There seems to have been an alarming amount of anti-English sentiment in the first season. Was it just Russia's decision to not open North that prevented the Sea Lion?

If I recall my press, Italy was the propogator of the Sea Lion, which never got off the ground. My press (as France) sounded anti-English, but I was pretty committed to the EF/Churchill to finish off Germany first, but when Russia tipped him off about the assault, I felt compelled to change things up and go WT. After that point, I never got into the fit of the WT, Germany and I had a rough relationship until 3/4 the way through when we had to rely on each other to ensure an English stab didn't occur.

After browsing the press of the other nations, it was pretty clear that my survival was grim at best in most parts throughout the entire game. I'm surprised no one attacked me. England was really wanting to attack me at various points and a cross between Germany not really being able to join in on the assault effectively, and me having one unit in a key location pretty much turned back the tide of my demise.

I also flip-flopped a ton in that game, really wanting to attack Italy but never really receiving the green-light from the rest of the WT. It kinda taught me that I need to go with my gut a bit more and deal with the "PR" aftermath of my decision than wait for other players to be ok with a decision I'm making.

A huge kudos to Turkey who really poured on the press throughout a big portion of the game. He should have had a better result than he was dealt.

To answer ms's question, no. The Russian move south wasn't the ticker to not go Sea Lion. I got a better feeling working with England than I did working with Germany.

FOR THOSE READING THIS PAPER: how's the format? Is it pretty easy to read and follow? Would you have done anything different putting the paper together?

Out of curiosity, TN, why did you feel better about England? Did it arise with the Burgundy conflict, or before?

Also, was the 1901 miscommunication around Burgundy genuine? You certainly sold it to the other players as my fault, though my reading of our press definitely gives you the blame. I suspected throughout the game that your questionable interpretation of our agreement was entirely intentional, in order to justify action against me, but I never found out for sure.

@Tru : I remember you saying that you'd rather work with me than Germany because you found him uncommunicative. Now I notice that you said something similar to him about me. Seems like a good idea, since I did feel reassured when you said that.
The format's nice and readable. You could also add the message log for each country (the thing that we mailed you), since it gives a better idea of the order in which messages with different countries happened.

So I have a few questions for everyone.

@Tru, first, thanks for doing this, it's really cool and it looks like you put a ton of time into it. Second, was the whole Burgundy miscommunication in 1901 just an attempt at getting into Burgundy without repercussions, or was it really a miscommunication. Third, why did you eventually cave and choose me over Turkey? Fourth, what made you settle for the four way?

@Tas/Manas, if I had vacated Trieste in A1905 and built a fleet, do you think that the three of us would have gone on to eliminate France? It was definitely something I was hoping for all game, but it never happened.

@Tom, I'll start by saying that I had a lot more sympathy for you before reading the press. When the Juggernaut formed, seemingly out of necessity, I completely understood the reasoning, and when I stabbed you, I legitimately thought that the WT hadn't cracked you yet. Looking back, the Jugg was your plan from the start, and your stab on Russia probably would have continued into a full blown attack on me had I not moved to Galicia. That said, what was your plan before I attacked you? Had we formed a stalemate, would you have attacked me, or waited for the West to dissolve? If the West had dissolved, would you have attacked me then and taken a three-way or tried for the solo?

@jmo, why were you so free with all of the information the West was feeding you in the first year or two? It seems like the end result was them unifying against you.

@Ghug: Probably not. I had nothing to gain from attacking France, as England's naval dominance would ensure him nearly every French center. France also provided a nice counterweight to England, who had nearly free reign once Russia was out of the picture.

Darn, I really wanted to take a shot at the solo, and that was the one thing I felt might have changed things looking back on the press.

I'm just starting to pour through this. Looking forward to it. Now that I'm not so bitter about it =P

wow, tons of questions! I love it :) Here the answers are in order:

@Tas: I felt that England and I really nailed down a concrete plan, there was a ton of press (which could have been different had you and I really nailed down something I was comfortable with), and I really felt like it was going to work very smoothly and reduce the west quickly.

The Burgundy thing really was genuinely a mis-read on my part. Believe it or not, none of my "mistakes" were purposeful when it came to the events in the west. The fleet build in Bre should have been in Mar as well. I really believed it to be your fault until after I received your copy/paste of the press at which point I realized that we technically had agreed to DMZ it, but at that point, I felt no need to continue quibbling about it.

@Manas: there were times when Germany and I clicked really well, especially from the midgame and onward. My gut was telling me that you were really wanting to stab me but never did, so Germany was my anchor point, even more so because he shared the same fear. If I had a few more units in the midgame and Germany expressed fear of an English stab, I probably would have played on it and talked him into creating a FG v E, but for years I was stuck at 5 units with nearly all of them in the east.

@ghug: I offered for both you and Turkey to stab the other and take part in the 4-way, but he balked at it while you jumped at the opportunity. Also, I was far more pro-Turkey in the endgame but Germany and England seemed more pro-Austria, so after you accepted, I didn't push the issue.

Also, accepting the 4-way was a natural conclusion for me because I played really terribly that game and was lucky to still be a part of it, even into 1907, let alone all the way through. If everyone would have gone with eliminating you, I'd have been on board, and the same for England, but I wasn't about to attack Germany. To me, he felt like he was the only proponent of keeping me around. I used his fear of England to ensure my own survival by simply telling him that I was there for him and he and I would stick by each other.

Also, I agree with your comments to jmo and Tom. After reading the press, Russia pretty much closed up shop in talking to people as did Italy, so their demise seemed pretty natural. Tom was definitely playing into what he could to get ahead. I'm sure for the longest time he was far less fearful of the WT than anyone else. Although, I should say that from what I could tell, he was less likely to stab you and would probably have used you as a shield than you were of him. Had you not turned on Turkey, then I'm sure the natural result would have been a WT + T.

@ghug: You said ". Looking back, the Jugg was your plan from the start, and your stab on Russia probably would have continued into a full blown attack on me had I not moved to Galicia."

I don't really know what to make of this. I can honestly say that I NEVER had any intentions of doing a jugg. It is an alliance that favors RUS in the endgame. My plan was to get out of the corner (in this case by working with RUS) and then stabbing RUS at an opportune time. I'm not sure why after reading the press, you are so sure that I never wanted to work with you.

That being said, your move against me was very smart. I was worried about the WT but figured that if I could break it down even a little, I would be the logical choice to be a 4-way draw member, or a 3-way if 2 of the western powers cut the other one out. By attacking me, you took a risk that you would be wiped out, but the reward was being included in a draw. You had so little to lose that it turned out being a great move. Still reading the press to figure out why there was so much mistrust on the WT side to keep this from being a 3-way WT draw.

It's not really that I'm sure you never wanted to work with me, it's just that it's pretty clear that you desired an early game alliance with Russia that would have directly spelled my demise. I also wanted to work with Russia, partially because I didn't get along well with Italy and partially because I just wanted to try an A/R, but he forced me to pursue an alliance with Italy in the same way I forced you to pursue an alliance with Russia, and from there, all I could really do was scream bloody murder and hang on for dear life until I found the opportunity to stab for eastern dominance.

My press seems to favor RUS greatly, but that is because it is an almost neccesity to befriend RUS to get out of the corner as Italy. Much easier to make an early stab of RUS by say getting Bul and Rum (which gives me access to Sev rather easily), rather than a direct effort which would just tie up my Turkish units for years.

This game was odd for me. As with Tom I wasn't interested in the Juggernaut at all near the beginning. However, there was a point where it appeared that Germany was going to be overrun quickly by England and France. At the same time I had been unable to get any replies from Italy for days. This put me in the position of having to come up with some way of making sure the east didn't get overrun by France and England without Italy's help...hence the Juggernaut. I got fairly annoyed with the lack of press from Italy and basically gave up with the game to a point after that, like someone else pointed out here. Haven't done that before, but that game particularly annoyed me, at the same time I was setting up the SoW game and playing in a top 50 challenge match. So I do apologize for not giving this game as much attention as it deserved.

@TN: The sad thing is that you and England didn't work out a truly concrete plan until after the Burgundy misunderstanding. And speaking of which, I just found another line that makes said understanding all the more surprising, which I never mentioned in-game. Right after your message about "I'll go with whatever method you think is best," I literally inform you "I'm going to move to Ruhr, Kiel, and Denmark."

I guess I had better be really explicit in the future, because it feels like our entire alliance fell apart because I did not slam the DMZ home. Either that, or you just happened to have a really off day.

@TB: For me, there was so much distrust because I was completely blindsided by France and England turning on me in F1901. It led me to conclude that I could trust neither of them unless they had _strong_ motivations to act in my favor. This led to me selling the Juggernaut to both of them, France's untrustworthiness to England, and England's hovering over our backs to France.

The problem, of course, is that my efforts effectively locked me into a Western Triple. My decision to eliminate Russia with England worked, in that it tightened bonds with England and got France completely off my back, but it also ensured that England would hold a superior position over me. This was compounded by the fact that I didn't trust France for a good half of the game, and did everything I could to limit his builds (mostly through English pressure and peace with Italy).

By the time things were patched up with France, I still hadn't had an excuse to build a second fleet, and most French units were tied up in the south. This made an attack on England unlikely, unless perhaps England left himself vulnerable to me in order to stab France first. I subtly encouraged this a few times, but I never strongly pushed it because I didn't trust England not to simply tell France about it, and because the whole thing would have been highly risky anyway.

Similarly, I never trusted England enough to eliminate France (though it turns out that the EG alliance in the late game was far stronger than I realized). This was primarily a matter of positioning, as England would profit by far the most from eliminating France, and there was little guarantee that EA wouldn't simply pincer me afterward.

As for Austria, I never trusted EF enough to throw all my forces at him. He was my insurance plan in case they decided to cut me out of the draw.

So, basically, my entire game after 1901 was an intricate dance to avoid my own demise. It worked, but the systems of fear, alliance, and positioning worked so well that even I couldn't figure out a way to break out of it profitably.

@Tasnica: You subtly encouraged me to attack France? It must have been really subtle, because the impression I got from you was that you weren't willing to cut either France or Austria out of the draw. I wanted it to be a 3-way, but you seemed pretty close to both F and A, and I was reluctant to press the point for fear of being targeted myself.

@Tru: When we made the plan to stab Germany in Munich, you insisted on including Russia in the plan, although it wouldn't have changed things SC-wise, (it would only put one german unit in a worse position). I was afraid that including more people would make it more likely that Germany heard about the plan, which he did. What was your true intention behind telling Russia?
Here's what I thought was the interesting part of my plan: It would give both of us an extra build, but you would end up looking like the stabber, while I ended up doing exactly what I'd told Germany I would do. My hope was that this would cause Germany to distrust you, while trusting me (he did offer to throw his centres to me). The biggest threat to this, then, was including another country in the plan, because that person could tell Germany about my involvement if I decided to side with him. If you hadnt told Russia, it would've just been your word on my involvement, which Germany had no reason to trust. I even wondered if you only wanted to tell Russia to keep a record of my involvement.

@Manas: It was. Mostly, I just worked to build up distrust between you and France, and occasionally encouraged you to keep some units near him. Most of the time, this was just to hinder you working together, but there were a few fleeting moments in the game where I hoped you would actually do it (I forget when, because I haven't finished the document yet). It definitely wasn't a consistent plan, because I never felt entirely comfortable with France's elimination once Russia was gone.

I just read the Autumn 1901 convo between France and Germany. Tru had in fact tried to take Munich with Germany's 'permission', but failed to get it.

@Tasnica: Wish I'd gotten the signal. There was a period when we had made significant gains in Russia, and France was still on 5 SCs. That would have been a golden moment to stab, but I never felt like I had your approval on it

@Manas: As I said, even at best my approval was rather reserved. I toyed with the idea from time to time, but it was never a major strategy. Again, because I didn't see much gain for myself and underestimated the strength of our relationship.

@Manas: The purpose of telling Russia and getting him in on the action was to give me more leverage. Russia would naturally ally with me over you once G is reduced. That means Russia keeps you in check and gives me the power to decide who to work with, not you. It's more of a checkmate move I try to put on the board if things look worse for me than for the other guy. I have a motto about always making sure your ally has something to keep him busy, and Russia was designed to be your homework. Now, had G kept you out of Bel, like I wanted, then working with you would have been much easier and there would have no need for Russia's help. When I play Frqnce, I can almost guarantee myself a good long-term ally if England doesn't hit Bel in 01--be that ally a German player or English one, because their next build will have to come at the expense of the other guy, and with my help.

@Manas: Yeah, it looks like the time I was most strongly considering it was in 1906. I stopped being quite so opposed to the idea in my communications with you, and hoped that you might push harder to convince me. I really wanted any stab on France to be your idea, as I didn't trust that a proposal from me wouldn't simply be forwarded to France and turned against me.

Of course, as I've said, if we had worked something out and you'd actually stabbed France, I would have sided with France and tried to conquer the northeast in order to build some more fleets. I actually laid some foundations with Austria in 1905-1906 to make sure he was comfortable with such an idea (that we should thwart England if he stabbed France). Had you stabbed him, I would have tried to talk Austria into a two-way, with me taking you on while Austria, after mopping up Turkey, dealt with France.

"The purpose of telling Russia and getting him in on the action was to give me more leverage. Russia would naturally ally with me over you once G is reduced. That means Russia keeps you in check and gives me the power to decide who to work with, not you. It's more of a checkmate move I try to put on the board if things look worse for me than for the other guy. I have a motto about always making sure your ally has something to keep him busy, and Russia was designed to be your homework. "

@Tru, see the problem was I got worried by how well you managed to manipulate everyone the opening year or two I decided I needed to make sure Germany and England realized you were very smoothly manipulating things. Now it backfired horribly on me, but my goal was the get them to both tag team you while leaving me open in the south. I also very much underestimated just how much stronger the reaction to a juggernaut has become on the site recently.

This is an interesting concept. Is there another one being planned?

I forget, how well did the other games turn out, Tru? Wasn't there another Full Disclosure?

@jmo: to be honest, I was way less manipupative than England. It may have seemed like I was more manipulative because of the poor way I handled getting you involved on a German fight, but throughout the game, England was the primary guy playimg everyone's friend and making others out to be villains.

@ Tas and Nigel: There were originally 4 games scripted to start. This was Game 1. Game 2 is still in progress, Game 3 never got started because we were missing one person and Game 4 went through to completion but never made it to press because almost no one submitted their messages and 1 player NMRd throughout the game and another went into CD.

Well, hopefully Game 2 turns out all right! It would be nice to read through another quality game.

I'm sure it will. I already have Italy's press, so thats a good sign.