Bump

bump

@Tru
Outside of diplomatic press...were there certain moves in 1902 which would have dissuaded the Western Triple from fully forming or at least making it less appealing?

Sorry if I ask too many questions. Just trying to keep some interesting discussion in between phases.

Why would Germany agree to a WT this late if he stands to lose the most from it breaking up? He might be helping himself temporarily but he wouldn't become big enough to fend off an E/F alone, would he?

bumping

@dyager: it can be hard to say that a set of moves would dissuade a WT because players agree on something and then set it in motion. Once an idea takes solid root, players will play it out until it shows no fruit for a few years. In my mind, diplomacy is the best way to combat such a situation. Barring that, the east needed to recognize its presence and agree that three countries work together to both stack the line and eliminate the fourth guy. A WT that forms in 03 is rare because the east usually has a chokehold on one guy who would be out in a few years or earlier while the other three have builds coming in 02. Here, the east didnt gain 02 builds and so for them it was as if 02 never happened.

@kallin: absolutely not. First, lets look at what usually happens. WT countries usually see equal growth early on in the process. After Italy and Russia are reduced is usually the prime time for a Triple to disband if it will do so because Enland can't commit units further south beyond Sev and Turkey is out of reach for nearly all of them. Once players begin to see a slow down or halt to their gains, shifting can occur.
By this point, England has units in northern Russia, Scandinavia and builds coming in at home. France had units in Italy, maybe Austria and builds at home. Germany has units in Austria, Russia and builds at home. If you draw out the locations of control, Germany is surrounded by English and French units making him easy to squeeze having a war on three fronts. Most of his forces are deployed facing lower Austria. Now if you count the units of each power, they will each have around 7-8. If we even assume a best-case scenario for Germany, E and Fs total total is a minimum of 14 compared to a VERY generous German with 9. Thus, at best, he is 5 units shy with very few at home, and none guarding Hol, Den, Bel, Kie or Ber if the WT goes all out.

3 Hours to Phase Shift and Russia has no orders in.

Bump for phase change and Russian NMR

bump on builds now.

Fall 1903

This was a pivotal season for both sides of the map-wide conflict. Clearly, one side fared better than the other, and the rankings I will have listed below follow very clear-cut lines.

The East
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This was a very rough season for the east in general. I will have some comments for the east as a whole and then some commentary for each country individually.

As soon as the game opens up and I see which country I'm playing, like everyone else, I begin sending messages to every other player. I view S01 as a puzzle. My goal is to try to fit the pieces of press together to determine the overall picture of what to expect in the first year. I do this for several reasons. 1) I do this to get a feel for those around me. How do they talk? Do they appear trustworthy? Is their press specific or vague? Are they the type of player that is interested in opening up strong or do they prefer to take things slow? Are they a leader or a follower? Where do I see my best prospects? 2) I look to see what to expect from each area of the map. I'm interested in the BLA, the ENG, Bur, Tyr, Gal, Den, Pru and Pie. Each of these areas have specific indicators as to what is going on depending on who is there and who isn't, what actions were taken, and what was the end result. People will lie to you, but their moves speak a clearer truth.

I assume that most games will contain 2 spheres: an east--comprised of Austria, Italy, Russia and Turkey, and a west--comprised of England, France and Germany. I assume that most games will see the elimination of one power from each sphere and then players will begin to drift into the other sphere. Part of my press is meant to determine what to expect and compare that to the opening moves. I look for moves that indicate the presence of a Western Triple, Eastern Triple or Central Powers Alliance or any other alliance structure that involves countries deviating from the normal pattern which should warrant my attention on the other side of the map to do something other than my norm.

When I see something that raises questions or possibilities, I begin talking to the others in my sphere to begin to prepare for the potentially board-changing events. As soon as the WT looked like it might hit the map, as ANY eastern country, I would have immediately begun to talk to those around me to begin making decisions. A Western Triple needs to be countered by an equally powerful force. This means that three countries need to step up to the plate to prevent the trio from dominating the map. In most cases, this takes the form of 3 countries working together to eliminate the 4th quickly enough to take builds for themselves that allow for the strongest ability to stalemate the intruders. In more unusual circumstances, the remaining 4 powers work together to stem the tide.

The result is that the board becomes grid-locked until such a time as the west agrees to drop the Triple and axe one of its members while the east does the same. The reason for this is that if the Triple gets a foothold in the east, it can mean that the alliance will last all game, sweep the board and end in a three way draw while the east chalks up defeats.

Now, to Austria, Italy and Russia: I didn't see that type of attitude from any of you. I did see Austria and Russia working to eliminate Turkey and Russia do what he could (until the NMR) to prevent losses to the west, but ultimately, there was no cohesion. Italy hammered Austria, helping Turkey while Austria and Russia worked together. The end result was a very sloppy display that will easily end in the destruction of two of its members. My commentary to the east will be a reflection of what I have discussed so far.

#1 Austria: Again, your moves were really nothing stellar. Had Russia not NMR'd, you'd have potentially seen a loss meaning your builds progression would have been +2, +0, -1. As it stands, it is +2, +0, +0, both of which have horrible implications for your survival. When the Western Triple hit the map, you should have been one of the first ones to organize an eastern counter offensive because Russia and Italy are buying you time and if the Triple eliminates one of them, you can believe that Turkey may decide to work with the Triple. This means that quick organization on your part may prevent losses to your territory and give you a chance to stay in this game long enough to see the Triple fold in on itself. The absence of a solid game plan is worrisome and if things don't change soon, your #1 spot won't mean much.

#2 Turkey: With the advance of the Triple, the Russian NMR and the Austrian attack on Rumania, you're looking like you will again have some life back in you. You'll still need builds to prevent yourself from becoming a casualty to the western powers, but unlike the other three in the east, time is a bit more on your side. You're still not out of the woods yet and it's still highly beneficial for you to be talking to all 6 other players. Your moves weren't too bad. I know you took a chance in moving with 2 units instead of doing a supported move, but I like the idea. It was offensive in the way that if Russia attacked with the BLA and supported with Arm, you lose nothing, but if he attacks with Arm and supports with the BLA, you're sitting in Arm and threatening Sev while Russia has to disband at least one unit from losses in the north. It's this type of attacking instead of defending that brings players back from the dead and allows them to find allies in other players because you have units in key positions that can actually help someone else. Keep talking and keep fighting. You stand the best chance of coming out of this eastern mess unscathed.

#3 Italy: You're in the third spot because you didn't NMR. Your takeover of Gre was, in my mind, a bad move. Sure it prevents you from losing units, but you're pushing units further east while France comes in behind you. This movement in the wrong direction will be the cause of you losing your home centers and clinging to the hope that no one else in the east retakes Gre. You really needed a fleet in the TYN that had the ability to possibly push through into the MAO or convoy an army into French territory.
Worse than your attack on Gre was your movement into Tri and Mun. I'm not at all sure what you thought you were trying to accomplish with this. These moves furthered your eastern push totally oblivious to your clear threat. Your armies should have moved toward Pie to prevent France from coming into the boot. Sure, you may argue that your moves prevented you from losing a center, but the problem is that you lost something far worse than 1 center--you lost footing against the enemy. Next year, you can guarantee France will take Naples or Rome. You really needed to have talked to Austria and work cooperatively to attack the Triple at the line. You could have had the opportunity to prevent Germany from moving into the east and keep France out of your territory. More importantly, it would have given you an ally that could have lent you supports as you needed them in the years to come. Hopefully, for your sake, the Triple will end soon.

#4 Russia: Naturally, the loss of 3 centers and an NMR mean that you're trailing the pack. You will probably get some scathing comments from the other professors concerning your NMR, so I won't go there. What I will say is that NMRs happen. They happen to everyone and there's never a good time for it to happen. What I can say that is positive is that the difference between a beginner and a veteran is that beginners NMR and then give up afterward while veterans play on knowing that as long as you have a unit, you have a chance. Countless games have included one-center countries in draws and whether you have 17 centers or 1 center, a draw counts the same for both. I'm glad you came back from the NMR to enter retreat orders. Don't give up now. Be the veteran, not the beginner. Organize the resistance, offer yourself to whatever powers will take you taking whatever chances you have to in order to become a vital player in the game. For you, no risk is too great if it has a chance to pan out into something positive later on.


The West
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

#1 France: This last year really sent your game into overdrive. The fact that Italy isn't giving you the genuine concern that you deserve will mean that you have regular growth for at least another year or two. When you add to the fact that you have an army in Pie where it shouldn't have made it makes your position that much stronger.

#2 Germany: The fact that you gained 2 centers this year mean that you're in a much more solid spot. My guess is that Swe was agreed upon, and how it came to your lot is beyond me, but a big kudos to you for owning it, even if it's temporary. I liken center gains to monetary gains. It's better to have a center for a year or two to get builds you need than it is to not gain them at all or to wait until later to take them. I will add this: when a game is dwindling down to the last 8-10 hours and a player has not submitted moves, try to make sure to submit orders but remember to log on 5-10 minutes prior to the season end to see if a player will NMR. If you log on with a few minutes to spare and see that the player has indeed not submitted moves, then take the time to change yours to match. When Russia came down to the wire, you should have tried what you could to log on and change orders to take Warsaw with 1 unit and submit the order to get the other into Boh or Gal. This is giving the game the attention it deserves--attention to details. There have been times that a player looked as if he might NMR but the season didn't end until 2 or 3 a.m. in my time zone. To help ensure I would make the most of this, I put my cell phone under my pillow and set an alarm for 10 minutes prior to the phase change so that I would be able to wake up and see whether an NMR would indeed take place. It might sound crazy, but capitalizing on another player's mistake can really lead to your benefit if you prepare for it.

#3 England: I really liked the fact that you took St Petersburg with your army. For a bit, I was afraid you would blunder and take it with the fleet, thus locking yourself out of the east. You made the better choice. Depending on Russian disbands, this could leave you with a bright path in your future. Next, I hope you read my comments to Germany about preparing for a possible NMR. Here, it would have meant that you didn't need to waste resources to take StP and could have negotiated with Germany over Swe allowing you to get a build in addition to Germany. Your next few years will come down to (a) finding builds and (b) finding the best path forward. You're currently 2 units below F and G which isn't terrible, but isn't great either. I'm sure that things will continue to flow well for you as well.

bump

I'm really dubious about the dub-fleet build. I don't see a future in them.

The dub-fleet build of Germany or the dub-fleet retention of Russia?

Definitely the dub-fleet build of Germany is what I have an issue with. I won't go into great detail here other than to say that the fleet builds leave for very limited expansion, but I will wait to see what he intends to do with them...not that there's much choice.

Russia keeping two fleets isn't great, but when you're down to two units, you don't have many options. I certainly agree with Russia keeping the BLA. I'd have kept an army as well, but the northern fleet can still have purpose. When you're to the point that you're bleeding out your centers and you're down to the wire, defense isn't an option.

Could the players in the SoW please vote to pause after the season has rolled over to allow a traveling player time to deal with real life issues?

Thank you.

Bump for new phase

bump

Sorry for my absence:

Spring 1904

Russia

Not a whole lot to say here. Your problem was that you expanded in too many directions at once. Don't feel too bad, as it's a very common mistake. You actually could have been fine if you had stuck with Turkey. I'm not sure what possessed you to move against him when he clearly had no interest in attacking you. Perhaps you thought you could quickly grab a couple of his centers? Hopefully now you understand just how hard it is to penetrate Turkey, even when he's poorly defended.

Turkey

You survived Russia's attack, but you're still in a rough spot. You're allowing Austria to surround you and soon Italy will be in no position to help you. I understand wanting a unit in ARM, so that Austria can't sneak behind you, but I think putting a fleet there was a very bad choice. You should have moved the army to ARM and the fleet to CON. That would have allowed you to expand further North if you managed to get the army into SEV and it would have kept your fleet close to the East in case you need to defend yourself against a naval assault. I'm also not sure why you and Italy didn't coordinate better with your support holds. If GRE had held BUL and AEG had held GRE, then all your centers would have been safe. It would have been very bad for you if Austria had take GRE this turn.

Italy

You started to get back on your feet, which I was very glad to see. Unfortunately, it came about a bit too late. At this point, the only thing that can save you is Diplomacy. Now that Germany has been stabbed, you need to work with him against France. You also need to convince Austria that helping France at this stage is just giving centers to France. He should be going for Turkey.

Austria

Getting into VEN and SEV was good. Supporting ALB to TRI was a good call, although it's a shame you didn't bounce so you could put a unit there. My only criticism is that SER sat there doing nothing. You should always find something for your units to do. Why not use him to support ALB into TRIE, or hit BUL incase it decided to wander? There were many things it could have done, holding wasn't one of them.

Germany

As others have mentioned, the double fleet build was risky. It made you very susceptible to a French stab and was awfully aggressive towards England. I have to imagine you built those 2 fleets to go after England. If you built them solely for defense, it was even worse, since you then guaranteed you'd have no way to expand. If you wanted to go after England, though, you shouldn't have gone into TYR. You should have moved MUN-KIE so that you could start moving your armies North. Alternatively, you could have sent SIL to PRU. You committed yourself to attacking England with those fleets; you needed to follow through.

England

Your moves were mostly solid. You kept Germany out of MOS and you kicked him out of SWE. Moving BAR back was a good idea, as you were getting very weak at home. Supporting France to HOL was questionable, as it will allow him to lock down all of Germany Proper. You'll take SWE and DEN, but you should have bartered for HOL and KIE as well. Your ability to expand is going to be much more limited now (unless you go for France).

France

You had a good set of moves as well. Getting into HOL was big for you as it will allow you to conquer most of Germany. Supporting Austria into VEN was also a smart idea so that Italy couldn't accidentally sneak behind your line. Overall, you've set yourself up very nicely.

Spring 1904
This season saw a several standouts from among the crowd. With the breaking down of the spheres, I will likely end my commentary by east and west and begin ranking the board as a whole starting next year.

The East
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#1 Austria: I have mixed feelings about your moves this year. On the one hand, you capitalized on Russia giving up and may see up to two builds this year, gained a French ally to fight against Italy and have a neutral (?) Turk. On the other hand, Sevastopol isn't a sure thing, Rumania is up to trust (or maybe an agreed upon center for Turkey) and France will only stay occupied with Italy for so long.
When I did the bulk work of statistics on the 7 nations, I found that a strong France was a very favorable thing for Austria, and we are seeing the reason why as Italy is being hammered from both sides. This leads me to like a AF-style alliance. The flip-side to this is that good players have long-term goals in mind. They work to see these goals met, and where doors close, they prepare alternatives. This means that each player needs to keep the others in check via some system of checks and balances. As one player sees growth higher and faster than those around him, the others need to be prepared for when a country gets so powerful that action needs to be taken. That cusp that determines when others need to take action depends entirely on each game individually. This is the first time that I will link a game that I played as an example: gameID=13077. Around 1908, England began to get far bigger than those around him. I attempted to rally the troops but Austria was unwilling to move against England and everyone was more content to scrap together whatever Diplomacy points they could earn by game's end. England solos and I earn a survival.
Long story short, allying with a larger country means paying attention to when alliances have to end to ensure you take part in a draw and not a survival.

#2 Turkey: The fact that it's 1904 and you may not see a build this year really reduces the odds that you'll be part in any draw. You haven't had a build in 2 full years and may not get one this year. Your moves were bland, but you don't have much wiggle room. A build is necessary at this point and you have plenty of opportunities. With even a little bit of diplomacy you can be at 5 centers by year's end. I won't have much to say concerning your position until it changes--for better or for worse. Good luck.

#3 Italy: You've got 4 centers and an angry Austrian and Frenchman on your doorstep. Turkey isn't exactly an ally with no supports issued and you're facing a rough fall season. The only way out of this scenario is going to be to sell yourself to the right person for the right price. I've found that in most (not every) situations, someone is willing to work with you or have you work for them for the right price. The question is the price you're willing to pay and who you pay it to.

#4: Russia, obviously. The fact that you submitted no orders for your units two seasons in a row shows the whole board that you're giving up. This also tells me the level you invested in this game and it's really disappointing. Players who give up deserve to lose, plain and simple. At this point, you may not even be reading this commentary. This is the School of War. Not your average game that you might choose to blow off. It's a high profile game that uses nearly a dozen and a half people to put together and has the attention of the entire forum. I would not have accepted your choice to take over the country if I didn't feel it was reclaimable, especially with your TA, whom I have played with in several games and can back his ability to play well in any circumstance. In addition, you volunteered to take the country. The fact that you're doing nothing with it is inexcusable because there were others that would have taken the spot and played it out. If you're going to play diplomacy, you have to learn to play it through in the best and worst scenarios or you will teach yourself to give up when things get difficult. Every game has the possibility to turn around. A piece of the draw, while not as good as a solo, is still waaaay better than a defeat and there have been plenty of 1 center draw partners. Last, even a survival or defeat can be rewarding if you're able to ensure the guy you turned on you loses as well. When things go sour, you have to pull together and set new goals--ones that are attainable and ones that give you motivation to keep on playing and keep on talking.


The West
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#1 France: Right now, your position is looking amazing. You've got solid footing in both the east and the west with gains and allies coming in each area. I love the Austrian support to Ven because of the way it ensures you an ally in the south. You have the ability to see up to 3 builds by the end of this year, although it's not entirely likely. Keep your goal in mind as you continue to push forward.

#2 Germany: I still feel you're in the second spot, although it's highly shaky ground. I put you in second because I see a number of bright spots that are still available to you if you can make them work that could give you an advantage. I posted during the builds that I felt that the double fleet build was a mistake. Here's what I saw: two fleets was a clear indication that the Triple was breaking down and that you felt your best opportunity was against England. My guess was that you saw a French ally and it didn't pan out. The problem with the double fleet was two fold. First, it was telling. The Triple had several years it could have continued, especially in your favor, but when two fleets hit the map, it was very clear they weren't destined to push into Austria where your focus was expected. They could only push against England. The second problem with the fleets is that they're non-defensive when looking at your interior. Germany is vulnerable to the north when he has a small handful of units because England can easily overcome them with the help of Russia. A German breakdown often occurs along Den, Hol or Bel and flows inward in the early years. If Germany makes it beyond 6 centers, the breakdown more often comes from the land via a stab, much like this one, where countries swarm in through Ruh, Mun, Sil and Pru.
A better build set would have been one fleet and one army. This allows you to look at the possibility of telling England that the build is headed to the BAR, even if it's not, and the army can be moved far more places where center gain was lucrative. Three fleets weren't necessary against England because his fleets were deployed further east and you only needed to bypass the NTH which had no other fleet support. Finally, Germany doesn't need gobs of fleets. I know that some players want balance, but Germany and Austria are not fleet-heavy nations. Germany averages one or two more fleets than Austria but still fewer than France and England. Armies are by far the better route to go when looking at sustainable strength.

#3 England: Your prospects are looking up with Germany on the ropes. I put you in at number 3 because in the battle against Germany, you'll find it tougher to press forward with all of the German fleets present while France will fare far better. This puts you as a clear junior partner in an alliance and if you fall too far behind, an alliance can become a crutch that you can ill-afford to lose and even make you expendable. Your position will be determined by the strength of your press. You've managed to snag Sweden. Just make sure that your progress doesn't stop there.

@Tru

Could you elaborate more on why you placed England below Germany. While I fully agree that France has a better chance of taking more of Germany, at the end of the day, it's looking like Germany will be dead and England will have all of Scandinavia. Germany will be disbanding and England will be building, so I'm curious to know more about your motivation for this ranking.

This was actually a really tough call. I had to take time and really look at their positions.

England: The largest pro for England is the fact that he is the hunter, not the hunted. With France on his side, reducing Germany becomes a lot easier. The other pro is that there's no clear French threat against him at the moment either. I don't mean that they're allied (although it's true). I instead mean that the way the units are setup, France is in no position to stab.
The cons are that while I agree that he stands to gain Scandinavia, after that, where does he go? If he can't get into Moscow or Warsaw or make landfall somewhere, he has to turn on France and it would come when France has builds coming in, more expansion, and a larger force. Therefore, he will have to have some mid-term plan. The other con is that the bulk of Germany's force is targeting him--namely the three northern fleets and his lone army keeping him out of Moscow. England is likely to get one build this year and then one build next year while France could get 2 and 2 or better.

Germany: Germany's cons are England's pros. Germany is the hunted, not the hunter. He stands to lose 3 centers right off the top and has a major need to make up that deficit.
His pros are that he will likely hold out several more years at home and still have a unit or two abroad, so Germany isn't going anywhere any time soon. In addition to this, he has the added benefit of being able to really benefit from conversations with Austria, Italy, England and France and, where I'm looking, he has several options to make some decent deals if he can get people sitting down at the negotiating table. England doesn't have as much luxury at the present. This doesn't mean that England has no one to talk to, he just doesn't have as much to offer because a lot of the people he might talk to are in the east and he has limited support or none at all that he can lend, so the deals he can cut are less involved and can't be taken entirely seriously.

In the end, my decision came down to the fact that nothing is final until the fall phase goes through and we see what people have earned. After all, holding a center in the Spring isn't worth what it is when you hold it in the fall.

Bumping along a dusty road

Thursdat

*y*

2 more countries to unpause and we are ready to go.

It's unpaused... I guess that i have a question about last turn. What are the implications of the german stab on each country's possibilities for the future?

Well, the "stab", if you choose to call it that, by Germany will ultimately mean that he will struggle because it was either ill-timed or ill-carried out. The builds were what caused a problem--had France been willing to commit to an English rout, it would have gone better for him, but I felt the double fleet option was a bit over-committed. To me, it was a strange move because I really felt that the WT was in full swing and there was a lot to be gained by continuing as a Triple and not breaking it down so quickly. I think Germany could have supported England into Moscow and he could have pushed south to see a center or two OR he could have simply given England Sweden in exchange for taking Moscow for himself and THEN pushed south.

Ultimately, it's difficult to stake any claims on the future because the diplomacy going on behind the scenes will dictate what will occur in the years to come. There are a variety of options for each player going forward and a combination of vision, planning and communication with the others on the board will be big factors as to what takes shape.

I think what you're looking for is this: that the fact that Germany went with two fleets and brought the western countries back into a primarily western fight, that will change the outcomes for Austria a bit since there are fewer countries committed toward fighting him. Other than that, the east won't see a huge impact with Russia choosing to give up.

If Germany exchanged Sweden for Moscow, that would cut England off from the south wouldn't it? Giving England nowhere to go but into either Germany or France

It was essentially that way just prior to the build phase. England's only chance of expansion was (a) into Moscow--hence the army in StP, (b) into Germany or (c) into France.

With a WT, the best option was to go into Russia. My guess, based on moves, is that the "stab" came that fall when Germany received 2 builds and England received none where Germany kept England out of Moscow and subsequently took Warsaw and Sweden. It was followed by two fleet builds and the expectation that France would have followed Germany's lead to attack England.

Instead, France sided with England seeing the fleets and little protection Germany had as well as the limited fruit to be gained from attacking England (after all, he was is a full year away from doing anything except for what would have been a successful build that year).

I do think that it would have been easier for France and Germany to have taken out England with 3 combined builds last Winter, but I believe France sees more of a future and more of an opportunity to work with England.

As I said earlier, I think the WT still had a lot of life left in it and Germany may have moved a bit early. It's hard to say that with 100% certainty because had things played out differently, all three western countries would have received a build and the question becomes whether or not the next year would have played out differently.

I'm more curious to know the press that was sent between Germany and France prior to the change-up. Did France and Germany have some sort of agreement in place to hit England that year or was it simply Germany attacking and then asking France for assistance once the build phase hit? That's an important detail that we don't have as spectators.