direction looked better, and I feel like there has been some unification. I still think that there's a very odd dynamic around the map that is leading to an unnecessary stall, but my suspicions are that 1903 will have a very different look.

The East
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Neither sphere has a really solid standing in my mind but my decisions in the east are harder to ascertain.

#1 Austria: I put you at the top spot after a lot of careful thought. My decision to do this came from looking at which countries had clear enemies, which ones would see gains next year and which one had the brightest future as it currently stands, and you came out on top. Russia got bumped down due to the loss of a center and the possible loss of StP in the very near future (I will go into detail as to why this loss hurts more than the loss of Rumania in Russia's section). Turkey dropped because of the number of enemies he has, and Italy isn't number one because he doesn't stand to gain next year unless something changes in a way that I'm not seeing.
As a general rule, I agreed with your moves. At first, I disagreed with a few as I was putting together this commentary, but after careful consideration, I changed my mind. As I looked at the moves and considered what was happening behind the scenes, the moves seemed pretty sound. As it stands, count your blessings because Russia is the only thing that is going to break down the Turkish wall and grant you a build in the near future.

#2 Russia: I reduced you to the second spot because of the loss of Swe. This loss is harder to take, in many respects, than Rumania. The reason is that losses in the north immediately reduce the opportunities of a solo almost to 0. Here's why:
Losing Swe is usually a precursor to losing StP. I've found that when one of them falls, the other falls soon after because the reduction of units means that you have to make a sacrifice in the north to maintain what you have in the south. This leaves StP inadequately protected. Then come the vultures. The loss of StP is an easy one because it's nigh impossible to hold from the southern side if England or Germany really wants to take it from you. Once you lose StP, you're locked out of the west. Once this occurs, in order to solo, you almost have to take all 17 from the east (including Turkey, Austria and Italy) and then one from the west. Either that, or you have to plow into Germany and hope to take Berlin and Munich. Either way, the 18 centers you need to win suddenly increase in distance from your home centers meaning a MUCH longer journey and a larger force to take.
Let's look at the other possibility: losing Rumania. In games where Russia loses Rumania and keeps the north, Russia either rebounds through solid diplomacy or folds like a sheet of paper to an AT. One of the many benefits of Russia is that there are two stalemate lines running through the country. One just below StP (the big 17-17 line) and another just south of Moscow and Warsaw (the 18-16 line). If Russia can take Norway, it has the ability to lock up Moscow and Warsaw for several years hoping to ply for time to get one of its enemies to become an ally.
Anyhow, that long-winded series is why you fell to #2--the loss of opportunity.
What I liked was the turn-around you made to work with Austria and fight Turkey. I was talking to several people via PM about this and we both agreed that your best chances were to work with Austria and I wasn't sure if you would have taken it. All-in-all, I liked your moves. Now the question becomes, what do you do with your retreat option. I have something in mind and will comment on retreats if I don't see what I think I should.

#3 Italy: You were given the third spot because (a) you lack the opportunity of other countries in your sphere, (b) your center count is lower than most, and (c) next year is still looking stiff. I will say your season was also a noticeable improvement. I liked the back-pedaling to focus your attention in the east. Your facing now presents several opportunities, but I still see a recognizable danger to which you may or may not be aware. Your next year is going to be very critical because the lack of a build in 03 means your game is likely close to over. Your future will be decided by 2 players--one of which is you. I will avoid discussing the other matters until I see next spring. As it stands, though, you have a lot of opportunity to make friends. The one drawback is that you do have to make an enemy. Good luck in 03.

#4 Turkey: You dropped to number 4 because you lack allies, you didn't make progress, and you're in a really tight spot. To the positive, I did like your movements this season based on where things left off after the spring. Had Russia remained an ally, you would have been staring a build in the face. While your situation looks grim, I will add that there are things coming down the pipeline that could change all that. Your biggest need right now is read the board and discuss situations with everyone. The right press to each person could mean that you find allies.


The West
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Surprisingly, the only builds came in the west and they came in a manner that I found quite interesting. My commentary to the east left nice things to say to all countries and really didn't contain any negative comments about moves. In the west, there are several things I disagreed with.

#1 France: I liked all of your moves this season. The pull-back of the fleet and placement of the army in Marseilles to ensure Italian retreat meant that you easily secured your 6th build. I also like the fact that you have a fleet in the MAO and Spa sc and the addition of a build. This gives you a LOT of flexibility on where to go next. The biggest determiners of what you do, I believe, is determined by the rest of the west. Like Turkey, there are things I would like to see next year, but I get the impression I will see something else. I will also be paying very close attention to your build, and the rest of the board should be doing the same. Of the 3 build possibilities, two of them are good choices depending on your focus. This leaves one build that isn't horrible, but isn't the best choice. I will possibly comment more in the Winter Adjustments.

#2 England: This was a really great season for you, and I debated putting you in at #1. The fact that France had 6 centers invariably meant that he would secure the top spot. I also liked your moves. The fact that you were able to talk Germany into giving you Swe was excellent. Now, based on your current position, I really only see one route for you, and this route is better for you than for others. I will also be looking at your build and I expect to see something very specific. While you have 6 build options, I'm really looking for just one, maybe two because they're really the same once you get down to it. I do see a solid future for you at the present moment and the builds phase will determine the extent of that future.

#3 Germany: You're in the bottom spot because of your future opportunity. You were the only guy to not get a build, but based on what I saw, that's not much of an issue. The problem I see in your future is that growth may be limited and there's possibly significant risk. I will go into detail with the other profs via PM to garner their thoughts but I'm sure we will agree. Now, to your moves: I liked the support of England into Swe as long as it doesn't bite you in the butt. The Holland support hold was alright, and no issues there. The moves I had an issue with were those of Ruh and Mun. Your moves beg the question as to why? Why move each unit to the other unit's zone? It accomplishes nothing and comes across as a joke, almost as you saying "hey look what I can do! See? It doesn't matter that I move like this because nothing will happen." Such pointless moves really have no place in Diplomacy because each unit needs to be issued intentional orders. Every military organization operates on tactical design. This is also true in every war board game. Ridiculous moves like this lose out on the possibility of doing something else useful with them. Even when you issue a hold order and no unit supports it, you do so with the understanding that you want to keep that unit in its present location until you find a purpose for it. The problem with your move is that it wasn't just useless, it carried risk. I'm sure you were very comfortable with France to know that he wouldn't stab, but he could have hit Hol with his fleet and supported himself into Ruh. A move like this, coupled with no builds on your part could have spelled potential disaster.
Now, I might be saying all this and the moves were merely a botch. In the case of a botch, I don't have much to say other than check and double-check moves. The bottom line for you is that this wasn't a bad year and I'm curious to see how 03 shapes up for you.

@Tru you may want to relook at the board... specifically Germany

lol, yes, you're correct. Germany took Denmark. I apologize. I noticed that prior to my commentary but when it came to my German segment, I forgot that he took it this year.

Oh what a difference a turn makes...

Fall 1902

England:

An excellent turn. By anticipating Russia wouldn't risk STP, you were able to move back into NWY without support. Convincing Germany to support SKA to SWE on the same turn was key. Your only other option for LON was EC, but I think your choice of NTH is better. Moving to EC would have been blatantly aggressive towards France without actually giving you many more options towards him. By going to NTH, you've maximized your ability to convoy as well as secured your fleet line. Not too much to say other than that, as you made pretty much the best moves you could this turn.

France:

I'm glad to see you have backed off Italy as there wasn't much for you to gain from that front at the moment. Unlike many other people on the board, you've continued to secure easy builds. This has served you well up to now, but you now need a plan for further expansion. Moving to MAR made a lot of sense. If Italy bounced you, then you would have been able to build another fleet if you wished to punish him. Since you didn't bounce, you now can't build a southern fleet and so Italy should feel safe to continue East. You do have a problem with your other armies, though. You are currently using 2 armies to defend 1 center. Worse yet, you can't actually defend BEL if Germany wants it, so the support seems to be a waste of time. This should have been a turn to position yourself for your next set of builds. Personally, I would have gone for RUH this turn.

Germany:

You did a great job crippling Russia and winning the good grace of England. Unfortunately, you didn't take the opportunity to set yourself up for future expansion. If you trust France, then you should have started heading East with your armies to help England against Russia. If you don't trust France, then you should have just taken BEL and gotten 2 builds this year. You can't afford to have 3/4 of your units sitting around doing nothing.

Russia:

Things are quickly going from bad to worse for you. I understand your concern about losing STP, but leaving NWY was not a good call. It would have been better to hit NTH with NWY. Given England's moves, you would then not be forced to disband. Even if he moved to STP instead of NWY, you at least would have kept him out of NTH a while longer. Plus, it's much easier to recapture STP than NWY. Very bad play in the North, I'm afraid.

Things in the South are better, but not good. I don't know why you didn't stick with Turkey, since he clearly had no interest in attacking you. I understand the move to BS, since that fleet was worthless in RUM. But, you should have supported SEV-RUM and continued your campaign against Austria. By moving to ARM, you lose the ability to make any progress against Austria, yet it's unclear how strong of an assault you can mount against Turkey. You are now at war with literally every one of your neighbors.

Turkey:

Given your position, I think you made the best moves you could. After your fleet rotation last turn, you committed yourself to heading West, so I think it was worth going for it. Hopefully, you did everything you could diplomatically to keep Russia on your side; unfortunately, sometimes it doesn't work out. You're about to get a lot of practice using diplomacy to save yourself.

Austria:

I think Turkey defending BUL with CON was pretty clear. Because of this, I wouldn't have wasted time trying to take BUL. Instead, I would have tried to put myself in a better position for next year. GRE-AEG would have been a good plan, as it would have kept Turkey away from you just a bit longer. Alternatively, you could have gone for RUM with:
GRE-BUL
VIE-GAL
BUD-RUM
SER s BUD-RUM
TRI-BUD
This had a much higher chance of success, as Russia was unlikely to keep SEV sitting around to hold RUM.

Italy:

Disengaging from France was a good move, but you are still not making good use of your units. If you wanted to go after Austria (not advisable, but at least a plan) then you should have moved PIE-TYR and ROM-VEN. If you wanted to go after Turkey, you should have moved ROM-NAP or APU so that you didn't need two fleets to convoy. You are very far behind and you don't have many units to keep track of: you need to be using them all.

I noticed that France ordered Belgium to support Ruhr->Holland (which failed as there was no such move). Do the professors see any meaning in that order?

@uclabb
You state that each power should strive to have two of each unit as soon as feasible. Could you elaborate on how that plays out for Austria?

That's probably where "feasible" plays in. Probly for Austria it's just a judgement call to be made if Austria has enough of the south and has sights on italy and would need a navy to secure the eastern med

Austria never needs more than 2-3 fleets, so the statement doesn't apply to Austria. If Austria ever builds another fleet, it's when it faces off against Italy and France.

@Tin

To answer your question, in this case, no, I see no reason for that order. My first thought was that France wanted some bounce to fail by clandestinely supporting one of the units. That's a clever thing to do, but this time there were no units to bounce with, so that clearly wasn't his intention.

@peterwiggin- The core reason why you want two of each type of unit is because the game of diplomacy is all about the support order- if it didn't exist, the game would always stalemate almost immediately- the only way to make progress is by having one's units coordinating. Until you have a second fleet (army), that fleet (army) is nearly useless, except slightly for defensive purposes. It's also worse noting that 2 units always beats 1, but depending on geography 3 doesn't always beat two (usually it is actually a 50/50 with the 2 units holding ground if the correct support is cut)

This is true for Austria especially, in my opinion. Maybe you can elaborate on your question? If Austria wants to win, they need to get into Ionian Sea, which never, ever should happen unless they have a second fleet- this is the basic reason why Italy should always be pressuring Austria to not build a second fleet (in fact, many Italian players treat an Austrian fleet build as a declaration of war), and Austria should always be looking for a reason to build a fleet.

@uclabb

I agree with your assessment of Austria's need for fleets. The difficulty, then, is in finding time to build those 1 or 2 fleets needed to eventuallycontrol ion. UYou pointed out one: that if Austria is allied with Italy, Italy often treats a second Austrian fleet as a declaration of war. Some other difficulties... Austrian fleets take a while to move to anywhere useful, unlike Austrian armies, making it difficult to balance present and future needs. Often, if Austria is working with Russia, he ends up building exclusively armies in order to not get stabbed. If Austria is allied with turkey, the Turks also tend to treat Austrian fleets as a declaration of war.

That should say: "you pointed out one difficulty"

I see the retreats phase went through and I said I may comment in the Russian choice based on what I saw. I feel some commentary is applicable here. However, I want to make this beneficial for all players and not solely directed at Russia so I will list some tidbits that are helpful for all playing and following along.

I will begin by stating something I really liked that he did and its a trend I've seen from him season after season as well as I can remember. He took time to submit orders and didnt ready up when he decided on an option.

I like this because, as I've said before, players have to think about the message your actions may be sending to the other players. This includes readying orders. When I see someone ready orders, it tells me that they are done negotiating. Their mind is made up. I feel that players need to be flexible. Everything should be up for negotiation for the right price. You want to DMZ a location? Fine. Lend me support into a neutral that gives me the edge on my enemy. You want to dock your fleet in Bre to prevent my fleet builds there? Then you need to consider letting me dock in London and/or letting me take Bel, Spa and Por this year to offset my loss and you need to keep the ENG free of units. These are examples of course. Readying your actions tells me that you're done negotiating. Readying orders can close doors with some players. Now, saving orders gives others the impression that you have an idea of how you plan on moving but your moves are subject to change if something better comes along. Most veterans will save only because 1) it ensures you have the maximum time to send messages, review the map and consider alternatives and 2) it tells others that you're open to changing things to benefit you both under the right circumstances.
I also like that it took Russia a while to submit even a save order. This can give your opponents the false hope that you will fail to submit and possibly NMR only to have them dashed. It also tells others that you're in the "heavy discussion and thinking" phase and taking a lot of thought into what you intend, preferring to hear from as many people as possible before submitting anything. Sometimes I don't even submit provisional orders until I have heard from 2 or 3 players.

Russia, you had 3 options available to you for retreats: (a) Baltic (b) Gulf of Bothnia and (c) disband. Lets look at the merits to all three choices.

(A) Retreat to the Baltic Sea: a retreat to be BAL allows you to still have some measure of claim over Swe in the event that Enland is willing to negotiate. It also applies pressure to Ber and Kie. Germany has a build and it will go in one of these 2 places. This means that starting in the spring, one of them is empty. This empty center has to be guarded or else you can take it. This in turn could force Germany to hold a unit or two back to cover it (maybe in the form of a self-standoff). These units are units that aren't brought to bear against you while they protect their home. It also allows the possibility to convoy Lvn to German soil if youre feeling lucky or you find yourself with English support. The drawback is that it doesn't immediately protect StP.
(B) Retreat to the Gulf of Bothnia: the GoB grants you a claim on Swe as the BAL does and it also can lend support on StP which the BAL doesn't. The drawback is that it can't be used to defend War or Mos or apply pressure to Germany.
(C) Disbanding the unit: this is done after talking with others to get a feel for what might go down in 03. The disband says "I'm cutting my losses so I can focus my attention in the south and I want everyone to know it prior to the build phase". It can send a message to your southern partners that you're not backing out of a fight and send the message to the north that, while you are irritated at the loss of Swe, you have no intention of sparking a war and prefer to keep out of the western fight. Usually a disband at this point is done after thorough negotiation with others and you settle on it as an agreement that you will get something in return. The drawback is that the disband doesn't allow for negotiations about which unit to disband to go on during the Winter phase when negotiations are best done because your opponents have to rely on your word just as much you do on theirs, and it keeps things equal instead of you hoping that your Retreat phase negotiations pay off while your opponents get a "free ride" assurance--you're definitely putting your money down on a deal up front.

I would have preferred A first because of the vast amount of benefit it has over the other options. B and C both have equal or similar merit.

I'm hoping that your retreat came with some serious discourse with those around you and with careful consideration instead of just a whim that ya gotta go somewhere, so why not there.

bump

bump

bump, builds went through. onto diplomacy.

bump again.

and again

bump, phase change. now onto retreats.

Spring 1903
Aaaaaand there's the Western Triple. This is going to be a really good year for some and a really bad year for others. I will deviate slightly from my normal routine to talk to the WT as a whole and then I will return to my breakdown of the sphere rankings.

The Western Triple
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you've ever been a professor alongside me, you'll know that I enjoy additional talk on the side to really spell out more of what I think because there's a lot more that I want to say but choose to refrain my comments to not unduly influence a game. Last year, I had some brief press between jmo and I. We had talked about a WT before but that conversation has long passed. Below I will show you some of our thoughts--lend some insight, if you will.

Me: "I don't know what you think, but I'm still seeing the presence of a WT. The fact that France supported Germany, Germany supported both France and England, and England had German support and no French attack seems to indicate that no one is really fighting in the west.
I really think a WT at this stage is pretty useless because it should have been in full swing by now. By this, I mean Germany should have received the 3 builds, not France, France should have 2 fleets and an army in the south and England should have had an army in Norway. The fact that any WT is developing slowly is a mistake, and the east had better pay attention to what's going on and needs to be sending press in preparation for two scenarios: what to do in the event there's a WT, and what to do in the event there's not.
Turkey needs to be talking to England, France and Germany to try to get a WT started and really be impressing in the minds of Austria, Italy and Russia that there is indeed one present and he is there to help the east.
If there is no WT, then the west is operating very poorly. There's no clear-cut enemy, and this means a serious delay in making gains."

jmo: "Regardless of whether or not there is a WT, Germany is not doing well. If there was a WT, why isn't he moving East? If there isn't a WT, why isn't he attacking France *or* England? His moves are not making sense.
If there was a WT still on the table, I don't think France would have moved as he did. He would have pushed against Italy.
England is really the only Western Power that is doing well, imho.
Well, France is also doing well, but it's hard to do too poorly as France when no one is attacking you. England is the only Western power that is *playing* well."

Me: "You sent: I agree with you. I just think that a war in the west should have already taken place. If I don't start seeing the development of something in the west in the spring, it's going to show in my commentary.
This game has been very slow to develop."


Now, let's look at my take on the last year. Clearly, I predicted a WT long before it hit the table. I will state WHY I thought there was one, and what I would have done LAST SEASON if I were a member of the east.

A Western Triple is generally a hard thing to disguise. To do so requires some measure of combat between each of the countries to keep the east guessing. In addition, you really have to sell the absence of a WT come the time of the builds because builds are at least as telling as moves are, if not more.

Even up to the Spring of 1902 I saw what appeared to be a Sealion (the gang up of England under the allied forces of France, Germany and Russia). England kept Germany out of Denmark, Russia took Nwy and Germany bounced England out of the NTH. The thing I didn't see was French participation. The lack of French fleet in the ENG, and a French fleet build in Mar had me thinking differently, so I simply placed a little check mark in my mind of possibilities. I didn't really change my thinking until the Fall of 1902. There were way too many red flags up for me to not believe that a WT hit the map. Here's what I saw:

--France and Germany supporting a hold on each other across Bel/Hol
--German support of England into Swe
--The French moves keeping a large number of units south
--No one in the west really fighting anyone else.

Then the builds hit the map. The French fleet COULD have moved against England but there were no armies in the north within convoy position. Germany's army build didn't fit into the western war equation. No one builds A Ber if England or France is a target. It was clear to me that there was no war.

In my comments to jmo, I was dissatisfied with a WT. The reason is that alliances don't need to move slow. Great Western Triples form in 1902. Of course, so do bad ones. The best way to start a Triple is to push hard into the east in the fall to give your units a head start. If you wait until the spring, then in many cases, your builds and your older units are usually fighting for movement space since new builds want to move to the same zones as the ones you already had on the map waiting at the border.
This doesn't mean that there isn't a benefit to waiting for the Spring to make a move. Movement in the fall allows the enemy to use their builds to attempt to counter a WT. Keep in mind, though, that for a WT, crossing that stalemate line is the primary goal. Once you've gotten past that point, then you've passed the point of being easily stalemated.

For this game, the fact that the East didn't react really played out very strongly to your advantage. Each western country stands to gain an additional build: Germany into Warsaw, England into St Petersburg and France into Tunis. This means that the unprepared East is going to really feel the hit.


The East
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

#1 Austria: The East may be surprised at the fact that Austria is losing a center to Italy yet he still remains the top seed. The reason for this is simple: there are only 2 countries not currently affected by the Triple--Turkey and you. Your benefit is that your enemy is about to turn around and face a more pressing issue. You still have a clear Russian ally, which will help. Your moves this year yielded nothing, though, and I'm sure you're getting the impression that a Turkish target may not be in the cards.

#2 Turkey: If you read my comments to you last season, they were hopeful. I mentioned that you really needed to be sending press and the right messages to the right people would turn your game around. Well, I'm glad to say that things turned around. My commentary was based on the presence of a WT. Had I been in your shoes, I'd have been sending press to England, France and Germany strongly inviting them to come over and play. I'd have also been sending press to Italy, Austria and Russia, each with different messages to prime the idea of a Triple, even if it was false, just to buy you time. Now, with the WT in full swing, things are bound to change.
To top things off, you really put together a series of amazing moves to prevent the loss of anything you had. This was well worth putting you up much higher in the rankings.

#3 Italy: Back up, I like the idea of taking Gre, but you still should have had one eye on France. A fleet on the south coast of Spain, an army in Marseilles and another fleet in the MAO...even F Bre isn't a very assuring build, as anti English as it was probably sold to you. Your build means that you won't really lose anything, and you'll certainly fair better than Russia. The real question now becomes 'how do you handle France? You and Russia are the first to take hits in any WT and an efficient response along with the appropriate press will usually stem the tide.

#4 Russia: Ouch, it was going to be clear that StP was going to a new owner, but the fact that you ignored the German army build means that you're the only Eastern country to lose two centers, and Warsaw is NOT going to be fun because that's usually a sign of what happens to Moscow. I will say that the person that has the most to lose should be talking the hardest.


The West
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#1 England: Of the Western countries, yours were the best. I liked nearly everyone's moves but there are some things I will highlight in yours. I liked the idea that you didn't rush into StP but rather convoyed the army and set yourself up for StP in the fall. I'm not entirely sure what the deal is with Swe, but I'm sure it was arranged. I believe I will have more to say about this in the fall and I get the feeling that I will rescind a few comments made here.

#2 France: I liked most of your moves, but not all. I will start with what I liked. First, I get the impression that the West was able to sell the idea that there was no WT to the east in large part to your build. I also really liked the push by your fleets to literally flood and dominate the southern Mediterranean basin. Tunis is easily yours this fall.
What I didn't like was Marseilles--a hold? Really? Get that guy into the boot! I had some commentary to the fact that no one can really be effective against Italy while he doesn't have any armies on the peninsula and you really lost an opportunity to put Italy in further stress because you didn't trust Germany to not attack.
Had Germany hit Burgundy and forced his way in, you wouldn't really be out much. Burgundy is an easy loss to handle and it's also just as easy to force him back out. Don't be afraid to trust someone in order to maximize your efficiency. I take risks all the time. Sometimes they don't pan out, I admit to that. They usually do, however, and the reward easily outweighs the risks.

#3 Germany: I had less problem with your moves than I did with France. The reason I have you at #3 is that you stand the most to lose in a WT collapse. I remember the last Triple I was part of as France and I was stressed the whole time fearing that England and Germany were going to turn on me. I found out later that Germany felt that same way. The fact that both he and I felt this type of strong tension was really the only thing that kept us together. When there's a WT collapse, you're the guy that has two allies at his back and as long as you have the same number of units or less than your allies, you'll be at the bottom because you stand the most to lose in the event the WT breaks up.
I did like your moves and you'll net yourself Warsaw as a result. Very nice.