EU OT1 Diplomacy Challange

[State Machine]

I figured that since there are a lot of Diplo newbies about, and there are three demonstration games going on, but developments in them will take some time - that I would publish the results of the first Diplo game played on these boards 2 1/2 years ago. It was a very entertaining game (at least for me), and can show a number of good tactical, strategic, and diplomatic aspects of the game to newbies.

I have attached the Realpolitik game file. Unzip it wherever... If you download Realpolitik from http://realpolitik.sourceforge.net/ you can open the file and scroll back and forth in time. The Game Results thread is worth looking at since there were several significant move order errors during the game, though the Realpolitik map is way more interesting. The Game Press thread is quite funny as several of us provided very entertaining posts describing the game action.

Basics

The game ran till Fall 1907 (F07 in short) when the Games Master (GM) had to take an hiatus - there was a certain amount of apathy to continue what would likely be either a very quick total alliance victory or a long end-game slog, so the Eastern alliance of Austria, Russia, and Turkey proposed an alliance victory of the three of us - the ART alliance ("RAT" internally ) which was accepted informally, but never, strictly consumated. At any rate the game ended.

The players were:

Austria - Bogh
England - Rocky Horror
France - Joseph I (currently in the AAR game)
Germany - Clemens Augustus
Italy - Auspend and some other chap I forget at the moment.
Russia - Drakken then State Machine from S02
Turkey - Vermithrax

The players ranged from newbie (Bogh) through pro (Clemens, aka Charles), and varying skill from pathetic (at least in this game - Rocky, sorry...) to varying degrees of good, very good, etc.


The game

There was no proper end of game analysis, so all of the following is my opinion...

In general, the game can be characterized as the very pro German player setting the diplomatic scene early by creating a muddled east, playing England into a foolhardy expansion, and promoting the French to stab the English. Meanwhile, the German crafted a totally brilliant tactical situation where he could stab France, and almost certainly win the game, and very quickly, regardless of what the other powers did. But, I become Russia in 1902 and with Turkey embarked on a series of desperate diplomatic manuevers just to stay alive that evolved into exploiting Italy's greed and then Austria's unhappiness at Germany's non-support when Italy stabbed Austria - the so called "Balken Square Dance". Meanwhile, I brokered a peace between England and France and turned them against Germany. This whole process, while very difficult to achieve, is simply known as "stop the leader". Germany got way ahead and was in a dominating position - the rest of us banded together to stop him.

Timeline:

Spring 01 - I'm guessing that Germany was perfect in his diplomacy with England and France to set the stage for the future. He probably sold Austria on anti-Russia as well. I understand from both Austria and Turkey that Turk diplomatic efforts totally alienated Austria - not a good idea... A Russian/Turk alliance was made which is often enormously powerful, but will not be in this game - at least not in the conventional sense.

Fall 01 - France stages its stab while England commits vs Russia. England is totally alienated vs France - something that will be a big problem in the future.

Winter 01 - Russia makes bone-headed build of a fleet in the north when it was obvious diplomatically that Russia was in trouble and needed to go into total defensive mode and rely on diplomacy to survive. Germany makes anti-English builds.

Spring 02 - Italy, in probable bad faith, works with Turkey. France manuevers vs England. Germany goes full-tilt-boogie vs Russia. England insists on trying to take St.Pete from Russia despite my (Russia) pointing out the obvious problem that his attack will fail and he will lose his sole chance of defending vs France by withdrawing now.

Fall 02 - England, doomed, persists in his folly in Russia. Italy shows his true colors by turning on Turkey (a very good move btw). Germany adds to the show in eviscerating Russia. France, of course, is having a cake-walk vs England...

Spring 03 - Italy does a belated Lepanto, Austria is on the march vs Russia, and England does the most amazingly stupid move by taking Moscow with German support (I bow to the master, Charles, for his brilliant manipulation of England) - Russia is dead. Turkey, btw, is toast. France is very happily embarking on the destruction of England, and Germany has turned his navy toward England as well - probably hoping to grab a piece of the English action. But... Germany does the most perplexing move of an army from Munich to Tyrolea - what the hell, it makes no sense and I brood about it a lot - see Fall 03...

Fall 03 - Now the game changes irrevocably, and I admit being the center of all action. First, I finally figured out the significance of the German move to Tyrolea - it was no premature stab of Austria, or a strange anti-Italian thing, but instead a totally, frigging, brilliant setup to stab France and win the game hands-down within a couple of years - to be sure, by my count, Charles could only guarantee 17SC (supply centers) but surely he would get 18.

Turkey and Russia
Despite my analysis, who the hell cares when my Turk ally and I are going to die before Germany wins anyway? I was likely to go down to 1SC and Turkey may go down to 2SC. Turkey and I had agreed that I would "own" the Austria relationship and he the Italy relationship. Nothing worked, and at the last minute, hoping that Italy was greedy, I "ordered" Turkey and Italy to consider turning on Austria, and gave very convincing (and true) orders that would benefit everyone but me - I knew that Italy, if greedy, would agree, scarf up some Austrian SC's, then totally defeat Turkey afterword. Bingo, deal done, and some unauthordox moves where Turkey and Italy mutually convoy the Italian A Syria away from threatening Turkey vs Austria, and I convoy a Turk army vs Austria.

Germany, the hegemeon
Meanwhile, I demonstrate to England and France what Germany was doing. England responds with he "hates France's guts and will never trust him no matter what", and therefor will not respond to my alledged threat. France agrees with me intellectually, but his heart has a problem with stopping his total conquest over England - fortunately he does agree to take some steps, just in case...

Spring 04 - There are real problems... France has seen that I am right seeing that Germany has stabbed him most cruelly, but England is still a problem. Meanwhile, it is lovely to have turned Italy vs Austria, but nonetheless, we must fight through Austria to get to the hegemon, Germany. Time is a problem, and the number of German builds is a serious issue.

Austria, Russia, and Turkey
Italy in his arrogance (imo), states that the moves we do will guarantee that Austria loses 2SC to him - Turkey will benefit later D). A careful tactical analysis makes the Italian moves obvious. Meanwhile, I had the notion that fighting through Austria to get at Germany was less efficient than simply recruiting Austria to fight Germany directly. I started a negotiation with Austria predicated on convincing him that I (beleagured Russia and really only dealing with the Italian and Turk sharks was expediciency ) - the whole notion was that I knowing everyone's orders (true) that Austria could provide the perfect defense, but my real intent was that I would dupe Austria into disastrous moves and that Turkey could actually be the huge beneficiary of the Austrian swag instead of Italy - the net result would be Italy, basically forced to follow my anti-German agenda, and Austria destroyed - the key point that power would be put to Germany ASAP. But, I realized that the optimal move would be to ally directly with Austria, and take advantage of knowing the move orders to screw Italy big time while simultaneously moving vs Germany - I delicately suggested to Austria that he may hate Turkey's guts, but that Turkey will probably go along with things D), so maybe the turn vs both Italy and Germany would be great - bingo! and the deal is done. Austria moves toward Berlin to ensure that Germany's builds are reduced, and Italy is marginized forever (and even though the Turko-Russ relationship was true, that Turkey would mostly be forever obsessed with Italy...)

Germany, France, and England
France does what it can to defend vs Germany. And continues aggression vs the recalitrant England. England does nothing of any note. Germany stabs England. Now, from my perspective I begged, pleaded, etc. with England to no end - my major point was that Germany had total control of all of the English SC's outside of England proper, and that I bet that Germany would stab in the Fall - wrong! Germany stabs this turn, and in retrospect I see it was the better play by Germany.

Fall 04 All the important action is in the west. England, now seriously sees that Germany is the hegemon that most be stopped. I do not offer tactical advice, but strongly suggest that England and France disengage - and low and behold just that happens - a very nice occasion of enemies mutually convoying antagonistic armies away from each other. Then of course, Austria walked into Berlin , temporarily inconviencing Germany... But, pathetic England has most of its SC in Russia and needs dire help. So, Austria and I support England into Warsaw (mine by any account) as a means to maximize England's position and generally optimize the anti-German situation. Now, this was a very gutsy move, considering my situation (of one SC that I have never defended...) The point of improving England in Russia was to reduce disbandments of the English - the deal was that England would disband their army in Russia yeilding this unusual situation where they owned Moscow and Warsaw but could not defend... As an aside, this was when the original Italy player resigned and we had a two week duration between turns instead of the usual one week - and I posted my Wagnerian post in the Press thread about the long turn...

Spring 05 The beginning of the end of Germany. The tactics are brutal, and I can go on and on, but the essential fact is that with careful movement the RAT alliance will prevail (again very important to realize that this alliance is not focused on a solo win, but in an alliance win...). Please note the Turk move to Sev. Remember, that Sev is my only SC. This is a very carefully calibrated move vs Germany that will work in a general offensive vs Germany in Russia, and later Germany.

Fall 05 - Moscow is free! Albeit in Turk control, but, nontheless things are good.

Spring 06 - the sub for Italy is dedicated to simply and purely defend Italy - alas not very interesting, but easy to expoit. And Turkey and I are both playing Germany diplomatically in terms of a traditional end-game thingy. However as things develop, the Turk has totally played Germany, but nothing of any effect develops. I admit to being part of the deception...

Fall 06 - France is on the counter-offensive, Turkey and I are very carefully advancing in Russia (a note to the wise, if one power (me) has only one SC, then advances must be very, very careful...). Austria and Turkey are advancing in Germany... Wicked cool...

Spring 07 - It can't get any better from my perspective - hell's bell's, I've had the only build in my game, and now I will shortly get another! (3SC! - that rocks) That said, the non-game issues stop the game. But, nonetheless, Austria, Russia, and Turkey are happy with their collective win. France is reluctant in its support, and England and Germany are immaterial...


Conclusions

Well, perhaps none, but this game was a very dynamic game and shows newcomers to Diplomacy how dynamic things can be. Turkey and I were on the ropes, but ultimately were ascendent. Joe (France) was in a great position but reluctantly had to pull back and sacrifice his aspirations for winning due to circumstance. Germany went for a very quick win and almost got a way with it. I as Russia, as a total loser, in a very rare case took my total lack of power and actually parleyed it into success and great power - who would figure...


Edit: bloody hell, I forgot the attachment... sorted

Edit: some grammer and such...

Edit: there are now three demo games going on...

 

[unmerged(9530)]

IMHO, State Machine is being rather modest with regards to his tactical acumen in that game. It is no exaggeration that we were both seriously contemplating our doom over the course of several turns and merely trying to survive as long as possible. Prior to SM's entry as a substitute, Drakken and I were going for the traditional "Juggernaut" and I was sure I had secured Italy's compliance in the dismemberment of Austria (Doh!).

In any event, SM masterminded the most audacious double-stab I have ever seen, first inducing Italy to stab Austria (with our help) then quickly turning an about face and coercing Austria to stab Italy (with our help). At the time, I can remember thinking "This guy's nuts!" and was utterly amazed that the plan worked both times!!! After that, he had my undivided loyalty to the bitter end. I mean, how can you afford not to have someone like that on your side? I can also recall refusing to allow him to suicide on several occasions even after he presented well-reasoned arguments as to why it would be to my ultimate advantage. "No way, buddy! You're in this 'til the end. I can't afford NOT to have you around..."

Anyway, it was indeed a fantastic game and well-played overall, in spite of the real-life conflicts (people dropping out, etc.) and newbies should definitely check out the file. It just goes to show that no matter how grim things might look, you can always pull a victory (of sorts) out of your posterior.

 

[Josephus I]

Heh. Talk about nostalgia.

That was a great game. Germany (Charles) did get royally gang-banged in the end. He is good with press too. I wish I still had the mail he sent, where after he stabbed me (France) he used the metaphor of a man and a woman who break up; but sometimes the man realizes how much he loves the woman and decides to get back to her. We carried on this metaphor for a while. I think Charles realized he might need to make peace with me to deal with the new threat from the east.

My negotiations with Rocky (England) to make peace were a hoot as well.

In the end, State Machine was the key player of the end game. Where Charles dominated the diplomacy of the first few turns...getting me to attack England and at the same time getting England to attack Russia, pledging loyalty to both at the same time; State Machine dominated the latter half; co-ordinating a strong anti-German diplomatic manoeuvre. He talks about RAT...we also, in the end, had FART....

 

[State Machine]

Phpht...

I was just the right guy at the right time. To be sure my actions were very significant, but...

An interesting aspect of the game Diplomacy is that political power is everything. Usually when you don't have military power, you don't have political power. However, when the planets align, a totally weak miliary power (Russia in this game) can have enormous political power. Specifically, entering the game as a doomed country with a doomed ally (Turkey), there was no reason not to roll the dice and play totally over-the-top at all times, and that is what I did, and to great success. But is was a one-off.

But I do really appreciate the praise of my two great friends from that game (and absent Bogh, my Austrian friend ).

Anyway, an entirely different story can be told from the 3rd Diplomacy game on this board (the 2nd never really started iirc). I may post an analysis of that tonight if it doesn't get too late.

 

[State Machine]

EU Diplo Challange 3

Another game for intro to Diplomacy for newbies is the third game played on the board (the 2nd fell apart early...). Btw, these two games are the only games I've played for over 20 years, but I was very active in my early years, and had good "learnin" This game is even more interesting for newbies since it had two newbies - one without a clue (Diplo wise) and one who was a very good game player, made some very inciteful conclusions, made both prescient moves and dunderhead moves, and had read too much into strategy information available on the web - in other words a very promissing candidate, but a newbie.

Basics

The game ran till Fall 1912 when the "losers" ceased to participate, and the "winners" did as well. The GM was also not very engaged at that point. At any rate, the winner was obvious. The game was adjudicated through the DPJudge system, and I don't remember all of the players, but what I remember:

Austria - Erc
England - Josephus I
France - Napoleon IX
Germany - Vermithrax
Italy - yours truely, State Machine
Russia - Mike somebody was his real name - I forget his nick
Turkey - Berkut

Russia and Turkey were total newbies. The rest of us were not. England, Germany, and Italy had played in the original game on this board, generally as allies.


The game

Again, no end of game analysis amongst the players. And, more than in the first game, this analysis is Italy (me) centric... In general the game started along the lines of the 1st game but morphed a lot. Germany (Turkey in the 1st game) seemed to want to play the same game as Germany in the 1st game - namely to ally with Austria and then work out some kind of arrangement where he "allied" with both France and England, but was really choosing between the two of them to his nefarious ends, while ensuring that the Balkens would be hopelessly muddled... However, in the west, it seems that England and France refused to make a commitment - this resulted in an excrutiating cold war where there was no 2-1 or tripartate arrangement in the west. Meanwhile in the east, "dunderhead" German diplomacy (sorry Steve (Vermithrax)) drove Italy, Russia, and Turkey into each others arms - let's kill Austria. However there was a subtext where I made the same deal with Russia and Turkey (both newbies) and intended to go with whichever one of them seemed the most sensible as a player - my preference being Russia (and another subtext being that England-Russia-Italy being a very good long-term combination). Well, I could go on and on, but ultimately the game dynamic was an English-German-Italian alliance vs France, and an Italian-Turkish alliance, and a Russo-Turkish relationship that would be best characterised as Russia as a Turkish puppet. A lot of very complex negotiation occurred, but the ultimate moment was in F04 (or F05?) where I stabbed England, and Turkey simultaneously stabbed me - I vowed total loyalty to England under the circumstances and threw all my effort to defending myself vs Turkey - enabling a very dominent England, who won by all accounts, even though it was never formalized.

Timeline:

Spring 1901 - as mentioned, German diplomacy created sure doom for Austria and allowed me total negotiation freedom. And as mentioned, the western half of the board was in paralysis. I did want to go against France very badly since it would be a lovely change of pace from normal Italian game play, but with no commitment from Germany, c'est la vie... Anyway, Austria got jumped.

Fall - 1901 - the cold war continues in the west. Russia tries to intrigue with our (soon to be dead, haha) Austrian buddy. I figure no harm could come of it and if it worked I'd get Russia in my hands and Turkey would be doomed and I'd make sure Austria didn't grow much. Meanwhile, however, it is obvious that Turkey has great player potential and I'd like to work with him. At the last instant I realized that if the Russian/Austrian intrigue worked I could be in trouble, so I change my orders in attacking Austria. Stupid, stupid, stupid... So 1901 ends with paralysis in the west and all alliances off in the east. The simple story is greed - when most players are playing very, very much for their own long term interests, you can get paralysis.

More personally, I'm getting blasted by Turkey for our alliance not even lasting "two damn turns", and my very long running, in character, negotiation with Germany continues to go nowhere. Though it did include two hilarious moments when I told Germany that "I felt like the dark, homely girl in the corner while he danced with the dazzling Austrian blond" - this in regards to his obsession that Austria is an essential part of the world view he was promoting. He went on and on about an AIG alliance and called his world view the "Central Power Doctrine". I saw this as a vehicle for Germany to win after he has used up all the muscle in his allies. Our negotiation got fairly heated, and I wrote him a very angry letter dismissing all his non-issues (to me) and told him to put up or shut up, and included a wonderful joke to soften the message - "and I don't ever want to hear about the Corner Pocket Doctrine again ". Hehe, that flushed him out of character before me so I got a moral victory.

In addition, my Turk negotiations were a nightmare. The whole point of an IT alliance is that Italy goes west while Turkey goes north. If both parties are faithful (as I intended to be), it is a very, very good alliance. I know most people consider it an insane alliance because the Med aint big enough for Italy and Turkey, but if you look at in action when successfull it is not just strong, but is actually one of the more stable alliances you can have. Like the way the Russo-Turk alliance ended up unorthodox in the first game, so did the Italo-Turk alliance in this game. Firstly, it was actually a secret alliance. The secret was easy to keep since Turkey and I were often at war with each other! However, these were little border skirmishs that were a continuation of negotiation. Turkey won't give me Greece - OK, then I'll stall him by supporting Austria. Morever, the Turk and I actually agreed on the sham war that started in Fall 1902. I, because I didn't want Turkey to grow anyway. OK maybe I wasn't going to be that faithful to the alliance... Turkey because he liked the idea of masking intents until the right moment when he explosively grows. One last aspect to the Turk situation is that the bastard just grabbed Greece in 1901. One thing I defintely learned from this incarnation of an IT alliance is that Greece must be in Italian hands, otherwise Turkey can dominate the Italian. I didn't push the issue enough and should have. It came back to haunt me.

Spring 1902 - I finally convince Germay to join England and I vs France. I made a mostly true analysis that France was pursuing the Mediterrean (which would be the end of Italy), so that France and England must be allied because France doesn't ally with Germany with only one fleet available for operations against England. The French builds then nixed that analysis, but I had got Germany's paranoia engine running. I believe I also implied I had a very good relationship with France, which certainly neither England or Germany had (nor did I, hehe). Germany accidently sent a move analysis of operations against France to England, and then I figured he decided he might as well go vs France. It helped that I was whispering sweet nothings in Austria's ear for show at the time. So, France gets jumped by three countries. My fleet move was actually part very risky defense, and part opportunistic offense. In the east Russia goes off on his Scandinavian obsession, and Turkey and I jump Austria, who disasterously NMR'ed (no move received). This was a disaster for me as well since it (as realized later) gave Turkey dreams of grandour. And necessitated the faux war.

Fall 1902 - things go nicely vs France in the West. Russia is in trouble in Scandinavia. I side with Austria without telling Turkey which upset him, needless to say. However, I figured I could talk him back, and if I don't I figure he'll be kept busy in the Balkens for a long time... I did sow the seeds that "Turkey" will grow too quickly in his mind which soften things a bit when I continued to not cooporate with him in 1903... Gee, when I look back this is certainly one weird alliance.

Spring 1903 - the "bad turn" in the West. France counter-attacks very well and I slip into Marsailles. Ergm, being unfaithful to my allies in this game is actually something I intended to do since I was going to play hyper-aggressive. I wouldn't normally suggest this kind of behavior - you may find it very hard to ever be trusted. Believe me, it was just part of my game plan. What I did was bargain a walk into Marsailles for the attack plan. Hehe... I told France I just wanted Iberia and would then support him after I got it. Oh, I suggested that Russia move into the Baltic as that would be Germany's worst nightmare! Bad, SM, bad. But, can't be having Germay too strong, after all...

In the east, oops, I supported Austria again. Turkey is enraged, but a long, interesting negotiation follows where I cave in the end and agree that the alliance will operate at full efficiency for the rest of the game. My desire for Greece must have been deferred by Turkey until after Vienna fell. Oh, part of the amusing bits with negotiating with Turkey was that he was obviously a very good game player, and had read everything he could about Turk play on the internet. He must not of read about Italy, though, since he considered my occupation of the Ionian as evidence that I fully intend to stab him. An Italy that doesn't occupy the Ionian is dead, plain and simple. This and other issues were finally put to rest after this move and he could feel "confident" with me. Not confident enough it seems, but that is later.

Fall 1903 - France is getting in trouble. Russia is getting in trouble. And I, gulp, am actually faithful to my Turk ally for the 2nd turn of the six played so far...

Back to the Turkish situation. Again for IT to work Turkey must fight against Russia. Turkey, being a newbie, did not understand that Diplomacy is not a game against countries. It is a game against everybody where alliances are for short (or long) term mutual interest. Turkey viewed our alliance through the spectrum of war vs Austria, then later Russia. Since Russia was effectively Turkey's puppet, then why fight him, he's already got him. In diplomacy this is a ticket (in this specific case) for Turkey perhaps only getting Sevastopol if AEG alliance ends up taking the rest. The point was that Turkey needed to grab Russian stuff early so he could get more of it quickly, and he definitely needed to get StPete to break that end of the stalemate line - hence he should promote my campaign to get into the Atlantic and cause England discomfort, instead of causing issues in Austria and forcing me to hold back strength from campaigns in the West. I argued fruitlessly throughout the alliance lifetime on this. However, this mindset was useful. Turkey not attacking Russia made Russia stronger which distracted Germany which was good for me. So I lived with it. It also allowed me to posture remorslessly to England and Germany about my paranoia of Turkey - this allowed me to be perceived as less of a threat post-France...

Spring 1904 - France is being disembowled and Italy is in heaven as I get to move into the Atlantic and have it all make sense to England. I am past a major stalemate line. Russia is getting the crap knocked out of him, and I support Turkey again. Turkey actually starts moving toward Russia!

Fall 1904 - France continues to collapse, though I extend him a lifeline by allowing him to keep Marsailles for a bit - I thought France might be useful at some future time. England stabs Germany by helping Russia and taking Paris under a false deal (that Germany will get Belgium later). Russia continues to collapse elsewhere, but vexingly not by Turkish arms. Austria proper is now destroyed as I take Vienna with Turk help. An Austrian expeditionary army is in Moscow, now though, and it is only 1/2 way through what will be a long trip.

Spring 1905 - I have been playing a very delicate game with England. If I move in force into a stab position, he and Germany will solidify and all my planning will be for naught. So, I've carefully kept my second fleet in seemingly safe waters off the coast of Marsailles - which conveniently allows me to blackmail France who I had originally had had him move east to perhaps use him vs Turkey if needed. He now countermarchs toward home - I forget whether that was of my doing or not - I suspect so - that I would use him to make up for my small numbers in the eventual stab of England. I craftily have a plausible reason for moving my Iberian army into Gascony so that it would be in better position for my helping against Germany. Not much else going in the West, but Russia is counter attacking well and still no attack from Turkey. Damn him! And Turkey makes a move sequence that should have worried me a lot, but apparently didn't... Fool!

Fall 1905 - Two stabs, two disasters. Turkey says all the right words, including that he will finally attack Russia, and swap Greece for Vienna! Despite the weird moves of the prior turn, I was confident that Turkey would realize that he shouldn't stab me until after I'm totally committed vs England. And only if the stab made any damn sense - I thought to have cajoled Turkey enough into realizing we both had to be successful strategically before either of us thought of stabbing the other. Our moment of strategic success was at least a couple of years in the future. Meanwhile, I had been planning my stab of England for some time, and had figured out how to do it with minimal force. It would be a year of manuever before actually getting any gains, but I would be in an absolutely dominating position. And my German partner in this operation would always be submissive because of his war with Russia, not to mention having been weakened by the English stab, and having to worry about the Ottomans on the march to his south. Hehe, basically his job was to help me hurt England, and then both he and England go down at the same time...

So I stab England while Turkey stabs me. It is a disaster for me since my stab of England was my shot at winning the game solo - I had either manipulated events or used them to set up a perfect situation where I would be very dominent and have a decent shot at winning straight out. Now, even if I recover, I won't ever be in a dominent situation again. And Turkey committed suicide. Any sane analysis would be that I would defend against him. Part of it was his lack of experience - he didn't understand that Turkey is in a great position to project force in Austria compared to Italy. But the reverse is true in Italy - Italy has all the advantanges while Turkey has a lot of trouble. What Turkey did was guarantee that he would spend many, many years against a very, very hard defense - he may win, he may lose, but meanwhile England will walk away with the game. I explained it afterwards, and he still didn't get it. Moreover, another newbie mistake, he was too focused on what SC's he needed for an outright win - he thought that Vienna and Trieste had to be his so he figured he may as well take them now, and our alliance will continue on its happy way. Scream! I pointed out the simple notion of how does he intend to get the other 10SC's he needs by stabbing his ally, which also forces me to either disband units causing my English campaign to fail, or causing my homeland to be empty and forcing me to be a vassal of his. He still doesn't understand why I would want to throw the game to England - it's simple, I understand what England is doing and that I will be his lieutenant - I don't understand what Turkey is doing and I will be his vassal - I'll choose the former. Oh, I had already apologized to England and told him I would be defending my homeland which will tie down Turkey forever and give him the win, so the stabbie was pretty happy about the whole situation... Hehe, and on top of everything else, Turkey botched his attack so I had a retreat to Budapest.

Spring 1906 - I summon my fleets home, and faithfully support England back into Paris (having just supported Germany in the prior turn). On the other hand, the Turk has his fleet at full sail, but little Budapest keeps him occupied. Btw, I had taught Turkey a fair amount of tactics (it is quite complex in Diplomacy), but apparently the boy sometimes would make bonehead moves. Bummer, if I thought he would make a bad move like he did this turn, I could have grabbed a couple of SC's and turned the tables on him. I probably would have done a slow grind on him, and used my excess units vs Germany which would have made me a peer of England's, and an interesting end-game may have resulted. Meanwhile, Germany is in desperate straights, but Russia is not exploiting things.

Btw the whole story of Russia is that he quickly found the game not to be his cup of tea - I think he expected a more contemplative game - instead he got 7 player chess played by crackheads (a good description of Diplomacy imo). But he felt obligated to play. He simply wanted to own his country and the countries generally considered in the Russia sphere of influence - so he played that way, often listening to Turkey or I for move advice, but not necessarily taking the advice.

Oh, the other players in the game strongly questioned my retreat off board when Budapest fell. I could have done some bad things with that army to Turkey if I had retreated, but they wouldn't be guaranteed. However, I could set up an almost impregnable defense if I rebuilt the unit in the next winter - I went for the sure thing.

Fall 1906 - Slow going vs Germany, but France slips into Munich to keep alive. Hehe, Germany tells me he had actually invited France in, but France declined - and then went ahead and did it, prompting Germany's question, "is it a stab if you had invited the guy in?" Germany and I did try one last diplo blitz with Russia that failed like all the others before. Germany, does announce a unilateral withdrawal, though. Turkey makes an excellent uptempo attack getting a foot hold in Apulia, but blows his attack in the north and I slip into Vienna. For newbies, my fleet work in the last couple of turns was essential to setup the blocking move I did this turn. The Austrian expeditionary army finally was run to ground in Norway and had to disband. A pity, I had hoped that there would have been someway to convoy the chap all the way from Norway to Albania and get Austria back into the fight for his homeland...

Spring 1907 - Uh, oh. Russia seems invigorated and moves vs Germany, who meantime has become a vassal of England. I withdraw from Vienna to redoubts in Tyrlolea - much better for my defense, and I'm hoping to get France into Vienna. Turkey makes a good move into Venice but I'll get it back...

Fall 1907 - Venice back in my hands easily, but Turkey does the most foul thing by supporting one of my units in the self bounce defense of Naples. Bastard! I had carefuly setup the situation so I could cash my pending build in Naples and even up the fleet situation. This is a very clever and legal move. Personally, I'm not fond of such shenanigens (at least when they hurt me...). France walks unmolested into Vienna to live another year. England starts a flanking move on Russia.

Spring 1908 - I ask England for one of his extra fleets because of the unforunate move of last turn, and I ask Germany for an army in Tyrolea - which is useful to resolve the traffic jam of English armies - a very delicate matter to have them move through Munich, only on Spring turns. I cede Venice again since I can't defend it, but I'll get it back easy enough in another year. England establishes an army in StPete and the handwriting is on the wall for Russia.

Btw, the tactical situation in Italy is utterly fascinating - I strongly recommend studying it as a learning exercise. All my moves were calibrated very finely and all possibilities accounted for. Usually struggles like this are a bit of rock, paper, scissors. You can't defend everything so you hope you won't get hit by a lucky attack, but you account for the consequences when planning your move. As I recall, it was going to be virtually impossible for Turkey to make headway. I remember that Turkey needed to concentrate on the fleets first and forget about Venice - he may have forced me into a losing position, and then I'd have to retreat to the Marsailles-Tunis stalemate line (I would have 4 non-Italy SC, 3 fleets and one army).

Fall 1908 - Not much going on, England marshalling forces and Russia withdrawing to defend the homeland. At this point, I believe France declares himself a vassal of Turkey.

Spring 1909 - Ok, the English have arrived and it is time for me to go on the offensive. I grap Apulia back. Elsewhere, lots of manuever, little action, but now England has flanked Russia in the south.

Fall 1909 - I grab Venice back and shuffle my fleets opening Naples for another fleet build. Russia is falling apart, and Turkey makes an emergency sortie north - probably too late to set up a stalemate line (is Sev-Tri a stalemate line? combined with rejigging his fleets?) at any rate, too late.

Btw, I left Naples open - a no brainer, if he takes it I take it back the next year and he has a fleet destroyed, meaning any rejigging of his fleet defense might be harder (or easier and he should of done it? I forget).

Spring 1910 - Well, sheer numbers and position are all against Russia and Turkey...

Fall 1910 - And so on...

Spring 1911 - Russia and Turkey simply order their troops to hold. Some of them are slaughtered.

Fall 1911 - the rest of us do the same other than some perfecting of the lines.

Spring 1912 - everyone builds, but most everyone holds their ground. England does knock Russia out of the game (effectively). I do believe it is because we were all peeved at him for not really playing so didn't want him to be standing when the game ended. Which is now - we all quit. Between Germany, England, and myself we considered this a pure English victory. He would have 14SC by end of year, but I would have invited him into Iberia and he could easily take out Germany.

To be sure, this is not necessarily the way to play things out, but the dynamics were weird. There were moments during my defense vs Turkey that I considered a truce with him, and then there would have been a fierce end-game. But, it was quite misty, and would have been hard to pull off - the idea would have been to suddenly move everything I could west, and Turkey and I would contain/trap the English fleet somehow. Germany to turn on England, as well. But with Russia not playing "normal", the end-game would have been weird, and I think I would still be weaker than Turkey. And, I definitely wanted Turkey to learn from his mistake. Stabbing is a very delicate thing and must be thought through very thoroughly - he naively felt that we would kiss and make up. And note that England and I did kiss and make up. It made sense for England and I, but not for Turkey and I.

Conclusions

The obvious one is that less experienced players arn't going to do as well versus more experienced. This is in no way pre-ordained in terms of success since every game of Diplomacy is a crap shoot. Turkey was very strong for example, and showed a lot of acumen, but just didn't have the right mind-set. An irony is that if Russia had been experienced, Turkey may have learned quicker, and played a "better" game (that is technique-wise). Turkey didn't really play a diplomatic game. Of course the flip is true as well - experienced players need to understand what culture-shock there is for a newbie. I thought I was doing a pretty good job with Turkey, but obviously not enough. It is hard to convey the notion of "Diplomacy-think".

The first game on this board was a stop-the-leader game. This game was three sharks playing for the end game from the beginning - combine that with a disengaged Russia, and two guys that got jumped early, and the intriguing Turkey and you get a pretty weird game. The game did offer up a really good extended battle for the Italian penninsula, lots of brinksmanship diplomacy (though that is hidden in correspondence), some clever moves (Austria's initial foray into Russia), perigrinating one SC countries (France and Austria), vassal countries...

About vassals - vassaldom is a state of mind - a player in a very disadvantaged position "swears feality" to either his oppressor or a savior - I think it's fairly rare for a vassal to later revolt (though Germany did do some plotting. Or more accurately I did the plotting but nothing came of it). Sometimes vassalship is compelled (the so-called Jannisary), but the vassal has to agree to act as a vassal. Since I wasn't under direct threat by England my arrangement wasn't of a vassal, however England controlled my fate - he could always of just taken my western possessions, but he never would do that since I was doing him the enormous favor of neutering the only other power in the game. Closely related is the notion of the puppet. A puppet, by my definition, is somebody that could control their destiny, but instead allow it to be controlled by a master. I don't think anyone likes puppets unless, of course, they are the master. Hence, ultimately a low view of Russia and the probable reason why he was knocked out at the end even though there was an undeclared ceasefire.

This game also had one player (at least) that played totally amorally - me. And, ironically I was enormously faithfull later. Go figure! There are lots of playing styles - varying them is a good idea. The more naughty play like I did in this game is not a good idea to use very often - getting a reputation is bad news. I did it because it's the first game I've started in over 20 years and wanted to have a blast...

Edit: added the Realpolitik game file as an attachment...

Edit: spelling, grammer, you name it...

 

[unmerged(9530)]

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

"The Corner Pocket Doctrine"

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Oh my... I had forgotten that one. That really did knock me out of my chair when I first read it.

Good analysis, as best I can recall. Having not done very well in that game, I probably suppressed a good deal of the game-related memories. My plans in the West might have gone a bit smoother had Joe (England) not already gone through the same ringer as France in the first game. And it wasn't that I really planned to recreate the outstanding job Germany did in our first game, it is simply that as Germany I always find myself in a bit of a dilemma as to choosong between England and France. Too hard to get to England, but France's SC's (not to mention the Low Countries and Scandinavia) become multiple points of friction when allying with England (as happened to some extent in this game). Best to play them off against each other and jump the loser - which usually results in the two of them jumping Germany. Hence the desirability of a stable set of allies on my flanks (Austria especially). And after SM's performance in the first game, how could I afford not to bring him in? It was either that or watch him devour Austria. No good.

So, I ranted and raved and ranted some more, cajoled and pleaded and begged... Nada. By then, ganging up on France looked like my only feasible move, so I went with it. Leave the East to its own devices. I dimly recall a quote from Bismarck about the uselessness of intervening in the Balkans and I believe the old boy knew what he was talking about.

The rest is very clearly described above, so no need to reiterate it. I'll only add that I sent numerous requests to Turkey to attack Russia (for my own sake, not Italy's) and they were politely declined every time. Ironically, I may have even discouraged Turkey from moving against Russia, simply by being overbearing about it. What can I say, my situation was deteriorating rapidly.

In the end, I felt grateful to still have a country, vassalage or not. England could have easily destroyed me several times, but refrained. Was it pity, or simply to keep me as a buffer against the others? Either way, I survived, and counted that as a small victory in itself.

 

[David E. Cohen]

I figured that since there are a lot of Diplo newbies about, and there are three demonstration games going on, but developments in them will take some time - that I would publish the results of the first Diplo game played on these boards 2 1/2 years ago. It was a very entertaining game (at least for me), and can show a number of good tactical, strategic, and diplomatic aspects of the game to newbies.

Since there is now a Diplomacy forum, could the thread(s) related to the game be moved here?

 

[State Machine]

Since there is now a Diplomacy forum, could the thread(s) related to the game be moved here?

The first game had two threads relating to it - there are links in the first post. The other game I report didn't really have a thread other than folk discussing doing another game and Clemens Augustus (Charles) volunteering to GM - the game was a DPJudge game and there wasn't any game commentary. The judge game name was "marne"...

There are quite a few other threads in the OT forum where diplomacy was the subject (I assume), however they are old discussions and probably of little interest now. I could post some links if you were interested. I suspect you couldn't find them - I think only those of us with mighty, modly powers can do searches... Though I could be wrong. And even then, the search index only goes back a year and half, I believe.

 

[Estonianzulu]

Search function goes back to the very begining.

 

[State Machine]

...

And after SM's performance in the first game, how could I afford not to bring him in?

...

phphht... Our mutual way of achieving a new world order happened to correspond for a bit (minus Austria, of course) hence the very intense, brinksmanship negotiation. I've found the correspondence. Some snippits:


Italy to Germany

On the other hand, it is interesting to note that if Russia and I
conquer Austria there is virtually no change in the strategic vision
you have shared with me. In fact, simply substitute "Italy" for
"Austria" and things line up quite nicely. And one stress in that
vision (Austria and I) has been removed, which should be a relief to
you. And, of course, with success on my part, the other stress (France)
might be removed earlier than expected. All in all, quite good, I think.

Germany to Italy

It would appear that you misread my missive on "Central vs Outer Ring
Powers". I CLEARLY indicated that what I was after was a THREE member
alliance, Italy included. There is no "substitute Italy for Austria",
because there would be no NEED for a "substitution"!

Note, I recall the Central vs Outer Ring Powers missive as some arcane (and lengthy!) corallary to the Central Power Doctrine.

Italy to Germany

I would not say your plan did not meet with my approval. But, I rather
felt the homely dark girl in the corner while you waltzed with the
dazzling Austrian blonde.

Germany to Italy

I just left the Kaiser's audience
chamber and I can still hear the echoes of his laughter.

Well, I'll refrain from launching into a dissertation on the dubious
complexities of Habsburg genetics ("dazzling blonde" indeed!) in an
effort to accomplish something here.

Italy to Germany

I can assure you that my King was as amused at your missive as you
report the Kaiser being to mine. I got quite a chuckle myself. However,
the King bade me to cut the humor and "show some steel". I think that
would be improvident at this time, and I certainly want you to be a
willing rather than a reluctant partner in our future endeavors.

Italy to Germany

Excellency,

Ah, so we are horse-trading are we? And it seems I have already
conceded you Austria, and now you ask for more. Let me assure you that
I am not horse-trading.

Germany to Italy

So noted.

...

P.S. Get stuffed. -SvD

Italy to Germany

You made your point about Austria long ago. Like you, I do not like
being cajoled or bullied. Please drop the Austria subject unless you
have something productive to say - I will or will not work with him.
This is my affair in a region where my life is on the line, unlike you
who presumably has worries about England and France (though your
letters seem to indicate that Russia is your greatest threat, by far).

You seem to want to ally against France, but add unreasonable and absurd
preconditions to my behavior. If you do not want to ally against
France, just say so.

I've been no angel in this negotiation, and I apologize. Let's move on
and speak of tangible things in a productive way without all the
sideshow effects. I am interested in an anti-France alliance. The only
way I can be a significant player in that alliance is if I am sucessful
in the Balkens. I am not interested in Sweden or Munich, or England or
Russia. I certainly am not interested in hearing another rendition of
the Corner Pocket Doctrine, or whatever it is.

To repeat what the major interests of Italy are - the Balkens and the
western Mediterranean. Everything else might be of interest to us, but
are not critical. I hope I convey this message in what you call, "a new
attitude of bilateralism", as that is my intent.

At which point our relationship improved since the anti-France thing was "on".

 

[Estonianzulu]

So noted.

...

P.S. Get stuffed. -SvD

Ah, classical diplomatic talk right there

I have a question for all diplo players here. Do you regularly not finish games or do you usualy play till the end?

 

[unmerged(9530)]

I have a question for all diplo players here. Do you regularly not finish games or do you usualy play till the end?

Well, there are times when the game develops to a point where everyone can see "the writing on the wall", so to speak, and see no point in continuing the game. In other words, it becomes apparent that either a certain player will inevitably win, or else a stalemate will develop that simply cannot be broken. Also, bear in mind that the two games discussed here were both Play-by-email with a rate of one turn per week (plus additional delays for real life concerns, etc.) so that they literally went on for months. It is one thing to play out a face-to-face game to the bitter end over the course of hours. It is quite another when the game will last for months.

So I guess the short answer to your question would be: "It depends."

 

[State Machine]

So I guess the short answer to your question would be: "It depends."

In my long computer biz career, I've found that it is a really good question when the answer is "it depends".

I'll add my personal experience, and repeat everything Vermithrax said. Face-to-face (ftf) games, by necessity, are rarely played to a conclusion since it just takes too much time. Hence you get "alliance wins" or "OK, France was in the best situation - he wins". Similarly in ftf tournements, in my experience, to add uncertainty, but handle time constraints, the rules would usually be that the winner is the country with the most SC after the GM closes the game randomly within the time frame of 1907-1911 (iirc).

Now, my experience is very dated. I played extensively in the 1970's, mostly ftf. I did play a handful of PBM (snail mail), but resigned from them due to RL constraints. I've then played the two PBEM games I report on in this thread in the last 2-3 years. I understand that PBEM is much more likely to be played to the end since time is less of a constraint (though Vermithrax describes the constraints of PBEM).

Btw, I'm getting the itch - anyone else up for another game? Don't flood this thread, but create a new thread if interested. In theory, this thread is an effort to show newcomers what Diplomacy is all about without having to wait for the move by move pace of the current games.