Let me start by saying this was a game I really enjoyed, and was also a good learning experience for me. The SoW format really helps raise the quality of play by ensuring the basics for a good game are covered. The overall environment is quite positive, which lead to move focus on the analytical and not the personal side of the play.
Many thanks to everyone involved and to my fellow players.
Haven't had time for a year-by-year review yet, too busy at work. But, to not delay and forget this, here're ten things I noticed :)
1. The Fourth Power
Having 'independent' press is a brilliant concept. You don't have to convince others that 2+2=4, and when you have missed something yourself chances are you'll read about it. Not to mention that the more numerous the publications the harder it gets to stay angry and destructive.
Information makes people more alert about the rest of the board. Combine this with the feeling of being in the spotlight and having your moves and options analyzed - and it gets really hard to stay ignorant and play crazy. Long live common sense and free press :)
P.S. There were some concerns about propaganda and the forum discussion influencing the game negatively, shaping opinions, etc. My fair statement would be that, yes, you can feel there's an influence, but at the end of the day it's the players who decide. It's always better to have more options and ideas.
2. Hope dies last
It can be a sad & lonely world when things go against you in this game. Everyone is ok to let you go, it's commonly accepted, even expected, no one even bothers to talk about it... Unless there's someone to speculate and come up with mind-boggling strategies and conspiracy theories, anything to stir up the tar pit, making it look not so dark and depressing.
It didn't really work out in the end, for most people, but at least there was some light along the way :)
P.S. Unfortunately the commentators got bored at the end... I blame them for IT dropping out... think he got disillusioned too fast :)
3. It's the British ISLES!
There was a discussion what should ENG's first builds be. The answer is FLEETS. ENG's first two armies spent the entire game on the coasts, ended up in St.P. and BER, and only once (Spring '09) was one of them used to do something a fleet could not do (support to MUN from KIE). ENG took ages to enter the Mediterranean and secure the North, entirely due to poor logistical infrastructure - not enough fleets. ENG had to build 4 fleets in a row from 1905 to 1907 to compensate for this lack, and it took these fleets some more turns to get into position.
Unless there's some extraordinary reason for it, ENG's first three builds should be fleets. Look at it this way:
- With 5 fleets ENG is virtually untouchable. Chances are E's navy will be bigger than the combined fleets of F, G and R. With 3 armies and 3 fleets ENG is just as mortal as the next guy.
- every army ENG makes will need to be convoyed somewhere to go into battle. And convoys have a cost - in moves - maybe only one, maybe more. Those lost moves, so early on in the game, can make a huge difference.
4. Western Triple???
There can be only two reasons for a WT to form:
- a solid threat from the East (which there wasn't in this case)
- FRA and GER are not really working together
For, if FRA and GER are in alliance, and there's no threat from the East, there's no reason to let ENG live. Many people say predictability is the worst crime in Diplomacy. I'm, not so sure. If you're FRA or GER, then ENG is your natural enemy. He will always be behind your back. The same with IT/AUS and TUR.
If ENG gets to 6 centers you practically can't take him out anymore. The same for TUR. It took GER and FRA too long to realize the inevitable.
5. A man's got to do what a man's got to do
Autumn 1904 was when I moved against IT and RUS. Not a full-scale stab, just to take the upper hand. The problem with wider defensive alliances is that you make a lot of agreements along the way, which are left for later, and now it's payback time.
I had an alliance with IT since the beginning and had promised GRE to him. SMY is in his area by default. RUS expected to take BER and was standing very strong in the BS/TUR. If I were to honor all my agreements I would have signed my own death sentence.
Such situations are common in Diplomacy and constitute what is probably the biggest dilemma for me in this game.
5.1 Shoot first, ask questions later
You have to pay some attention to your ally. Does the alliance make sense for him? If not, what can you do to make sure he does not turn on you. After all, if you are expecting some gains and he'll be losing centers on the same turn, can you really expect him to be ok with it?
More importantly, can you expect him to come to you asking that he takes a center off you, for example, or does not deliver on his agreement? Expecially if he knows that this can lead to war, and if there will be war he'd better be prepared.
There're some questions you can easily ask (can you support me to the enemy center?) and some that are not so easy (can you give me your home-center, can you let me keep the center we agreed is for you?).
Experience has taught me that when you ask, it usually leads to war.
Experience has also taught me that if you don't ask, it also leads to war. Too few people deal with such cases well and can convert it back to win-win.
In the end, the bottom line is that it helps to shoot first.
6. All eggs in one basket
If you go to your bigger neighbour and tell him all the other powers in the area are unresponsive, their actions don't make any sense, you haven't talked to them in ages, or you just have no need to talk with them as things are going well and you'll keep fighting them anyway and don't trust them ... you're asking for trouble. Especially if you're not the only one with similar burden to share. It's not exactly the same as a confessional, but I still own you :)
The communication volumes in the game were quite high, by my standards at least (which are not that high), but a lot of it was quite generic. Maybe due to the increased volumes, combined with the 'noise' from the commentary, decision-making for most players seemed more complicated than usual and led to a certain amount of indecision. People were wary and very cautious. This worked well for me and ENG, we took full advantage, quite risky and opportunistic at times.
TUR was the first one to fall down in such a trap, quite unlucky for him (one and only mistake, and then always on the brink), as if it were not for the Western Triple he probably would had a chance to come back. The triple looked to have saved him by putting pressure on the AIR, but actually it only ensured a prolonged death, giving the AIR alliance (me mostly) the ability to just pick the right time.
GER and FRA were the next ones. RUS had no choice.
7. A bit too arrogant, are we?
I'm as stupid as I am smart. Go figure. Mid-game I decided I'll make everyone else my vassal, stop ENG and proceed to grab a solo while keeping everyone alive till the end. A perfect win of sorts.
The moment I took this decision I knew it will cost me the game, as I do such nonsense on a regular basis (whenever a game goes well), but I always find a reason to justify it (fun/experiment/etc.)
Guess it's not really wise to be so smart and creative when coming up with new ideas and excuses how to be stupid :). And, in the end, it's the same mistake all over again, just implemented different.
Then again, this is why one goes to school - at least I can formulate the problem better now.
8. Something always goes CD.
It is a sad fact that the average game here, regardless of format, tournament or level of players involved, will produce at least one CD. I've heard people say they actively incorporate it in their game-plan once they note such an indication. I used to think it's a wrong approach, but the statistics are not in my favor.
9. There can be only one
Congratulations to ENG. Diplomatically, he did everything right. Strategically, he did everything right and at the right time. Tactically, his moves were not the optimal for most part of the game. However, he made no critical errors and, for the end-game, when it really mattered, his tactics improved dramatically to safely seal the victory.
10. I managed to 'suffocate' a large part of my neighbours for quite some time. It was probably not such a fun game for them. Well done to all who kept playing at full till the end.