This should be fun...

Well played. I might write one up tomorrow if I have time.

Italy EoG, Part 1

Pre-Game

I’d played one or two public press games with experienced players before, and hadn’t done all that badly. The opportunity to do so again was definitely appealing.

Public press, while not as different from full press as gunboat is, certainly has unique traits of its own. Coordinated conflicts, particularly stabs, are more difficult than in FP, as everyone can see whom you’re plotting against and defend themselves against any arranged moves. This can lead to a “stab first and explain yourself later” mentality, since plotting publicly against your neighbors is rarely an easy task. When it does happen, it tends to occur in large, solid alliances, that can afford to announce to everyone else how they are going to conquer the map. These alliances are strengthened by the fact that it is difficult for multiple members to coordinate a stab on the third or fourth member.

Reputation is a big deal in public press. If you are clearly deceitful, unreliable, or do anything else that causes lingering resentment, the other players might very well mob you. When every other player is in agreement that you need to die, and you don’t even have the luxury of sweet-talking a few of them in private, you either are about to die or about to solo (or draw, if you are fortunate enough to have attained your own stalemate position).

As in FP, being able to read the other players and figuring out how to get them to do what you want is a key skill. Public press is far trickier, however, as you can present only one face rather than six. Crafting your words to appeal to all the other players at once is tricky at best, and counterproductive at worst. Sometimes, no matter what you say you are going to end up alienating someone.

The Opening Situation

Italy! The oddball nation of Diplomacy, who is rarely to first to die and equally rarely emerges victorious. The good news for me is that I probably won’t be dogpiled right off the bat. The bad news is that I still need to find a way to make myself indispensible in the midgame.

The other bad news is that I’m the last nation to post. That’s rarely good.

In my absence, England offers just about everything to just about everybody. His erratic posts seem to turn off France and Germany, who had entered the game contemplating a Western Triple. Russia, an obvious early target for a WT, seizes the opportunity to wedge the western powers apart, and by the time I show up everyone is bickering about who is working with whom and who the bad guy is and which triples would work the best.

That’s the situation when I arrive.

1901

England’s somewhat offbeat and erratic press make him a clear early target for my own press, and I share my suspicions of him while reaching out to everyone else (but not equally; see below). England’s press style draws a lot of attention to himself, at the least, and I decide to make sure that this attention is negative. In the meanwhile, I start negotiating with the other nations and generally building rapport.

To accomplish this, I take advantage of both my being late to the party and my being Italy. I’ve already seen England and, to a lesser extent, several other powers treating this game like a FP. They’ve made detailed proposals to everyone, proposals which are often mutually exclusive. This inconsistency makes their true loyalties unclear (well, more unclear than is typical in Diplomacy), encouraging distrust.

In contrast, I focus my efforts on specific nations. I am friendly toward Austria and Germany in particular, regardless of who I am talking to, and mildly hostile toward England. This pro-Austrian stance also makes me slightly anti-Turkish, as I encourage the Austrian capture of Greece. The other nations pick up on my antipathy toward the two “wicked witches”, making me more of a known factor, always handy when trying to build trust.

Of course, the downside is that England and Turkey aren’t going to be too happy with me, but I am not easily reachable by either. This is definitely a part of my strategy that is specific to playing Italy.

In spring moves, the only surprise is Austria breaking an agreement with Russia and entering Galicia. Oops. Fortunately, he is able to talk his way out of trouble for the most part, which is good for me because I don’t want him and Russia fighting just yet.

Fall conversation quickly reveals that I made the right choice in enemies. Germany is interested in a Western Triple, but France doesn’t trust England, creating the subtle fear of a WT without the actual threat. This, I’m sure, helps to tighten my bond with Austria, which is verified when he proposes that Germany join a Central Powers Alliance.

Turkey, meanwhile, finds himself in border disputes with both Austria and Russia. Given that I am implicitly planning a Lepanto, Austria decides to join in, and all but declares war on Turkey.

Interestingly, Russia decides to jump on the anti-Turkey bandwagon himself, stating that he doesn’t want to get mobbed due to Juggernaut fears. As Russia probably intended, this helps to assure everyone who’s not Turkey that his intentions are friendly, similar to how my explicit border agreements with Austria and France implicitly suggested that my efforts would be against Turkey.

Turkey, alas, is unable to talk himself out of being the bandwagon’s target. He tries to play up the WT fear, but unfortunately for him the WT is enough of a dud that the other eastern powers don’t consider Turkey essential to their security.

The only surprising fall move is that England misorders the convoy to Norway.

Builds are definitely friendly toward me, and suggest an AIR against Turkey and FG against England.

Also, I agree with AncientMemories that Tyrolia Triangle (Venice-Trieste-Tyrolia) should become a Diplomacy term.

Italy EoG, Part 2

1902

This is the part in public press where nations dogpile one or two disliked nations and publicly discuss how they’re going to kill them. Fortunately, neither nation is me.

Both England and Turkey reach out to me, but I decide to leave no doubt as to who my enemies are. This makes Austria, Russia, and Turkey happy, but Germany begins to have his doubts. He suggests that I side with Turkey, and makes it increasingly clear that he is not interested in a CPA. This only helps to solidify the AIR alliance, and all three of us grow increasingly hostile toward Germany. With Turkey on the ropes, and Austria unlikely to attack me anytime soon, that makes my priorities getting a piece of the Turkish pie and maintaining peace with France.

1903

My continued friendship with France is aided by a spring NMR, which I don’t see coming and thus don’t take advantage of. I do take advantage of the free trust that comes from not exploiting said NMR, however.

I continue to follow my political strategy of transparency. I am clearly pro-Austrian and pro-Russian, and ostensibly pro-French as well. With Turkey about to die and England inaccessible, however, I need a new enemy to assure France that he’s not my next target. I make Germany this enemy, and while France isn’t too pleased by this he is still quite willing to negotiate DMZs with me so he can fight England in peace.

Speaking of England, an FG invasion leaves him in dire straits. Fortunately for him, he is able to use the growing Russia to (barely) get FG off his back. I decide that this is a good thing, as England is such an abrasive player that him surviving can only draw attention away from myself.

I contribute to the Russian monster by turning down his offer to give me Ankara (Austria ends up getting it, but everyone initially gets the impression that it will be Russian). I like having him large, both to keep Austria honest and to keep the other nations on their toes. With three northern fleets, he certainly does that.

1904

Turkey is finished off, the AIR remains solid, and the WT continues to sputter. While all three of the western powers agree that Russia is a threat, internal conflict, particularly between England and France, continues to hinder a unified effort. I take note of both the EF friction and the effectiveness of “positive diplomacy” on France.

Germany continues to be my designated enemy, and we have some interesting debate during the builds phase. I take care to present my anti-German stance as a necessary effect of my loyalty toward my allies (Austria, Russia, and to an extent France). Until such time as I can sneak my way into a position of strength, I have every intention of presenting myself as a loyal stooge.

1905

The WT is now somewhat functional, and an Austrian NMR in the spring means that Russia is bearing the brunt of the war. Meanwhile, I simultaneously talk my way into Ankara and destroy the Austrian fleet, leaving Sev as the only non-Italian fleet in the southeast.

In the fall, Russia continues to lose ground in the north, while EF friction resumes. Both France and Austria request that I hold my build, so I decide to sit on the wall for a bit longer. I know that a stab will be necessary for my continued growth, but want more time to analyze the state of the board and set things up to minimize the fallout of said stab.

Russia’s actions at year’s end ensure that France is not the only nation I am considering stabbing. To my surprise, he keeps his fleet in Sev and disbands one of his northern fleets. As I point out to him, those northern fleets are what make him indispensible to Austria and myself in the first place. His detailed response makes it clear to me that I had overestimated how well he was taking my continued alliance with France. The time limit on my neutrality is almost up, and I resume my contemplation of who to stab and how.

1906

I decide to stab France. I believe that I can exploit his strained relationship with the other western powers to minimize the damage to my reputation, while giving myself plenty of opportunity for expansion. I spend much of the year negotiating with France on behalf of the Russians, building up justification for my inevitable stab.

In the fall, I make my move, advancing all three of my fleets westward along with a single army, and building a fourth fleet using the build I’d saved from 1905. Doing so, I ensure that some pressure will be taken off Russia. Additionally, a communication failure between Russia and Austria nets Russia a build, which was just fine with me.

Italy EoG, Part 3

1907

The northern front remains a mess, while I continue my advance against France. There is hardly any press during the fall phase, as everyone’s plans seem to already be in motion. I intend to wear down France while my teammates stall in the north, finally beginning to pull ahead in strength while being easily able to justify my actions. Neither Austria nor Russia can afford for me to _not_ continue my assault, and I expect that the WT will fall apart once the situation is sufficiently grim.

Austria NMRs in the fall, which costs us Munich, and that AIR will eventually prevail becomes less of a certainty. Fortunately, I am still able to set myself up to take at least one or two centers from France, which will tighten the defensive resources of the WT.

1908

I really enjoy the opening of this year, thanks to a prolonged political battle between the remaining nations, with both teams trying to sway members of the opposing team to their side (with the main targets for recruitment being Austria and France). While there are no immediate changes, it helped to get everyone’s voices on the table and gave me more opportunities to analyze each player and how to best appeal to them. And, of course, it was fun!

The spring moves only brighten my smile, with England NMRing. This helps to compensate for Austria’s NMR in 1907. I get MAO, which I was guaranteed anyway, but now I can keep it for a while.

The fall turn goes just as well, with AIR capturing both Spain and Munich. Russia also rebuilds his second fleet, leading to him not-so-subtly declaring that he can taste our victory.

To be frank, I can too. I’ve greatly enjoyed working with both Austria and Russia over the past few years, and coordinating a position of strength over the WT was quite the accomplishment. While I fully intend to maximize my own position over the course of the WT’s fall, I am well aware of the strong relationship between AR and know that positioning myself for a solo without being recognized and thwarted by them could well be an impossibility.

My philosophy for solos is that, while of course one should strive to position oneself for one and take a sure shot when it presents itself, attempting a solo for the sake of attempting a solo is irrational. If I know that I stand little to no chance of successfully soloing, I’m not going to stab my double or triple just so I can say I went for it. The reward isn’t going to be forthcoming, and the risk is getting cut out of the draw (or getting to watch another player solo) when the solo attempt almost certainly fails.

That said, of course, I am constantly analyzing and re-analyzing the board to see how feasible a solo would be. While I will naturally say I am willing to draw (and often mean it, at that particular moment), the decision is never final until that vote has been cast (and sometimes not even then).

1909

England NMRs yet again, allowing me to take Portugal without losing MAO. France immediately becomes far more receptive toward working with AIR, and I see if I can’t talk him into becoming a janissary (lose most or all of his homeland, but be offered a place in the draw in exchange for turning on his former allies). I figure it’s worth a shot, at least.

In the process, Germany becomes increasingly unhappy with me, but of all the remaining players he seems the most likely to bite the dust. Antagonizing him is a risky move on my part, but I feel that it is worth the risk to help convince France that he really is my favorite of the western powers.

As things turn out, my efforts (with considerable assistance from Russia) do win over France, and he stabs both England and Germany. This cements my desire to make sure that France is the last of the western powers to be eliminated, as he could definitely prove useful later on.

1910

The AIR, plus France, continue their advance. After the spring moves, it is revealed that France has had a sitter for the past few years. Original France states that he agrees with his sitter’s decisions, though, so this changes little.

What _does_ change things is that, in the fall of 1910 Russia is no longer able to resist temptation and makes a run for the solo. He takes Kiel and Denmark with Austrian help, stabs Austria in Warsaw, sets himself up to take Turkey, and launches a failed attack on French Norway. This last point is important, though not particularly surprising, given the discussion that turn. Regardless, Russia ends up with three builds, of which he is immediately able to place two.

While the Russian stab does catch me by surprise (I expected him to stab no earlier than 1911), I know that it is not the end of the world (otherwise I would have maintained a larger garrison in the east). I am confident that Austria and I can continue to work together to contain him with some success, and that the western powers can be convinced to at least begrudgingly help to stop him. I anticipate Germany to present the greatest difficulty, given my strained relationship with him. I had expected him to be eliminated before Russia went for the solo (if ever), but Germany ends up keeping Holland and a vital fleet. I swiftly fall back on my earlier reasoning that all my hostility toward Germany was out of loyalty toward Russia and Austria (which is true, to an extent).

The solo attempt itself is a mixed blessing for me. On the one hand, it diverts attention from me and shatters the Austria-Russia friendship, meaning that they are less likely to ally together against me. On the other, preventing the solo requires some considerable sacrifices in my position, and even more may be necessary to convince the western powers not to throw the game. I know that the next several years will be extremely tricky to navigate, but I am prepared to give it my all.

Tasnica, I just did a brief look through the game, and you could have easily had a solo shot if you stabbed Austria around 1909....what stayed your hand from attacking Austria once Turkey was dead?

I think he could have won easily if he stabbed Italy in 1913 or 1914. I presented this position in the game (as Vaftrudner) and that was my whole idea taking over Vaft's slailing Russia.

There were several opportunities for Italy to win that game.

Currently working on the rest of my EoG, but I'll respond to some comments in the interim.

@Goldfnger: I'm really not seeing it. Let's say I stabbed both Austria and Russia in the fall of 1908. I would have taken both Trieste and Bulgaria, getting a triple build... but what then? Half my forces would still be tied up in the west (I had no idea that England would NMR again in spring 1909) unless I gave up Spain and fell back to Tunis. Either way, in 1909 I would swiftly conquer the Balkans but Russia would have Black and my reinforcements would remain far from Turkey.

Meanwhile, the WT would cooperate with with Austria and Russia against me just as they cooperated with my and Austria against Russia. Sure, some concessions would be made, and perhaps with phenomenal diplomacy on my part I could have stalled an anti-leader alliance, but I would at the least be facing relatively unified opposition.

By 1910, I would at best have Portugal, Spain, Marseilles, Tunis, Italy, Austria, Turkey, and the Balkans. The Austrian-Russian remnant would work with Germany to hold the Mun-Sev line, and I would be stuck at 17. The distance of my fleets from the Black Sea, especially, would have hindered my ability to capture StP before the line solidified.

In short, I believed that an undeniable solo attempt at that point in the game would solidify opposition against me and inevitably fail, possibly leading to my elimination. In my mind, it simply wasn't worth the risk.

Also, I genuinely enjoyed working with Austria and Russia. I wasn't about to betray them unless I was damn sure it would result in a win.

@Lando: Austria could have stabbed me in the spring of 1913. He wouldn't have gotten far, though, against an anti-leader alliance. And yes, there would have been an anti-leader alliance, because if I can can forge an anti-leader alliance against Austria in 1919 right in the middle of my own solo attempt, I certainly could have done the same back in 1913 when my position was far inferior.

In the fall of 1913, or at any point in 1914, Austria could not have stabbed me at all.

@Tasnica - you ended up soloing anyways, so its not a big deal, but I just thought it was achievable with the stab in 1909. Russia wouldn't have a build to place in Sev that year, and Austria would be completely unable to defend Serbia and Greece in 1910. Meanwhile you could have held back the west for a few years in Spain-Portugal-Marseilles with those five units of yours. Had Tyr Sea moved to Ionian, you could have worked on a convoy to Anatolia or Greece with one of your three builds.

Russia would have been the greatest weakness, in effect having one fleet and one army to defend the south. Austrian strength would have been sapped by 1911, and without Austria to prop him up, Russia would have faltered.

So it might have been done, and it might not have. Since you soloed anyways, this is merely academic.

Oh, I agree entirely that me taking the Balkans, Iberia, and Austria within a few years would certainly have been plausible. However, I don't think I could have taken Sev before Austria, Germany, and Russia set up the Mun-Boh-Gal-Ukr-Sev line (plus Mos, Sil, and War). This could have been achieved with three Russian armies (centers Sev, Mos, StP), two Austrian armies (War, Mun), and three German armies (Ber, Kie, Den) before my units advanced sufficiently far.

Well done Tasnica! A very interesting game indeed!

"because if I can can forge an anti-leader alliance against Austria in 1919 right in the middle of my own solo attempt, "

I think you are giving yourself credit here where it is undeserved. Germany was anti-Austria at that point for reasons entirely out of your control. I don't believe there was any other sort of campaign.

In a $10 game you played for 21 years, you definitely earnt your money......spend it wisely :-)

I'm gonna have to agree with Lando on that one. Lando threw in his lot for an Austrian solo, I knew you would be convincing France to join you, and that really only left me with the option of choosing the victor before I died.

@Ghug: Well, I have no way of knowing that, as you haven't written an EoG. ;)

Austria and I were both trying to win you over, and you ended up supporting me more than him. Now, perhaps that was more the result of other nations shooting themselves in the foot than anything I did, but even in that case I can give myself credit for _not_ shooting myself in the foot (surprisingly easy to do in public press!) when it counted most.

Italy EoG, Part 4: The Anti-Russia Alliance

1911

The western powers immediately unleash a wave of demands in exchange for their assistance against Russia. While I am aware that I might well have to fulfill those demands, I decide not to make it too easy for them. Not only do I want to minimize my losses, but I also don’t want the western powers holding too much power over me (and being aware of it). Furthermore, I want to give the impression that I’m making sacrifices and concessions, which ideally I can cash in later.

I respond with a series of counter-proposals, most of which are eventually shot down. I do end up in a better position than was initially demanded, however. I am able to keep Marseilles, as well as a garrison in Iberia. I send the rest of my forces eastward.

Meanwhile, the anti-leader alliance starts to come together, and Russia’s offensive begins to stall. Victory is not immediate, which is fine by me as I need to retake Turkey before everyone’s attention is off Russia. I give tactical input accordingly.

Year’s end sees Russia far less of a solo threat, though still an impressive power. I have to suffer a painful, but expected, triple disband, but fortunately am able to convince France to both disband Brest and allow me to keep my army in Burgundy.

While I of course have every intention of improving my position however I can, at this point in the game an Italian solo does not seem at all likely. Ensuring that the other nations have little hope (or desire!) of cutting me out of a draw is the priority.

1912

Austria and I, as always (man, I love good AI alliances), continue to coordinate quite effectively to push the Russians back. Meanwhile, I do the best I can to maintain as much power in the west as I can get away with. I suspect that the WT will reform upon Russia’s decline, and I really don’t want a six-way draw. If I keep southern France and MAO, I can choose between England and France as targets, and try to turn them on one another. If I get locked out of the Atlantic, on the other hand, then my only expansion option will be Austria, who I don’t want to fight (both because he’s a good ally and because I’m not certain the WT won’t side with him if we do).

In the fall, France, Austria, and myself all get double builds. To everyone’s surprise, England gets a build as well by snagging Holland from Germany. This was definitely a gamble on his part, and while it provided some benefits to him it definitely aided my recovery from the Russian stab.

The builds phase is a period of intense diplomacy from all sides, and for good reason. There are a whopping seven builds at stake. England, recognizing Russia’s weakness, attempts to shift attention toward Austria and myself, particularly the latter, thanks to my armies in Greece and Sev, and my fleet in Gascony.

Unfortunately for England, he makes some massive blunders which dilute his message considerably. His capture of Holland damages his relationship with Germany, and his justification that he was afraid France would take it doesn’t help matters. England then really shoots himself in the foot by trying to convince France to cut Germany out of the picture. Sorry, England, but if you’re going to try and put together an anti-leader alliance, telling minor powers you won’t be including them in the draw is a bad idea unless you’re _really_ sure you don’t need them.

Regardless, England starts really pushing the Italian solo angle, and interestingly enough the long-silent Russia chimes in and joins him. Little did I know that Russia was, in fact, now being played by a sitter, Lando.

I transition my diplomacy into full-fledged war against England, and counter his frankly ridiculous claims that I’m anywhere close to a solo. My personal analysis tells me that I have little hope of advancing beyond 13 centers or so, even with a very successful stab of Austria. I simply don’t have enough units. Not enough armies to swiftly dominate Austria, and not enough fleets to swiftly dominate England.

Knowing full well that Austria is both my most reliable ally and that I have little hope of conquering him given the current strength of his army, appeasing him is a top priority. I do not hesitate to return Greece to him and negotiate with him on builds.

The builds reveal no surprises, which does not say much as both England and I suggested the same builds to France. What he does with them will be far more telling.

Italy EoG, Part 5: The New Western Triple, AKA Everyone Shits Their Pants at the “Imminent” Italian Solo

1913

Russia grows increasingly hostile toward me, and begins to take it personally when I suggest that my solo prospects are overestimated (which I still believe to be true). Despite my efforts, our relationship rapidly deteriorates, and I am genuinely surprised by his change in tone. Little did I know that Russia was, in fact, now played by an entirely different player, and said sitter would remain on the throne for the rest of the game. This was a considerable blow to me, as what remained of my relationship and rapport with Russia was essentially erased, and all my prior knowledge of Russia’s personality was now misleading. By the time I realized that the Russian player had changed, it was virtually too late to salvage our relationship, particularly without alienating the other players.

Relations between Russia and Austria deteriorate as well, as Russia claims that Austria will hand me the game and tries to turn everyone against him. Austria, who is far more alert and defended than Russia gives him credit for, is understandably confused (not to mention Russia’s sudden change in tone). I, of course, have absolutely no intention of making a solo run at that point (my analysis of the board showed virtually no chance of reaching 18), and I tell Russia just that.

Russia more or less brushes my protestations aside and goes for the “if you don’t agree with me you’re a moron” tactic with the rest of the players. Interestingly enough, this works for Germany, and he jumps on the Italian solo bandwagon. England joins in as well, though of course an Italian solo attempt (or other nations reacting to a perceived Italian solo attempt) is definitely in his favor. Austria keeps a cool head, fortunately (for both of us), and France ends up sitting on the fence.

I must give props to Russia (the second one) for his very effective scare tactics. Coming out of a failed solo attempt himself, and with everyone’s units pointed at him, he successfully redirected the attention of the majority of the players elsewhere. Now, what he was saying was complete and utter bullshit, as I had little to no intention or capability of soloing at that point in the game (if one assumes a competent Austria, which I most certainly did).

Diplomatically, Russia succeeded where England did not. Both insulted their fellow players, but the Russian insults came across as deriving from expertise and competence, while the English insults came across as deriving from him being an ass. Additionally, England was clearly the more hypocritical of the two, making several questionable moves and NMRs even as he ordered his allies about.

I believe this in-game quote (from myself) sums up my reaction to Russia’s diplomacy in 1913:

“Seriously, I'm starting to feel like Russia stole a chicken, in plain sight, and is now pointing to me and saying "He did it!" And people are buying it.”

Regardless, my diplomatic efforts meet some success in the spring. I successfully take MAO, vacate Greece as promised (both to appease Austria and discredit England/Russia), and ensure my conquest of Turkey. Russia is clearly now a full part of the Western Triple, but France’s moves are non-committal.

Taking MAO may have been a mistake on my part. I underestimated the degree to which it would annoy France , and in fact hoped that I could still win him over fully. After all, I could not hold it without him. I probably should have pulled back and appeased the French, and I think this mistake contributed toward France stabbing me in the fall of 1913.

So, too, did the English-German-Russian chorus. While I still had no hope of a solo (again, mostly because my lack of armies would have prevented me from finishing off Austria before I could secure Sev), their utter conviction that I did overwhelmed my best diplomatic efforts.

The truth, as I’ve stated earlier in this EoG, is that I rarely go for the solo unless I either...

1. Have a certain, or nearly certain, shot at success.
Or
2. Have such terrible allies/neighbors that making a risky solo run is worth it just so I don’t have to draw with them. This is also the most common reason why I will attempt to narrow a draw, even if a subsequent solo is unlikely.

Consequently, I never would have stabbed Austria prior to Condition #1 being met, which in fact did not occur (from my perspective) until much later in the game. Condition #2 was the primary reason why, despite my unwillingness to stab Austria, I was unwilling to draw in 1913, as I had little interest in sharing a draw with either England or Russia if I could help it. This, of course, also gave me a good excuse to keep the game going, in case Condition #1 could be met at a later date.

Fall moves reveal France joining the WT to completely shut me out of the Med, which additionally renders Marseilles (and by extension, Iberia) vulnerable to further attack. This is definitely bad news for me, and I regret not doing more to appease France. I resolve to do what I can to lock down my position, as I suspect that the WT is willing to continue advancing upon me and finish the job. Following the French stab, I don’t trust anyone but Austria (and not even him, entirely) to let me into the draw, so my short-term goal becomes to force my way into it via stalemate (or near-stalemate).

Naturally, I continue my diplomatic efforts even while I make tactical plans to solidify my defenses. I continue to reach out to all members of the WT (which now includes Russia, if I haven’t already made that clear), particularly France and Germany. My efforts to divert attention are aided by growing suspicions toward Austria, who is now obviously in a better position to solo than myself. He still has no hope, of course, and when the other powers begin to realize that I point out that, if neither Austria nor myself can solo, we can afford to eliminate some of the other players.

At this point, I begin an intensive campaign against England, who I feel demands the least loyalty of the western powers and is also the nation I least desire to draw with. Furthermore, his elimination certainly couldn’t hurt my position, which will help to cement my place in the draw and maybe, just maybe, improve my solo prospects to something better than “not happening”.

Tasnica - something that I need to say is that you may have been insulted by my messages but I was absolutely responding in kind to the tone you were using with us. If we are to take your eog at face value, we saw the board vastly different at this stage. To me, you were spewing nothing but lies and you were actively insulting the intelligence of France with the requests and promises you were issuing. Somehow, it all worked and I was dumbfounded. Notnce that whole game was something you wrote perceived by me as respectful. But as you say, can't be all things to all people. Forwhatever that is worth. When I want to publicly humiliate someone, does saying that get me out of it guilt free?

@Lando: While I learned after the game had ended that you did in fact mean some of what you said in-game, at the time I had no way of knowing that. In addition to retrospective analysis, this EoG is about my thoughts and reactions while playing the game. At the time, I saw your words as insulting, and considering that such might be a diplomatic tactic to manipulate others. Whether or not this was intentional, to some extent it did work.

Perhaps I did not make this clear in my EoG, but I did recognize that you were not taking my messages well, despite the fact that many of them were genuine (albeit flavored in such a way that was fun for me to write and/or which I hoped would appeal to my target audience). I concluded, however, that appealing to you would require a drastic shift in both the content and tone of my messages, which I ultimately decided was not worth the potential gains.

I am unsure what you mean by your last sentence, "When I want to publicly humiliate someone, does saying that get me out of it guilt free?"

I should add, though, that your actions in this game have not made me think any less of you as a player. Even though some of our disagreements were indeed genuine, rather than feigned or exaggerated as a tactic, I can accept that different people can see the game in different ways. Our perspectives are different, and that is fine.

I would happily play a game with you again. Sure, there were elements of your play that made me shake my head. Similarly, I took several actions that you did not agree with. It is still a game at the end of the day, though. We just play it differently, and I see nothing wrong with that.

Hopefully, this EoG will help to shed light both on how I perceived this game, and my Diplomacy philosophy as a whole.

Italy EoG, Part 6: A House Divided

1914

I definitely get into character a bit over the course of negotiations this turn, which is fun but doesn’t seem to significantly help or hinder my efforts.

Spring 1914 sees a long and intense debate between France, Russia, and myself . I take the opportunity France gives me to offer step-by-step rebuttals of opposing claims, hoping to come across as logical and rational, if perhaps not the most selfless player on the board. It helps that I genuinely believe a fair deal of what I say, particularly my lack of faith in my solo prospects and my fear that a position of weakness will merely lead to more losses on my part. One thing I said that I definitely took to heart was my comment that the more concessions I made, the more was demanded by me. This would influence my diplomacy with France later on, when I made sure to negotiate from a position of [polite] strength whenever I could.

My motivation behind these debates is not just to immediately convince other powers to see things my way (though that would certainly be nice). It is also a matter of long-term confidence. If I come across as so certain for so long that the game will play out in a certain way, perhaps other players will gradually come to see things in the same way. “Repeat something enough times, and people will start to believe you,” as the saying goes. At the bare minimum, I can plant that seed of doubt. Opponents who doubt themselves are all the weaker for it.

Additionally, I continue to try to present myself as a known factor. While my motivations are, of course, sketchy, my actions up until this point in the game have usually followed my words. I am predictable, in that sense. Other nations, particularly England, are less predictable, and I am willing to be patient and wait for such nations to make a mistake.

Finally, I am the type of player who avoids burning bridges when they can. When I stab someone, I try to be amicable about it, always leaving open the possibility of future cooperation. After all, I might need them in the future! Unless, of course, I am dealing with a player who responds better to a straightforward “Why yes, I am trying to kill you.” One drawback to public press is that you can really only go with one tone or the other, even if you’re saying basically the same thing, unlike in private press where you can have it both ways.

Keeping that hand extended toward France definitely pays off, as in the fall of 1914 England brashly decides to move into Russian Sweden without telling anyone (Russia also misorders, but with less fallout). Both Russia and France are furious, and the latter immediately takes me up on my earlier offer. England tries to justify himself, but his manner of communication fails to impress any of the WT. Soon, all of them are bickering. I, of course, am laughing my head off, not because I think I can solo (still far from that), but because the player that has been the biggest pain in my ass (though Russia has been making a commendable effort) is now thoroughly shooting himself in the foot. Furthermore, any opportunity for Italian expansion will help to secure my place in the draw (not certain with all that anti-Italy talk in recent years!).

Also, all that French muckraking gets turned against England, which is quite satisfying to watch. Especially this gem:

“Italy tried damn hard to get us to turn on you last turn, and you /proved him right/. Do you know how embarrassing that is to us? Do you realize how embarrassing that should be to you?”

While this turn of events was not unexpected, I was surprised that it occurred so quickly (I figured it would be a few turns before England, or perhaps France, did something rash). Nevertheless, I get to work taking advantage of it.

In the meanwhile, I note that Austria is becoming increasingly detached from the game, making him less of a “known factor” to the other players. I keep this in mind, as conflict between Austria and the other nations will be essential if an opportunity for me to solo ever arises. Again, at this point in the game I do not see that happening, but I want to have a plan if it does.

The fall moves turn out great for me. I finally secure a stalemate which only an Austrian fleet build can breach, Germany takes Denmark from the English, France shows signs of supporting me, and Austria remains just as large and scary as I am.

Italy EoG, Part 7: To Kill an Englishman

1915

France, Germany and myself discuss how to eliminate England, while Austria remains rather silent. He ends up supporting me into Burgundy, disrupting an arranged bounce between France and myself. This ramps up both French and German suspicion and seriously hinders the invasion of England, but does so at the cost of even more of Austria’s reputation. Now he is not only untalkative, but unpredictable as well.

Fortunately for my own reputation, I follow up the Burgundy move by sending a fleet into Marseilles, rather than an army. This helps to reassure France that I’m not out to get him, which is true. At this point in the game, I have no intention of invading France, though this soon begins to change. Funnily enough, little of said change is brought about by France himself.

Fall negotiations see both Germany and Russia drop out of the planned invasion of England, despite France firmly getting behind said invasion. Their passiveness surprises me, and I flat-out tell them that England is going to fall either way, and that if they sit idle I will have to eliminate much of England myself and necessarily improve my position.

While informing them of this may sound counter-intuitive, it is actually a minor gamble on my part that ends up paying off. I know that Germany to an extent and Russia even more so are wary of doing anything I suggest, and also know that France loves to debate and justify things, and I want ample material to sway him with when he does.

When the fall moves are revealed, my position is considerably improved. I get a fleet in the North Atlantic, France is clearly still on my side, Austria continues to clash with Germany and Russia, and both these northern nations show no interest in attacking England. This leaves me with literally no choice but to take England myself, with some French assistance.

This is the first time in the game that, to me, a solo seems like an actual possibility. England’s defeat with no corresponding growth by Russia or Germany means Italian dominance of the northern seas, which offer far more possibilities for expansion that a stab of Austria. France, of course, stands to expand into England, but his lack of units means that, if I play it right, he will capture a single center at most. Combine this with a stab on France, and I’m left with one large power (Austria) to hold off while invading three smaller powers that aren’t getting any builds.

While a solo attempt is still not a certainty at this point, I am now definitely thinking about it. My press becomes somewhat less genuine overall, starting at this point. This is somewhat ironic, as Russia has been accusing me of just this for years, and he then he himself helps to set up a situation where I can take England unopposed!

1916

While the former Western Triple continues to collapse upon itself, I successfully convoy my first army into England. Naturally, I send it to Clyde to continue the impression that I don’t desire the English centers for myself, but by this point I am certainly considering doing just that.

The German and Russian press grows increasingly desperate, but is unable to sway the French. England, too, does little to appease the French vendetta. In general, the messages of the western powers only serve to push France further and further away, insulting and alienating him. While this may work for some players, it doesn’t work all that well with France, but the other players fail to adjust their diplomacy accordingly. Meanwhile, Austria remains unpopular with the Germans, primarily for their lack of press and unwillingness to react to their requests. Definitely more good news for me.

Everything really starts to come together in the fall. I capture Liverpool, get a second army in England, and still have no prospect of an Austrian fleet to worry about. While Russia finally sends some aid over to England, the French remain on my side. Germany, meanwhile, is driven by the poor diplomacy of Austria (whose usually strong play reached a low point around this time) to move his Denmark fleet into the Baltic Sea! Consequently, not only is there no German fleet in North as I suspected might occur, but there is no German fleet even adjacent to it!

This falling out between Germany and Austria upgrades my solo thoughts from “Hmm, this might be possible” to “Yeah, I should seriously consider doing this”. I decide at this point that, if I can take the North Sea within a short period after England’s fall, my chances of soloing will be high enough to outweigh the risk of failure.

1917

To my surprise, Russia's moves allow me into Norwegian. Austria and Germany continue to clash, and all the western powers continue to berate France. Both conflicts help to keep both Austria and France in my pocket, which is crucial to my continued expansion. Equally vital is the fact that, despite England clearly being on the way out and France clearly not changing his mind on that regard, neither Germany nor Russia seems interested in changing their tactics. Germany, especially, continues to charge into Austria even though Austria can hold him off flawlessly.

The end of 1917 is a crucial moment in the game, as it is at that time that I decide, for certain, to go all-out for the solo. For me, such a moment dictates a major change in policy. "Solo or bust" means no holds are barred in getting that win. Every advantage I can get, and every possible means I can use to get there, is fair game. All agreements are out the window, and no bridges will be spared.

Naturally, this is why I wait until I am quite sure of my solo prospects before making such an attempt, as diplomatic recovery from such unscrupulous policies (even if not all are immediately evident) is challenging at the least. In this game, the phase when the solo was firmly enough in my grasp for such tactics began in the spring of 1918. Before that point, I genuinely could have gone either way, possibly drawing with such allies as Austria and France. After that point, I had no intention of doing so, and just about everything I said was pure deception.

What happened in 1917 which shifted the odds so much in my favor? Firstly, there was the fall of England. His defeat alone reduced the number of rival fleets in the north to four. Second was Germany's continued assault against Austria, which left his two fleets in Kiel and Livonia, far from me. Third was Russia's NMR in fall 1917, which allowed the Austrians into StP. This kept Austria as a visible threat himself, and made cooperation between the remaining powers all the more difficult. Furthermore, it forced a Russian disband, which to my great surprise was his fleet in Clyde. This left the lone French fleet in the English Channel as the sole opposition to my northern dominance, and was a crucial tipping point in my decision to stab France. While I had already begun drafting plans for a stab of France, the removal of that one fleet made the whole process much, much easier and freed up many of my units.

Finally finished this!

Italy EoG, Part 8: Sprint for the Solo

1918

At this point in the game, my solo prospects are quite good. I'm not one to take chances, though, and I continue to make every effort to keep the opposition uncertain and uncoordinated.

Major goals are the acquisition of the North Sea, the removal of the last French fleet, the prevention of an Austrian fleet breakout into the Med, and stalling the formation of a unified opposition. Fortunately, I receive help from all four of the remaining players.

At the beginning of the year, I "extend" my agreement of drawing after eliminating England to eliminating Russia as well. This works out better than expected, mostly because Austria is a bit too subtle in his expressing disinterest in eliminating Russia. This lack of clarity (or persistent draw vote) delays a coordinated effort against me.

Spring moves see me take advantage of a bogus agreement with France to seize North, while Austria prods me in Venice. I also take Marseilles, which considerably aids my homeland defense.

France, understandably, does not react well, but I keep up the act because, hey, every little bit of doubt helps. Alas, it turns out that I am somewhat less persuasive when I don't actually believe the things that I am saying, and he reaches out to the other powers for aid.

Russia and Austria begin talking (and Russia belatedly realizes how badly he needs a fleet against me). Austria, however, misses the opportunity to take a clear stance against me. His words, moves and votes are mostly anti-Italy, but not unambiguously enough so that I have no hope of painting him as a solo threat himself.

As the year wraps up, I continue to play the anti-Austria and anti-Russia angle. It probably isn't fooling anyone, but, again, every little bit of doubt helps.

Fall moves go predictably enough, although Austria misses a chance to build a fleet during builds. It isn't necessarily a game-changer, but it certainly makes things a bit easier for me.

1919

To my great surprise, Austria follows up his builds NMR by continuing to be non-communicative and not offering concessions to the other players. His quiet antagonism towards the others is actually sufficient to get both France and Germany on my side, right in the middle of my solo attempt! I gladly accept.

Fall sees German fears come true with a continued Austrian assault on his centers, while France gives me Brest and ensures that the Austrians are kept out of Burgundy. I really can not believe my fortune here, but if Austria really wants to hand me the game by soloing in the middle of my own solo, I'm not going to complain.

Austria finally builds a fleet at the end of the year, but I'm more than ready for it.

1920

Austria continues to have fantastically little success in making friends with France and Germany, who both seem rather resigned at this point (for good reason, as the way Austria is playing means that their choices are practically survive or defeat).

I know what Austria was thinking. I know that he didn't want a large draw, and that he still had hopes for a solo of his own. At this point in the game, though, it wasn't going to happen. If I were him, I would have said and done literally anything to get France and Germany in line. If that meant throwing up a "pointless" draw vote and not attacking German centers I probably wouldn't be able to get anyway, no problem.

Now, it is possible that, by 1920, Austria may have simply given up. My victory _was_ virtually assured at this point. But these issues with France and Germany were not new. Austria was not able to make it clear that his aspirations did not include French/German elimination once they had outlived their usefulness, and this gave them far less incentive to help stop my solo.

By year's end, I am at 15 centers and am excellently positioned to acquire several more, even assuming united and coordinated opposition. Only some serious blunders on my part could cost me the game now.

1921

I take Paris, Holland, and, with some help from Germany, Norway. I also nab Bulgaria as insurance, attaining 19 centers and ending the game. And man, what a game it was.

Concluding Thoughts

In-game, much of the blame for my victory was placed on France. I believe this to be quite misleading.

Each and every power contributed to my eventual solo. France, it is true, made moves that were in my favor at several key moments. He was not the only one, however, even when one does not count NMRs. Moves that particularly come to mind are the English mini-stabs in the 1910 decade, as well as the Russian fleet disband in 1917.

Diplomatically, much of my success came from other negotiations going very wrong. England's writing style (not to mention his moves) created a great deal of tension within his various alliances, which gave me several key openings. Austria was never able to make amends with Germany, and never even got along with France all that well. When push came to shove, both these western nations chose to side with me over Austria, even though I was by far the clearer solo threat. Such is the result in poorly-forged and maintained relationships between powers.

Even if France and Germany _were_ incompetent (they weren't), their actions had basis. They were not random. That means they can be influenced, and it was Austria's (and, to a lesser extend, England and Russia's) job to figure out how to influence them. Every player has motivations, and react to stimuli in a somewhat predictable manner. Figure out the other players, and how to influence them, and victory is around the corner. On the other hand, if your relationships with other players decline to the point where they feel that it is actually more in their interest to help someone solo than to work with you, then there has been a massive failure in diplomacy and you had better be getting some serious benefits to compensate (as was the case when things went south between me and Russia #2). Otherwise, you're screwed, and you can't even [rightfully] put all the blame on the other person.

I do believe that the outcome of this game was deserved, by all parties involved. In other words, I believe that every player contributed to the result they received. That said, despite the sum of my actions being sufficient to push me toward victory, I made my fair share of mistakes. Similarly, despite the other players making what I perceive to be mistakes, each also did a lot of things right. There was definitely good competition in this game, and I do not take any of them lightly. I would happily play with them again.