^^ Hence the move to Adriatic.

"The danger scenario for me is what happens if France gets stalemated at 17."

on my assessment this is not the dangerous scenario for italy (theoretical), because if france starts to retreat italy knows what is comming and should instantly move east and try to grab another SC which puts russia and turkey in a position where they risk loosing if they deny it and france instant moves back going for the solo. italy can move with one unit to TRI and think if i dont get it and france comes back he gets his solo. i think it is really hard to collect a 4 SC italy (without GRE) pretty fast if italy is in a good position. france will come and he only needs to get TUN or TYR (with a later gain of TUN).

"give Munich to Russia in a lasting way"

that could be nasty for italy, but only if you try it instantly, otherwise italy should have cleared the situation how i described it above one way or another. but lets say france gifts russia munich ? i think then italy can instantly fight turkey and russia, without defending TUN. italy only has to secure that if turkey and russia gift him one SC he still can hold france (if france instantly goes for TUN). i think that line is very tactical and maybe it is simply lost for italy.

after that i think what about italy instantly moving VEN to TRI (or even take it if your fleet is in ADR) and asking russia to get it without waiting how the north develops. if russia defends TRI he uses forces he maybe needs to fight france and he risks italy not doing his job in TUN. i like that line.

"^^ Hence the move to Adriatic."

in the game italy didnt defend TUN and didnt go for TRI. what was that fleet doing ?also i wanne mention that instantly getting TRI is only good for italy if he can save TUN. yes, there are lines where russia can defend MUN, but as he looses a unit if italy gets TRI this will be very hard, if not impossible.

@naked

Upon further reflection, I think you're probably right that Italy can just be proactive and find a way to fix his problems if it looks like France is backing off. 5 might turn out to be enough; 6 almost certainly is. I like your approach to the problem, too -- it's much different than mine, which means I learn a lot from reading it, and in this case I think we come to similar conclusions now - I think you've convinced me that Italy should go ahead and hold Tunis at all costs, including inviting Turkey into the Ionian, because there are other ways to deal with the problems it creates, but that he also needs to be very attentive.

On the other hand, if as France I know that backing off is going to immediately trigger a war between Italy and either Turkey or both R/T, that makes it even more clear that I should do so rather than tamely accept a 4-way draw, because that war might well even give me winning chances despite having conceded Munich, and further if I press for a win again there might be enough mistrust that even though my opponents are capable of forming a stalemate line, they disagree over who should get which pieces of it and fail to actually make it. So, these potential complications are another good reason for France not to take the draw.

"So, these potential complications are another good reason for France not to take the draw. "

i also think so. france should for sure try to push and later to retreat. maybe someone does a mistake.

Yeah, I think it's clear France didn't *intend* to draw - but that's the risks when you click Draw in an attempt to sow discord. I'm with Valis, I think it's too risky to try it just for diplomatic purposes, *especially* in gunboat. Not unless you actually don't mind a draw.

That said - I don't think it's clear at all that France has good chances up north there. Those two Russian fleets are big trouble. The most worrying sign is that Russia's order sets are consistently good, so it's unlikely to be an easy progression and there's a good chance of losses. I'm on board with other comments that Kie-Pru or Kie-Lvn is a good play, but Lon and Den are both at serious hazard. None fatal though, so it's worth a try and see, for at least another year or so.

Jumping back to much earlier in the game - I am curious what the thinking was for 1901 English Build F Edi. My immediate comment was "Whoa - Fleet Edi. Gutsy, silly, or both."

I think in the end the German choice for building A Kie instead of F Kie in 1901 ended up being a mistake too (although that's by no means a definitely better choice without benefit of hindsight).

I'm also not sure if taking Belgium was beneficial in the end - throwing in against England sooner might have been the better choice. But again that one is not clearly better without hindsight, and might still have just ended up with France overrunning Germany in the same way anyway.

*digs through mail archive* Right, points of minor disagreement with commentary:

Yaleunc was surprised by Fall 1902 Retreat to Ska - I recommended that as the more dangerous to England option. Germany was going to have to cover the northern SCs anyway, and Den-Bal from England didn't seem that likely. Not a major disagreement, retreat to Baltic is certainly a good option too, but it's more defensive than Skagerrack.

Fall 1904 - Yaleunc "Interesting decision to keep Ska over Hol. You can maybe take Den this year but to do so you probably lose Hol so not sure that is in your best interest." It was going to be difficult to keep Hol even if we'd left the Army there. And at this point it looked really like we just needed to get rid of England - it was pretty clear England was just set against us. And 1905 bore that out, England pretty much made the best moves possible to cause us the most problems. :-)

"Jumping back to much earlier in the game - I am curious what the thinking was for 1901 English Build F Edi. My immediate comment was "Whoa - Fleet Edi. Gutsy, silly, or both."

i think overall the english play was like you can see it often in games from advanced players. going north hoping for the most easiest gains that are available for england, while desperatly hoping that france will join their fight versus germany (after gains in scandinavia) instead of getting attacked by him. sadly (for england) france easiest gains in this situation are on the english isle, especially if england has a real fight in the north. i think the fleet build in EDI is bad compared to the fleet build in LON as the only advantage should be showing france that you cant attack or even annoy him. but the drawback is you also showing france that you cant defend versus him. yes, even a fleet build in LON is no good defense versus a frensh attack but at least you limit greatly the risk that france can simply move to LON without any support, you make it harder for france getting gains so fighting for BEL can look sweeter for france gaining at least some time for england. if france really comes for england, after england goes north, he should be death in the water.

"I think in the end the German choice for building A Kie instead of F Kie in 1901 ended up being a mistake too (although that's by no means a definitely better choice without benefit of hindsight)."

i think france and germany should in gunboat always (!?) build one tank and one fleet at the start. both countries need 3 tanks for good defense/offense versus each other and both countries need 2 fleets to fight somewhere in the sea, meaning most of the time attacking or defending england (and russia). if you build 2 tanks or 2 fleets (most likely in france case) it limits your strategy extremly and opens your position to get exploided by other players if you dont get another fast SC gain.

Yeah, I think I agree that the most likely best set of gunboat 1901 builds for France and Germany is probably one army one fleet (positioning more dependent on opening results). There are definitely situations where you might want to do otherwise, but most commonly you're going to want one of each, if only so that you *can* project influence over both land and sea, even if you don't necessarily do so immediately.

"I'm also not sure if taking Belgium was beneficial in the end - throwing in against England sooner might have been the better choice. But again that one is not clearly better without hindsight, and might still have just ended up with France overrunning Germany in the same way anyway."

to me it looked like germany wanted BEL, but didnt want to fight france, didnt want to fight england, but also had problems to decide which side to join in the north (russia or england). i think germany didnt want to make decisions that exposed him, but while trying to give everybody reason to no attack him, he also gave everybody reasons to attack him. this backfired hard.

^ Yeah, sometimes you just gotta decide on a direction and go. Poor Jimothy was probably not helped in clear decision making because my TA style tended to lay out all the options and leave it to him... Lesson for next time if I TA again, I suspect. Make it clearer that you have to pick a side or two at *some* point. It's possible to be a bit vague through 1901, and depending on country and round the map openings maybe even 1902, but certainly no later than that.

Thorfi - I think the 02 retreat to Ska helped make the 04/05 problems with England. This is the main reason why I think Bal is better than Ska there. You mentioned Ska as being more offensive vs England, but how offensive can a single fleet in Ska be, especially when Russia is also contesting Scandinavia? If the retreat is to Bal there instead of Ska then when England gets knocked out of Den he probably goes to Nth or Ska, away from Germany and back towards Russia. I guess there is a chance he goes to Hel instead, but that option is there with you in Ska the same as it is with you in Bal. I guess the point is he definitely can't go to Bal if you are there and that puts Germany in much better shape defensively.

Yaleunc: Yeah, self fulfilling prophecy, eh? Could be.

Can't remember if I went into more detail yet about the Fall 05 French moves, so apologies if I already covered this one in detail. I still think this turn is the one where the solo chances would have increased significantly with a strong move on Italy such as Mar convoy to Tus and MAO-WMed instead of Mar-Bur, MAO-NAO, and GoL-WMed which also let TyrS-GoL succeed for Italy. Yes Bur would be empty which would make holding Mun dicey in the short term, but Sil and Boh were both still empty at this point so getting dislodged "forward" into those spaces wouldn't have been a bad thing. Yes Nwg would also have been at risk in Fall 06 in is scenario, but Russia wouldn't have been able to take Nwg AND knock France out of Den in 06 (at least not without Den getting into Kie and vacating Den). Meanwhile against Italy France would have had F GoL, F WMed, A Tus plus whatever unit he wanted to build in Mar in addition to the A Par build. Italy's 6 units would have been F TyrS, F Ion, A Pie, plus 3 units stuck over by Turkey. Turkey would still almost certainly take Smy in 06 cutting Italy down to 5 and Italy would basically have to guess perfectly in both spring and fall to not lose a center to France in 06 and could easily lose 2 if he guessed wrong.

I think the decision to try to hold Den in spring 06 compounded things as I would probably have gone for Mun-Ber, Den-Kie, Hel support Den-Kie, Ruh-Hol, and used Nwg and Nth to attack Nwy. Basically trading Den for Kie (much easier to hold and also helpful in terms of securing Hol/Bel/Mun). This would have dislodged you from Mun in the spring, but left you in Ruh, Kie, and wherever Mun retreated to (Sil or Boh), plus the Army from Par would have been in Bur or Pic at that point (I probably would have gone to Bur). From that position France would be in great shape to take/hold long term Bel/Hol/Kie/Mun and Russia would be stuck with an army in Den making it more difficult to put a fleet in Bal quickly (even if he builds F StP SC at some point that is two moves to Bal). At that point I would be surprised if France did not grab Italian centers much faster than Russia could take any English centers from him (plus France would still be netting 1-2 centers from Germany during that time as he consolidated Bel/Hol).

I have no words for this game.

Aside from the words you just said? Don't leave me hanging DO, I want to talk about our opening moves!

Yes, DO, please put up some end of game thoughts for us. Even though you were eliminated, we'd like to hear your side of the story.

EOG Notes - From Turkey

I specifically wanted to write these notes without first reading the submissions of the other players. So...they could be comically misguided based on what may have already been written.

But before I begin, one thing I observed was that I found myself wanting to ask the professors questions about their analysis. There is apparently no good way to accomplish this...just a thought.

Before the game started...I told my TA I wanted to play for a Juggernaut. Sorry Austria...but unless Russia acted in some incredibly hostile way...you were going down. Didn't really have a plan B of working with Austria.

Spring '01 - I really appreciated the professor's analysis of the "French move that wasn't supposed to work." I thought that this was great insight. What left me puzzled was the mild criticism of the move from SMY -> CON. Obviously, not to the professor's taste...but what is the alternative? I did not want to move on Russia...as the professor pointed out...a move to ANK would have been useless...holding in SMY would have gotten me yelled at. As a learning experience I think I would have gained from sentences along the lines of..."The move to Con is a weak move in that it ___________________, a better alternative would have been ________________________."

Now...we get to the somewhat fateful Fall of '01. Italy attacks TRI. Clear stab...right? Certainly that was the analysis provided. But I wonder (and posted to Valis in real time so that I couldn't be accused of 20-20 hindsight) was the move to TRI supposed to work? I thought, my TA thought, I gotta think Italy thought and possibly Italy's TA thought that Austria would cover TRI. With this in mind...what a great fake-out move. Make the board quietly think you are at war with Austria (who presumably covered TRI) while setting up a stealthy Lepanto (again discussed with my TA in real time). This is why Italy's other moves didn't make sense...my firm belief that I held throughout the rest of the game was that Italy's first stab was not intended to work. I actually think this is brilliant...plan to use it in the future...and felt bad for the criticism directed at Italy. I would have enjoyed an analysis of this possibility as the game was ongoing.

OK...so the Lepanto progresses as Italy tries to make amends with Austria. I move some units to try to get an attacking position in the Balkins and this is the make-it-or-break-it guess I make. My TA and I made the conscious decision to "go for the win" or at least a sizable lead by taking certain calculated chances. So in the Fall of '02, SMY is left open. I am banking on the fact that "Italy would never guess I would leave it open" and "Italy wouldn't screw up his own Lepanto by moving a fleet out of EMED." I GUESSED WRONG. Unfortunately, on the same turn, Russia suffers a setback in the north, and what was supposed to have been the winning Juggernaut, now got bogged down at both ends. Don't regret the decision...TA and I spent an hour looking at the possibilities...outcome wasn't what I hoped for. For several turns, Italy simply played much better than me...his moves better anticipated mine and he made progress...a tip of my hat to him.

I have relatively little to say about '03 and '04...just basically trying to maintain...waiting for a break. Russia was kind enough to recognize that we were probably still better off working together and was especially tolerant of my forced retreat to RUM. I hoped he would take note that on the next turn I actually tried to leave RUM...but we did not have our signals straight. In subsequent moves I was able to vacate RUM and afford Russia some security. The moves themselves were my own little Turkish hedgehog...attacking a little of everything and expecting to win nothing as I waited for my break.

And then, thankfully, Fall '04 rolls around...Italy provides his second (or by my count, first) stab of Austria and things improve. The loss of SER was calculated. I knew I would suffer a loss but this would open a center for Russia...and the position provided would then take down Austria. This lead to gains...builds...and the eventual ejection of Italy from SMY.

Probably the sharpest point of disagreement between my TA and me came when the decision was to take the abandoned GRE or not. My TA counseled against it...I'm glad he did. As it turned out I had to let Italy try to fight off France. And then in Spring '06, I swear that Italy ingests stupid pills. The one viable threat to solo was France...MAR was yours for the taking. You withdraw from the fight...ugh!

Had the game progressed, I would have worked to take down Italy...mostly just because I didn't like him. I had decided that I would not vote for draw until Russia agreed. When Russia was the 4th vote, I saw no point in going on. Had more points been on the table, I imagine some would have continued the game just to thin the herd a bit more.

This was both a good learning experience and an enjoyable game. Once again, I want to thank my TA for his generous sharing of time and analysis and for Valis and the professor for setting up overseeing the proceedings. My thanks to all. -Joe

Turkey, not supporting you out of Rum was one of the things I really regret, naked talked me out of it, had that happened, we might have made progress quicker, but I was willing to leave it to you so that you could hold out against Austria and Italy. It was a pleasure sir!

All I wanted was Russia. Germany ruined my life. Also want to say that guak is bae, thx bb

I might post a long thing when I'm sober and free. Give me a few days

Guak please give your thoughts too I know you had a lot

DO all I wanted was Austria, then you had to go an attack me :( We had a good fight though.

Cb6000 - I actually like your move of Smy-Con and often do it myself. I think Valis is not a fan of that move. His YouTube gunboat commentary video part 1 has an explanation of why I believe, if I recall correctly he mainly doesn't like the fact that it splits your fleets up since one is stuck in BLA while the other tries to hold off Italy and/or Austria from Smy. I actually think being in BLA as Turkey is worth splitting the fleets and gives you options as Turkey to hold Bul by doing Con-Bul with support from BLA which frees up Bul to hit Ser or Gre without putting Bul at risk.

As for the Italian attack on Tri being designed to fail, that is very risky in gunboat as borne out by this very game. First of all, Austria has no way of knowing whether Italy did the move expecting it to fail, so it can easily be misinterpreted by Austria even if it does bounce. Second, the AI is much better off against RT if Austria bounces Gal again in Fall 01 rather than covering Tri as it keeps Gal empty heading into year 2. Now in a press game the misdirection of fooling RT into thinking AI are at odds may outweigh keeping Gal empty, but in GB there is too much that can go wrong.

I'm with both Yaleunc *and* Valis, sort of. :-)

If doing Ank-Bla, then I like Smy-Con. (The only other reasonable option is Smy-Arm). And yeah, "Stuck" in Bla is hardly the word to use - a 1901 fleet in Bla is extremely useful. Stuck in Ankara is the more likely outcome (and isn't a bad description), though, since Sev-Bla is extremely common.

But the other option is Ank-Con, Smy-Ank. That leaves you with the option of Bul & Ank bounce over Con if Russia went to Bla (highly likely), with Con-Aeg still getting you an early position in the med. Russia *can* ruin your day by supporting Bul-Con, but probably won't because they'll probably want to support themselves into Rum.

Espi I demand a rematch

Austria EOG

I'll make this short and not so sweet, which about sums this game up for me. S01, all good, possible RT but difficult to tell at this stage. Italy makes normal moves, and supports Trieste, presumably as a gesture of goodwill.

But not so fast! A01 and Italy walks into Trieste! Given his spring moves, on what possible basis would I have known he was going to do that? Damn. TA and I both agree we can't allow Italy to get away with it, so we resolve to get Trieste back next season. Which we do, but lose Serbia and let Russia into Galicia in the process. If it wasn't a RT before, it is now. Note that Italy supports his A Trieste from Venice.

Italy disbands A Tri rather than retreat it, which probably would have been more useful if he really wanted an alliance. A Tun sits there like a lemon for a few years, while Italy goes back to a soft of Lepanto, before being convoyed to Alb as Italy decides to stab me again! This is of course, entirely logical. I mean, why support Austria when there's a juggernaut coming down the pike? Wuch a ridiculous idea!

After which there's no hope for me - three enemies and I'm toast.

Gunboat SoW EOG Recap for Italy
Player: Marquis “The Mad Italian” Mark
TA: Smiley

As I mentioned in previous posts, I signed up for this game as a Gunboat rookie. I had played in one, maybe two, other Gunboat games when I first joined the site two years ago and I distinctly remember not liking the lack of press. The inability to communicate clearly in critical situations was very frustrating, especially being new to Diplomacy in general.

Nevertheless, my curiosity was piqued again from spending more time in the forums, reading the posts and analysis of other games that were going on. Many veteran players expressed how Gunboat can be a useful tool for honing the tactics of the game and that communication exists in no-press games, just in a more subtle fashion. I knew that some tactical practice couldn’t hurt. So I signed up for the School of War looking to learn about the differences in play style and hoping to glean some insight into the nebulous discipline of no-press communication. I especially liked that we’d be teamed up with a more experienced player with whom we would talk through moves and phases.

Smiley and I communicated over email to discuss the turns. He made it clear in the beginning that he didn’t want to be the one driving the moves, that I should be the one putting forth the plan and that he would advise and suggest improvements or other things to consider. This was exactly the kind of arrangement I was looking for and I think it worked out well. Each turn, I would email my analysis and assessment of what was happening on the board (time permitting) and my initial, un-finalized move set. Then we’d have a little back and forth with changes, suggestions, etc. until everything got hashed out down to the final move set. I was the one initiating the moves, but in questionable or guesswork situations, I always deferred to Smiley’s judgement.

1901

1901 opened with a general discussion of what course to take. Although I like playing Italy, it is a very reactive country who has to be willing to change course on a dime, based on what’s happening on the board. Of course, you can say the same about everyone, but it’s been my experience that this is especially true for Italy. I’ve learned this is a harder thing to pull off in Gunboat through.

in addition, there are three pretty sub-par choices for the Italian to start out with:

1) Attack France across the stalemate zone and stall out.
2) Try a Lepanto against Turkey and stall out, as it is easily blocked.
3) Attack Austria and ruin both of your chances for survival to the mid-game.

I ultimately decided on a regular opening with Rom-Apu and keeping Venice at home with a support hold of Trieste to signal friendly intentions. It was a very standard opening all around the board.

An R/T bounce in BLA led me to believe that there was no juggernaut in the works yet, so I decided to take Trieste. Smiley explained the potential rewards and potential risks with this move and left it up to me. I know it looks like a short sighted move but I decided to try for it anyways, knowing that if I kept it, cool and if I lost it, then I’d be not much worse off than Italy normally is in 1902 as for as units go, although I’d have a salty Austrian on my border (to this part, I was hoping that the Austrian TA would coach the Austrian player to be flexible as well and not hold a grudge). In addition, I ultimately finished off with a Lepanto set up, hoping that Austria would see that the real goal is an attack on Turkey and Trieste was just extra ammunition for that attack, although that would probably be a hard enough sell in a full press game, much less a no press one.

Elsewhere on the board, England went aggressively towards Scandinavia and Turkey took the Black Sea. I was especially curious to see what would happen with the latter. In addition, France got three builds, which made me nervous and I imagine the other Western powers as well.

1902

Had to change course in 1902. I was really hoping Austria would just let that Trieste army pass for the time being. After all, he could only guarantee the liberation of Trieste by risking Serbia and he wouldn’t be able to build anyways with his home centers occupied. I issued a support hold of Serbia from Trieste to see if that would have helped, but he did dislodge my army and I disbanded it. I decided to not fight Austria anymore and support him against against any R/T aggression. I continued the 1902 Lepanto moves and got into the East Med. Turkey did not vacate the Black Sea, but Rumania did support his move to Serbia, signaling that the Juggernaut was in full roll. I fully expected F BLA to move to Con on Fall turn and start to push into the Med. I was leaning towards dislodging the Aegean in Fall 1903, but with Turkey potentially gaining 2 builds, Smiley advised me to play aggressive and try for Smyrna, which ended up succeeding and denied him any builds for that turn.

In the north, France moved into a killer position on England’s West Coast while England made it into St Petes and Denmark. There seemed to be some skirmishing on the Maginot line between France and Germany, which I was glad to see; with France committed to the north and holding the line in the east, Smiley and I figured we didn’t have to sweat F Marseilles for another turn or two.

1903

Spring 1903 saw the implosion of England, which made me nervous. France would eat up the island by 1904 and Russia would devour the rest of Scandinavia, leaving a very strong F/R. I knew I would be on France’s radar soon.

We really wrestled with how to approach this turn and there were some long emails sent between my TA and I. Austria was just holding the line against Russia and defending Greece. We were trying to guess what Turkey might do in the sea provinces. I had 5 different sets of orders I was trying to decide between, but the final decision was to just hold the Aegean, get Austria into Greece, where he might be able to help out.

It was at this point that I also wanted to gain Russia as an ally. My current support of Austria notwithstanding, I was really hoping he would see that I had Turkey pinned down and with a little help and a few units, would be well placed to help against France, who was sizing up to be the main solo threat thus far. I didn’t know how I could signal this to him though.

1904

What friendly builds from France! Fleet Brest further commits him to the northern campaign. But, alas, this was the last turn that I was going to expect such amity from France. With the English centers locked down, the Lowlands next, and Germany after that, he was growing very steadily with a very strong trajectory and the fleet power to dominate the North Sea area. Russia was looking strong as well, but was still fighting a two-front war.

I continued to keep Turkey locked down at his home centers and convoyed the Tunis army to Albania where it could be of more use/help. Austria dislodged Serbia and it retreated to Rumania. I was curious to see what Russia’s reaction to this was going to be, as that would really cement what my place was in the mid game here. Although, Russia did try to support Bulgaria to Serbia this turn so it was not looking good.

My mindset in Fall was that if France would continue to make gains in Germany and Scandinavia, he could get everything he needed and then come south at his leisure, jam all his stuff into the Med and grab Tunis and maybe one or two of my home centers for the solo. I thought it would help to force France on to two fronts as well. My TA and I already expected F Marseilles this year and even if he wasn’t planning it, my move to Piedmont made it happen.

Of course, for this plan of action, I would need another fleet, hence, the taking of Greece. I didn’t really consider this a stab, although I’m sure Austria saw it differently. I wasn’t planning on taking anything else from Austria but I needed a build and I was just going to hope he would see that.

1905

Russia moves down to Sevastapol from Moscow in Spring. Nice! Maybe a stab?? Could be he’s coming to grab Rumania from Turkey and weaken him a bit so I can finally do my part in eliminating him, gain a few builds, rule the Med, and back France up while Russia can concentrate of going over the Alps and meeting him in the north. In my mind, I was hoping this was the case as it was the only scenario that would save me from a very uncomfortable endgame and likely elimination. Not to be. Russia allows Turkey to keep Rumania and moves west from Sevastapol. In addition, Turkey gets a build in Ankara and Austria tries for Venice in in his final death throes, which is perfectly understandable.

I play a little cat and mouse with France in the Med sea provinces and in the north, he takes Munich and Denmark, now poised to grab Holland and Kiel. Another F Marseilles build. England is also eliminated this turn.

1906

The Italian holiday on the Turkish beaches of Smyrna has come to an end. I can no longer hold this province and am dislodged. We begin to put together plans for strategic retreat. I had suggested taking Marseilles but Smiley advised against it, saying that my problem now is that I’m too scattered and out of position and that consolidation is necessary; taking Marseilles would only add to that and scatter me more. Besides, there’s no way I could have held Marseilles for more than a turn. Good sound advice and so, in light of a strong R/T alliance and French naval power accumulating in the Med, we devised a retreat to defend the home centers and prepare for the onslaught.

If I could do this turn over again, I would move to Ionian to Naples and not Adriatic. I was worried how Russia was going to react to this and if he wasn’t thinking about taking Venice yet, he would be now. That his Tyrolian army was needed on the stalemate line was good, but still I thought it might have spooked him. In addition, a fleet in Naples occupies a vital Med stalemate center and could help with maneuvers more than a fleet in Adriatic could.

Elsewhere, Austria gets eliminated and I lose Tunis in addition to Smyrna. However, I was able to strand a French fleet in Spain for the time being. France builds two fleets putting him at 8 fleets out of 13 units, which is a higher ratio than is advised for England. I wonder what brought the decision to build two fleets this turn?

I disbanded Greece in addition to Syria, hoping that Turkey would see it as a sort of olive branch.

1907

In 1907, I’m convinced that Russia and Turkey are going to grab Greece and Venice and am making plans for what to do as a 3 center power.

In Spring, I put in a Draw vote to see if anyone would bite at it. I tried to take Tunis back but an apparent miscommunication between my TA and I sent Adriatic bouncing Turkey in the Ionian, thereby guaranteeing that I would not be able to hold Tunis. Make that a 2 center power.

Spring moves go through and I found that I didn’t lose Venice or Greece surprisingly. France gives up Munich to Russia and I couldn’t understand why, especially since I’ve retreated back from threatening Marseilles.

The Fall turn is when Smiley sent me the message that he posted in the forum, outlining what I need to do to survive by helping France advance further into the Med and onto the Italian peninsula. Although Turkey hadn’t taken Greece yet, I couldn’t rule it out for the fall turn. France had put his Draw vote in and Turkey hadn’t, so I couldn’t gauge his intentions (hence the 2nd intentional Ionian bounce), so I had to assume he was out to get me eventually. Which means I had to make myself a necessary evil to both sides, by letting France be enough of a threat to Turkey now to where he would need me to keep at least Naples and maybe Rome (because I was still expecting to lose Venice after Fall turn, now that Russia had Munich) for support.

I saw later in the evening, before I went to bed, that Russia had put his Draw vote in. By the time I woke up the next day, the game had been Drawn and I made it through.

EOG

I must give big props to Smiley for his brilliant endgame strategy in spooking the others into letting Italy into a Draw that I really had no earthly business being in. For me, this only confirms the belief I stated earlier that Italy, often finding himself in a reactive position, needs to be very flexible in his course of action.

And it seems that my play made a few other players angry in the course of this game. This certainly wasn’t intentional. Every player makes his decisions based on his own perception of the board and what information he has (or doesn’t have) available to him and Smiley and I were only doing that. Although, the moves we made might have seemed unorthodox, they got us through without an elimination.

Finally, I have to say I had a great time with this SoW game. I love that this site runs these as it provides new/intermediate players a chance to improve their game by working closely with some veterans. I saved all my email threads from this game and I’m sure will refer to them from time to time to refresh. Big thanks to Valis and Yaleunc for running the SoW and providing the running commentary and also to my TA Smiley for helping me through against all odds and passing along valuable lessons in the process.

Good game everyone and I welcome your thoughts to what I put down here.