Bump.

Retreats or builds?

Austria's retreat had real relevance in a way that a lot of retreats and builds don't. Having said that, the retreat has now happened.

Lecture 6: Winter 1903
Sorry about the long gap between posts. I wanted to get one in during the spring, but my real-life students have been keeping me way too busy this week. Basically, every night, I’d get home, plan to do some work for school and then write a post, and then fall asleep partway through working. Even now, I have a stack of algebra tests to grade that I’m putting off as I write this!
The first thing I noticed in the west was that Germany moved his armies! They weren’t the most exciting moves, but at least they’re not sitting still. My interpretation of the last three turns here is that England moved to stab Germany last fall, but this year, the new Germany managed to convince England that it would be easier and more profitable to work together against Russia than for England to invade Germany. Important moves for solidifying this alliance were emptying the North Sea and allowing Germany to have Belgium. That sets up a stable divide of centers in the west for England and Germany, and will make it difficult for each to stab the other for at least a few years. Most likely, the plan is to take Sweden next year, and then to swing into Russia on two fronts. The fact that Germany got only Belgium out of France’s downfall has to be a bit disappointing though, especially after he seemed to coordinate the alliance by providing all the supports in the first year and a half.
Further west, England and Italy have just about finished France, so they’ll both have some important choices to make this year. The one French army left (whichever one he chooses to keep) does have some options. He can try to gift Portugal to whichever of England and Italy he hates less, or, he can try to plan England and Italy off each other so that neither succeeds in taking Portugal. England has a solid position with no effective enemies, but right now, if he stays allied with both Germany and Italy, he also has a very limited avenue for expansion through Russia. Compounding that, without any fleets adjacent to the island and only one build, it will take him at least two turns to get an army anywhere useful. On the other hand, if he builds a fleet, then that limits his options to trying to break past the Mid-Atlantic Ocean line and work against Italy, or to a very difficult stab of Germany. He also has two armies sitting in France that cannot go anywhere very easily without walking into centers held by his current allies. In a situation like this, it is extremely important for all three powers involved to be using press to get the other two to each view himself as their primary ally (I keep saying this, because this is one of the most important components of a press game anytime three powers work together).
Meanwhile, Italy gambled on leaving Ionian Sea and his home centers open, and it has mostly paid off. I’d be interested in knowing whether Austria had Italy’s permission to retreat to Tunis. The retreat will keep Austria alive a little longer, and if Italy and Austria want to work together, it also gives them some interesting options for holding off either England or Turkey. Despite finally taking French centers, Italy is in the difficult situation of being caught between England and Turkey. His fate here depends largely on diplomacy, but he does have significant weight on the map to back up his diplomacy. My advice here is to make sure diplomacy is in service to strategy. Think first: “What do I want to happen in the next few years?” and then “What needs to happen this turn, not just near me, but all over the map, to make that happen?” before just sending press everywhere willy-nilly.
It looks like Austria is finally taking the advice of stopping one of Turkey and Russia to try and break the Juggernaut, but it might be too late. Once again, his fate depends largely on diplomacy: namely on convincing Italy, Russia, and Turkey that they are more interested in fighting each other than having to divide up a few measly Austrian centers. However, don’t limit diplomacy to just neighbors here: what England and Germany do will have significant effects on what Italy and Russia do. England and Germany should also both realize that, the more they can slow down any power from becoming dominant in the east, the better off they are, and keeping Austria around is a great way to prevent the east from settling too quickly.
In the far east, Turkey has a solid position, but he also needs to make some choices this year. Taking the Ionian is an important step for Turkey, as it means he has a shot at getting into and past the Italian centers. Turkey needs to examine the map and define a strategy for expansion. Specifically, he needs to decide how much important to place on each of his three possible expansion routes: west through the Mediterranean, northwest through Austria, and north through Russia. Factors that should weigh into his decision include how quickly each route will get him to and past the stalemate line, the likelihood of opposition or assistance on each route, and whether one route is likely to be closed off by a western power in the near future. This decision for Turkey in the mid-game is often the difference between turning a decent position into a draw and having a legitimate shot at a win.
Finally, we have Russia. England making up with Germany in the west is very bad for Russia, but his position is imporoved by Turkey staying allied with him and Austria choosing to defend against Turkey, resulting in Russia taking Vienna to stay even. Right now, Russia’s biggest priority needs to be breaking up the alliance between England and Germany, and he has several tools for doing that. He can point out to England that, with fleets in Norway and St. Petersburg, it will take several years for England to get anything out of Russia, and by then, Germany will probably own Warsaw and Moscow. Meanwhile, he can point out to Germany that EG almost always eventually favors England, as England has the corner position. Finally, he can try to influence Italian moves to either help him take out Austria fast enough to reinforce his north, or to put pressure on England and Germany so that they cannot focus on invading Russia. Note that none of this diplomacy involves lying, as all three statements are true, to some extent. The key to this kind of diplomacy is getting other powers to view the map (and so develop strategy) in a way that benefits you, and this is much easier to do when you start with truths rather than trying to convince them of a complete wrong interpretation of the map.

Fall 1903 grades:

ENGLAND: C-
GERMANY: A-
FRANCE: F

I looked at my previous lecture and maybe I was a little harsh on England, although I still disagree with the shift of focus unless there is some specific bit of information we can’t see. Right now it looks like, necessarily, something has to be sacrificed, and any effort is going to require an awkward repositioning of forces. There is one upside to the position: England is definitely the stronger partner with both Italy and Germany. He is in position to make demands, to get position or centers from either ally and then potentially stab the other or continue a slow crawl into Russia. But in the bigger picture, whichever direction England goes strongly favors an actual or current rival. The level of diplomatic skill and balance necessary to pull out a beneficial result is extremely high.

Things have turned around for Germany better than I expected, unless something surprising happens immediately. I like the decision to intervene south in Austria rather than trying to head into Russia directly. Normally I would say that Germany is taking big risks with being so open to England etc, but, I really thought Germany was about to be on the way out; instead we’re getting a German build and reason for optimism. I’ve had trouble reading the west for everything past the first move, though, so I say that with hesitation.

France lives on as an interesting sign of how the English/Italian relationship is going. Who ends up in Portugal?

ITALY: B
RUSSIA: D+
AUSTRIA: C-
TURKEY: C

I’m curious what the other professors think. Let’s say that Austria will listen and Italy can decide whether or not Austria retreats into Tunis. Which is better for Italy? My inclination now is that a stronger Austria who can slow down Turkey is quite good for Italy, especially since Tunis can be reclaimed at any time. Sometimes it’s better to have several weak powers around you, who owe you something, than to have their centers yourself. This is particularly true in this case for Italy, since it looks like England and Germany have made up and thus England might have Mediterranean ambitions. Trading a center for an ally slowing down a hostile alliance seems like a good deal.

Italy has a tricky situation ahead. On the one hand, you don’t want to be passive; every unit should be doing something every turn. But, you also don’t want to rush off and attack the neighbor who wanted to be friends, while the neighbor who expected to be attacking you gets a free shot. A careful reading of the board and your diplomatic rivals should guide you. Who has been trustworthy, or not? Which relationships seem strongest? What does the board say about who should attack you, or where you should go next? Are there things going on in other parts of the world which might influence your immediate neighbors, and can you benefit from that?

If England had armies in Norway and/or St P, Russia would be in really bad shape, and it still could get bad fast. After getting Budapest, what can Russia do? How much patience will Turkey have with an ailing partner? I’m interested to know if there was some sort of diplomatic breakdown between Russia and England. Sometimes it happens – you make good friends and work together, and then you go separate ways and lose touch or stop coordinating as closely. Maybe Russia refused some English proposition?

[I hope that someone will correct me if I am misreading this situation regarding Budapest’s move]
I like Austria’s moves in terms of the goals, but some slightly stronger tactics and diplomacy might have been even better. This is admittedly with hindsight, but, I think Budapest could be used more profitably, because you know that it is getting attacked and thus will not be able to provide any kind of support. Hopefully you are talking to Germany and know that Silesia is moving to Bohemia, and you have (correctly, I believe) decided your primary goal will be going for Serbia. So, you know that Trieste can’t help, and you know that either Bohemia’s support will be cut and Galicia will be strolling into Vienna unsupported, or Bohemia goes in with support and it doesn’t matter; or, Russia is using Gal/Rum for Budapest and Bohemia is trying unsupported for Vienna. Since Greece’s support hold of Serbia is cut by Ionian Sea and therefore only a single support is necessary, why not try using Budapest to bounce in Vienna? Turkey could have done things differently if he was committed to protecting Greece/Serbia instead of taking the Ionian, but, that doesn’t matter because Budapest is getting cut or balanced out by Rumania either way. Had you done things slightly differently, you’d be up a build; had Russian guessed correctly and played slightly stronger tactically, you’d be down another center.

Another way to put it: Given that you could retreat to Tunis, in the southern flank you are essentially deciding between Tunis and Serbia, or more accurately Turkey is deciding. That cannot be changed by Budapest, but Budapest could have changed Russia’s effort into Vienna. Potentially you could have been looking at a build rather than staying set, you even risked losing a center. To the credit of the move you did enter, it does send a message to Turkey: I will be practically throwing centers to Russia if you don’t change your ways, so, let’s talk. But I don’t know, right now, if that’s worth a center.

Naturally everyone is thinking about what Turkey will be doing for the wounded Russia, but, now I kind of wonder about how it will work the other way. Russia has some duties if Turkey is going to make further gains, and I imagine he will do his part to put Turkey back into Serbia. But maybe Russia is getting desperate and feels like he has to start withdrawing from the southern theater to address northern dangers. If so, it suddenly gets tough for Turkey to make further gains, since Italy/Austria can potentially match Turkey on land and at sea. peterwiggin does a good discussion above about how Austria needs to be making diplomatic efforts with everyone; don’t forget that the obligation is just as strong for Turkey. You’re enemies with Austria right now, but that doesn’t mean you can’t help each other out. You’re friends with Russia right now, but keep pressing to make sure things go as smoothly for you as possible.

F 1903

My power rankings have had some major upsets in this edition, provided mainly by some much needed clarity in the west and some stanch resistance in the east. The theme of this edition is HINDSIGHT. Like the saying goes, hindsight is 20/20 and this is virtually the case in nearly every game of Diplomacy I've ever played. "If only I'd done this" is a common refrain in EOG writeups, but with a little logic and board reading skills, we can minimize the need for hindsight and turn "could have" into "good moves".

1. GERMANY - A massively successful turn by Germany has launched him three spots into the top of our power rankings at the end of 1903. With one build upcoming and another one in the works for next year, Germany is poised to seize on the weakness in the center of the board. The retreat to Belgium, in professorial hindsight, looks to have been an agreed upon move by England and Germany, likely to temper any issues with border security in the Benelux region. Belgium for Paris looks to be an equitable trade for both nations. Both England and Germany seal up their defenses with logical centers - England with the frozen north and Germany with the landlocked Russian centers. The cutting of support into Vienna was also a strategically sound move. While it didn't work out, the opportunity was there to turn the tables for your fellow central power. Better communication could have put Russia in the palm of your hand.

2. TURKEY - Like I wrote last turn, it was always going to be difficult for you to defend Serbia, given the Austrian fleet in ION. Much like Italy, though, you are in a "shot clock" scenario - take the ION before Italy recovers, and also eliminate Austria at the same time. Not an easy task. Given the possible alternatives, though, I believe your moves to be the best of what was available. Will hindsight validate your choice? You've secured ION for the time being, but what next? Can you afford to hold both ION and Gre from a partially recovered Austria? Can you turn a productive year into more builds? As it stands, you risk stagnating while your rivals grow, and time isn't a luxury for you right now. 1904 will be a crucial year if you wish to be a contender for a solo.

3. ENGLAND - Much like Turkey, I pose you the same question - where will your next build come from? With your fleets effectively cornered in St. Pete, you're forced to focus south, where you have run into an equally powerful Italy. Unfortunately, it is going to take a full year to maneuver your armies into a useful position against the Italian forces in Marseilles and Spain. In hindsight, could you have better planned for such an inevitable confrontation? The move to Gascony and subsequent move to Paris looms large as it has seemingly forced you to rely on Germany and Turkey in order to advance any further. I don't anticipate you getting any builds this year, but that doesn't mean it can't be productive. This turn will be a logistical one and your goal right now should be at least one or two builds in 1905.

4. ITALY - Excellent work taking both Mar and Spa. You've solidified your hold in the western Med, but its come at an expense with the Austrian retreat into Tunis. Whether it was planned or not, it has put you in a tight spot - with one build, how do you drive back Turkey while also planning for the inevitable fight with England? You're stuck between a rock and a hard place right now and could really use some help from someone other than Austria.

5. RUSSIA - Despite the presumed loss of Sweden next turn, you're still in an excellent position against Austria and are poised to pick up at least Buda next year, possibly more, giving you a fighting chance against Germany, should he make a move for Warsaw. A warning, though, about predictability. Doing the same thing two turns in a row is rarely a good idea in Diplomacy, as evidenced this turn. Germany shrewdly cut your support in Boh, and if Austria had moved to Vie with Buda, you'd be looking at a disband and an Austrian build. In hindsight, perhaps moving Rum to Buda with support from Gal would have put you in a better position to pick up two builds in 1904. You're not feeling the squeeze just yet, but you will very soon, so this is the time to prepare.

6. AUSTRIA - I came up with this hindsight theme with exactly you in mind. Please read ckroberts' analysis of your moves, then reread that same paragraph. That support from Budapest was always going to be cut. You knew that Rum would always be moving to Bud, so next time, use that information to your advantage. Russia practically gift wrapped a build for you by showing his hand last turn with the support from Boh. Germany did his part, and a move from Bud-Vie would have double bounced and given you a build this year. How much better would you feel with four armies right now? Italy could have two builds, you could disband that fleet, and you two could have the advantage over the R/T with the Germans riding to your rescue like the Battle of Helm's Deep! Always consider the information that the board has given you.

7. FRANCE - You may have lucked out for a few more years of sitting in Por, dangling your carrot of a support into Spain in exchange for survival. However, in hindsight, you could have kept Spain, believe it or not. Much like Austria's move with Budapest, you had to have known that Bur-Par was never going to work. If that unit had hit Mar, you'd keep Spain, Italy would only have one build, soon to be a disband next year with TUrkey in ION, and England out of position to take either Spa or Por. It would at least give you a fighting chance. Instead, settle back for a relaxing getaway in Lisbon, because you aren't going anywhere.

Questions and comments for the other professors:
ck: Your analysis of the move by Budapest are spot on. Could you elaborate on the phrase "whichever direction England goes strongly favors an actual or current rival?"
2wl: Likewise, I like how you pointed out the better option for bur. You guys put me to shame when it comes to critiquing specific moves. Can you elaborate on why Italy and England fighting is "inevitable?"

I would be glad to elaborate.

England has gotten into a situation likely requiring a full-on attack against a current ally (I guess Russia is still a target, but not a long-term solution to the need for continued growth). The problem is, both of these allies are acting as counterweights to potential rivals, Italy standing in the way of Turkey, or current ones, Germany taking up so much Russian interest. If England attacks Germany, there's no guarantee things go back to the way they were and England and Russia together attack Germany; more likely, Germany and Russia put their differences aside and attack England together. Similarly, England needs to be into the Med, but, that's not very beneficial if it means allowing Turkey to roll up Austrian and Italian centers.

peterwiggin-

Consider the positions that Italy and England currently occupy. England's fleet sitting in Norway and St. Pete has effectively put him in a dead end in the north. Unless he decides to build an army, move out of both Norway and St. Pete, convoy the army, and move into Russia (a decidedly cumbersome process), he can't make any more gains in the north unless he decides to attack Germany.

In the south, we are seeing the inevitable consequence of France's collapse. England has virtually gone all-in on his French attack and now finds himself with four units (two armies and two fleets) sitting in formerly French territory. Unless he stabs Germany, which appears unlikely at this stage of the game, his only option for builds is to continue south - Marseilles, Spain, and Portugal.

In regards to Italy specifically, its probably in his best interest to *not* fight England right now. His units are stretched fairly thin - in all likelihood, he will need to divert WMed to protect TYR in addition to his (presumed) F Nap. This is mostly the result of the Austrian retreat to Tunis, so only getting one build hamstrings his ability to prevent Turkey from having free reign over ION.

This is where England faces a minor dilemma. Due to the positioning he finds himself in, he can only realistically attack Italy or Germany. If he attacks Italy, he risks upsetting the balance of power in the east and creating a monster out of Turkey. If he attacks Germany, he loses his only ally at a stage of the game where help is unlikely to come from any other source. On the other hand, forcing Italy to choose means that England can probably take Spain, Marseilles, and Portugal fairly easily, although it will take a few turns to maneuver his units.

Extrapolating this engagement even further, England is reaching the point where he is facing diminishing returns to scale for each build. For each new center he takes, he puts himself farther and farther away from possibly defending his home centers, especially if he decides to enter the Mediterranean.

Like I said in my writeup, there are some big decisions upcoming this year.

Bump for the builds.

I have a general question regarding the Venice/Trieste situation which is a dilemma I often have when I play one of those countries.

It seemed in 1901, they were vacant, then in 1902 both counties moved units back in. Austria moved Trieste around some but Venice remained positioned there presumably to defend against an Austrian stab.

Assuming you are playing with competent players, was there a point in time when Italy should have realized Austria needed Italy and a stab would not be immediately forthcoming which would have allowed Venice to be used in a useful manner?

Okay, so first off let me apologize for holding off my commentary. I was curious to see if the replacement of Germany would have an impact on the game. And it did, a significant one, which is part of the game. I wanted to be sure I had an understanding on the new alliance structures before I shared my thoughts.

I want to make a few points about strategy in general before going into specific moves. Like 2ndWhiteLine mentioned hindsight is important in this game. You all should be striving to get to a point where when you make a mistake like Austria did you can figure out why the move you made was wrong. If you couldn't come up with the analysis ckroberts gave detailing what was wrong with the Budapest move then you need to talk with your TA and work on tactics. I cannot say it enough, the most important part of this game tactically is understanding what moves make the most sense for every player on the board. If you are not taking the time to figure those moves out for every country on the map you are going to miss out on critical moves. It will take practice, but that is what you should be working on, follow gunboat games, figure out what every country is going to do, write the moves down, and check after the phase to see if you were right. If you weren't then work on figuring out why. All the professors in this game can look at the board and guess at least 3/4ths of the moves correctly in any given turn. Most of the time we can guess all of the moves in any given turn. I know I probably sound like a broken record, but work on this, and I promise you will see your win/draw percentage increase significantly.

Okay, England, the last commentary I gave you commended you for a perfect stab. And I hold to that commentary, it was a perfect stab, you just didn't take advantage of it. The reason the earlier moves were so good was that they put you in a position to make supply center gains through Germany. Your moves after that stab showed very short minded thinking. You had two choices, you could either make a quick gain in Russia and then face a brutal next few years trying to make further gains, or you could have fought Germany, which would have limited your gains for a year or two, but then paid off with explosive gains and an open path inland past the vertical stalemate line. There is absolutely nothing more valuable to England then getting armies past that line, and you gave up your only chance this game to accomplish that. Hence, your solo chance is now gone. Sorry to be harsh here, but the goal of the game is to win, and as the other professors pointed out very accurately, your momentum is gone and you cannot achieve the centers you need to win before everyone else could rally to stop you. Now all that said, you are still in a good position to end up in a draw. However, I am a big believer that the game is meant to be won, and winning requires risks. Yes, attacking Germany last year would have been the riskier and harder fight, but it was the only path that lead to a solo opportunity.

Now the fleet build this turn worries me, it indicates that you have no interest in attacking Russia, which is going to worry Germany. If I were Germany I would have been asking you for an army build in Edi so you could start the convoy into StP. With the fleet build you are threatening either Italy or Germany. Both of those routes present difficulties. If you attack Italy you face a huge risk. Italy has the units to hold you back for years. So if you attack him an he chooses to stop you, instead of defending against Turkey you risk handing Turkey enough centers for a solo shot. I am a firm believer in the rule of 4 strategy, even when playing England. This rule is that no country needs more then 4 fleets to win the game, and that any fleets after #4 are a hindrance long term. I believe Tru Ninja wrote an amazing post on this in a previous SoW thread so I will go try and find that after I finish this post.

Germany - Kudos to you, this was an inspired year. You came into a terrible situation and clearly you made excellent use of the diplomatic aspect of this game to recover. I think the other professors covered your situation well, so I just wanted to add to that congratulations. It's always difficult to jump into a position mid game, and you did so with skill.

Austria - Mistakes happen, just make sure to learn from them, and try to predict what moves make the most sense for you based on the moves that make the most sense for your neighboring countries. Prediction is the name of the game, and prediction comes with practice. So work with your TA to predict everyone's moves till your predictions and your hindsight match each other!

Turkey - You face an interesting challenge. You have great position but you have to make sure you don't expand too quickly or Italy may throw centers to England which is exactly what you want to avoid. You and Russia need to be considering how to stop Germany's momentum and how to get units to that stalemate line ASAP before he seals it off. The huge advantage to a T/R alliance is their ability to break the stalemate line in Germany quickly, if a T/R alliance fails at that task it normally falls apart.

I think everything else was covered well by the other professors so I'll leave off here for now.

"All the professors in this game can look at the board and guess at least 3/4ths of the moves correctly in any given turn."

Its the 1/4 of moves that are either head scratchers or are so surprisingly good that the professors are even impressed. Your goal should be more of the latter and less of the former :)

Spring turn processes this afternoon.

bump for process

Bump.

stab bump. :)

Well, for second stab. ;)

Bump...

Buuuuuuump....

Do your own damn writeups.

Thank you.

Yeah, now the students should start lecturing while the professors play the game. Let's find out how much you've really learnt :)

That'd be exciting!
Posting tonight if I'm still awake after I've planned my lessons for tomorrow.

Thanks guys! Sorry to be impatient, I'm just trying to keep our thread on the main page. Plus, I think if I did some lectures, they may be a little biased. ;)

dear professors, since we discussed this in global chat, here's a question: do you think this game has reached the midgame yet? why/why not? and what is your personal definition of the beginning of the midgame?

Doesn't feel very mid-game to me, but it does seem very late-early game... Usually you can tell because one player has been eliminated (#notaproff)

Spring 1903 Grades

England: A-
Germany: D+
France: W

I give the A- for England because I don’t know what England’s press with Russia has been like so far. If Germany keeps Sweden due to Anglo-Russian squabbling, the inevitable gain of Belgium is less valuable. But England’s in good shape: getting Belgium and another center is a certainty, and clever moves can put England in position for at least a couple more centers next year. I won’t go so far as to say that England is back on the solo shot track, but it’s much closer. I am tempted to go back and try to see how different England’s position would be if he’d kept pushing on Germany instead of backing off temporarily. I think pushing would have meant a slightly better position right now, but things look good as is.

I know some folks disagreed when all of the professors condemned the English stab of Russia, the grabbing St P, and here’s a partial reason why: If England was getting ready to or already had put armies in Scandinavia and St P, he’d be a serious solo threat, about to crash over one stalemate line with a total cluster in the southeast likely unable to turn north and stop him. [Of course that’s hindsight – maybe a stronger Russia is getting ready to stab England right now.] I understand in each case why the fleet was built, but England’s got seven units, and five of them are fleets. It’s going to be tough to make headway on the continent even with three possible army builds coming up.

Here is what I was expecting Germany to do: Munich S Silesia, Berlin convoy to Livonia. That would have allowed the option to get either Warsaw or Moscow. But I assumed Russia would keep pressing in Austria. The Munich to Ruhr decision indicates at least some uncertainty about England’s motives, but by itself it’s not strong enough to do much except keep us all guessing about which center(s) England gets.

England and especially Germany have some tactical decisions to make. I hope you’re both thinking about it and talking with your TAs. I don’t want to lay out all the possibilities and influence anything, but, I won’t be giving anything away when I note that it’s clear that Belgium cannot be held. Beyond that, what are you going to do? Remember, remember: Don’t just think about what you are doing, and what’s best for England or Germany in a vacuum – think about what your foe is going to be doing, what he thinks you’re doing, and so on, and be sure to consider not only what move will be best for this phase, but for the situation you’ll be dealing with next year. Things look tough for Germany, but that doesn’t mean it’s over.

France has withdrawn from the course, so, better luck next time! It was a tough start and stayed difficult.

Italy: C
Turkey: D+
Russia: D+
Austria: C

It looks (although I guess we’ll see) like Italy has been, through choice or lack of it, pushed into an active alliance with Austria against Turkey and Russia. This is good because it means Italy is going to be safe from a Turkish rampage across the Med, but it is going to be not as fun as an Italian rampage. That army in Venice should probably have moved to Tyrolia by now. I can’t imagine it making a big difference, but it might force Russia to act a little more cautiously. I am curious about the Italy-Russia relationship, to the extent there may even be one. I don’t like letting England get Portugal, but I can imagine the reasons.

Russia and Turkey will be considered together. I think I understand why Russia moved to Ukraine/Rumania: if Germany moved to Prussia (or Livonia!), then Warsaw (or Moscow!) is in trouble. Germany didn’t, and now Russia cannot guarantee taking Budapest without Turkey’s help. But the grade gets bumped up to a + because Turkey will almost certainly help, and because Germany is now in rough shape and may be looking for a friend (did Germany know what Russia was doing? The move from Munich seems to suggest so – unclear to me, although I wonder if the clever but likely futile bounce in Ska may be related). Still, that’s a beat behind – had Russia attacked Budapest this turn, Turkey takes Serbia and Russia takes Budapest, and whoever would be getting Trieste would be getting it in the fall. Now Turkey is in tough shape because he can’t necessarily use the fleet to bump Albania without risking losing the Ionian Sea.

Moreover, this indicates either some tactical misfire or (more likely in my view) some breakdown in communication. If Turkey knew that Russia was not moving to Budapest this turn, why not try something else? Support Bulgaria to Serbia or support hold Greece/Budapest to avoid losing the center, but put your fleets in a better position to do something useful next turn. Aegean supporting Eastern Med to Ionian Sea would at worst bounce any potential AI invasion of the Ionian, while a Turkish fleet in Apulia or Adriatic would open up some interesting tactical possibilities. But likely, the communication was not there and so Turkey and/or Russia didn’t appreciate the stakes.

The more I look at it, the less I like this turn for RT. Turkey’s breakout possibilities are drastically reduced, and Russia is already playing to survive or draw at best.

Austria was counting on weak tactics and has gotten them, so, good? It’s just possible that Italy is arriving in time to save the day. That’s still unlikely, but possible. England’s apparent stab of Germany is great news for Austria if it means everyone decides to stop the leader, bad news if people decide it’s time to cut down for a draw or eat easy centers so they can turn against the solo threat.

S 1904: The Virtues of Hegemony

A common element early in all SOW games is fear. It starts with overcoming your fear of attacking another player and making someone mad. It continues with your fear of a stab, which everyone eventually overcomes, to their credit, to one degree or another. Then there's the fear which this board continues to demonstrate - the fear of a leader. It started with England. He got to seven centers and Germany felt compelled to ask for/take Belgium. Now its happened to Germany. He hits seven centers and - boom - gets stabbed. If I were England, now sitting at eight centers, I'd be watching my back!

There are a lot of misconceptions in Diplomacy (the Juggernaut is powerful - hello?) but one of the biggest is what most players call "early leader syndrome". This happens when one player inevitably gets large early and the rest of the board gets nervous and wants to cut them down to size right away for fear of giving up a quick win. Early leader syndrome most often happens to Germany and Russia simply due to their proximity to a large number of centers, but it can happen to anyone - just ask any French player who manages to get three builds or the Austrian who lucks out and takes Rum, Ser, and Gre. Nobody likes playing second fiddle, especially early in the game, when fear of falling irrevocably behind seemingly clouds the judgement of many players, from the most novice beginner to the most experienced diplomat.

In short, "early leader syndrome" is bogus.

For starters, and just to clear the air, getting 18 centers is very difficult under any circumstances. Getting to 18 centers with six players other than yourself on the board is nearly impossible. You rarely see wins with more than three or four other survivors for that very reason. Its simply too difficult to overcome the power of communication among the rest of the board when you have a target on your back.

So does that mean its wiser to wait and bide your time? Do slow-developing countries like Turkey and Italy have the advantage? Well, not according to win/draw statistics. Playing France or Russia will always result in a win or draw more than playing Italy will result in a win or draw. According to 2007 stats found on the Diplomatic Pouch, a full press game will see a solo roughly 47% of the time. Even before S1901 moves are entered, a solo is already a coin flip and more than half of all games will end up in a draw. Like I said, its really hard to solo. Its even harder for certain countries, regardless of whether or not said country is the early leader. In full press games, Russia will solo 8.3% of games, with France a close second at 7.7%, followed by England, Turkey, and Germany in the mid 6%s. A more telling statistic is the median game length for solos. The vast majority of solos will average around 11 years to accomplish. Personally, I feel that 11 years is a fast solo compared to some games I've played, but a solo is a solo. What that means, though, is that you're not going to win the game in 1905 or 1906.

Statistics aren't available on whether the early leader fares better or worse in terms of solos and I don't feel like combing through game histories for even a small sample size to investigate. That's not what I want to discuss. My point that I'm reaching can be summed up as:

Can you benefit from having an early leader?

I fully believe that, in certain circumstances, you may be better off keeping the dominant power alive and well than instantly reacting to any sign of a player pulling ahead in the center count. Take our SOW game for example. Last turn, England was thinking "I have an opportunity to take out my main rival for a solo. I need to attack him right away." Look at the board at the end of last turn. Did Germany pose any threat to England? With that single fleet in the Baltic and armies headed to the east, Germany was essentially doing what England could not - clearing out the inside of the continent while England took care of the seas. With Turkey threatening Italy, those Italian forces in the Western Med were always turning away from England. Had England not stabbed, consider what would have happened as a result:

- England could have taken Mar AND Spa, completely neutralizing any Italian threat in the west.
- Germany would take Sweden and presumably build another army, overwhelming Russia.
- With Italy down to three centers, the Austria/Italy alliance would have crumbled
- Finally, England would be sitting with three builds, no opposition in the Med, a single German fleet, an no Russian resistance in the north.

Now, England faces a strong Germany with two builds and a potentially strong German defense, which means he will get bogged down on land, turning his stab into a war of attrition.

England can still very well pull off the stab and get rid of Germany in a handful of turns, but where does England get to 18 from there? Even if he takes all currently held German centers, that puts him at 15 with the fleet in St. Pete still proving to be a headache. Without Germany to take out Russia, it opens the door for a Russian comeback to lock down Warsaw and Moscow, meaning England is forced to look south for the 18th center.

This obviously isn't saying that a stab at this point was a bad decision, but delaying it by a year or two could have made the difference between a solo and a three or four way draw. The pressure is on England to deliver.

Hmm.... I'm wondering what the retreats are going to be and how they'll affect my position.