Bump

Bump (good game to all, please don’t have hard feelings when I Solo)

The Moderating team has decided to something a little different with this School of War. We have decided that in order to incentivise students remain engaged in the game and putting as much effort in as possible, we will offer point rewards to the winners of the Study Group. A pot of 300 will be offered for this game. At the end of the game, those 300 points will be distributed to each according to DSS, the same scoring system in the game. Thus, in the event of a solo, soloing player would receive an extra 300 . In the event of a 4 way draw, each drawing player would receive an extra 75 .

Just give me the 300 now and call it a day. ;)

Bump(easy please)

Bump (for the star)
Thanks PF for organizing this, and thanks to our professors for your comments and feedback.
Good game to all. (And I'll have no hard feelings IF you solo CB)

Oh, this is going to be fun!

Hello everyone! Looks like a good group and I hope everyone enters this game with the desire to put a strong effort in, and a desire to learn. I’ve participated in the SoW in the past, but only as a TA (and as a player when we did 5 students and 2 vets in a game) –this will be my first round as a professor, and I’m hoping that I can provide some tips or insight that might prove helpful for you. I agreed to be a professor this go around when PF contacted me because I think I view the game from a different lens than some people and as such my commentary may be a bit different. I tend to follow the commentary each SoW and I truly believe it has benefited my play, particularly around my tactics. I view the game as having three distinct spheres – tactics, strategy, and communication. To get to the top, you have to have to be skilled in all three.

Tactics is the actually movement choices you make for yourself and your allies. You rely on press and strategy to work with other players and find the direction you want to go. Tactics are what you use to most effectively achieve your goal. This is the area I am weakest in (You must admit your weaknesses in Dip so you can mitigate them!) and what I’ve learned the most from in SoW. In past commentary many profs focus on grading moves and tactics each phase. I will continue to do so, but will focus much of my commentary on the other two areas because a) I’m not a strong tactical player and b) I find the other two to be the most important in full press games. Tactics becomes more important as the game progresses and is very important in terms of pushing you over into solo territory, so the conversation will become more about tactics particularly in the late stages.

Strategy is big picture stuff. It’s all about who you should ally with and why you should ally with them. It’s about understanding how you should influence the rest of the board. For example, in 1902 if you are France you should already have a good idea how you want things to shake out between RUS and AUS. It’s about understanding how you slow down countries so that you can take advantage in the mid game. Strategy should always revolve around one of two things. 1) How to get to 18 - You must have the foresight to know what it takes to get to 18 and should be influencing the rest of the board to make sure those centers will not be stalemated before you can get to them , or 2) if you are in distress, how can I remain useful enough to survive. NEVER, EVER give up on a game. I think the biggest reason I am a top 20 player in GR is because I get into draws that many folks would have given up on. So long as you remain useful, you remain alive. And who you remain useful to can always change. As I grade after each phase, I will use these two criteria as the measuring stick. Are you creating a path to 18 and are you doing what it takes to stay relevant?

Communication is the key to the game of course, but it makes the biggest impact early on. To me the key to press is all about tone. You should always be polite, but after that tone can vary quite a bit between great players – the key is for your strategy to match your tone, and for your tone to match the people you are playing with. You want people to like you. Socrates Dissatisfied comes across as a very “down to business” player to me when we play, but his messages are typically warm, never angry or short, and very clear. He has a firm grasp on strategy and tactics, and uses his press to clearly and directly spell out what he wants and what we both have to gain by doing as he suggests. DemonOverlord by contrast is probably the most laid back top player I’ve played against – informal press, shorter messages, talking about non-diplomacy related things etc. It’s just as effective because the key is people want to play(ally) with people they enjoy playing with. It seems like such an obvious thing to say, but it’s the thing most people continually miss. When I stab someone and they send a warm reasoned message afterwards, with a suggestion of a different route, I both listen to them, and want to work with them. My play is very much based on my press – I try to be very likeable, pretty informal and talkative. That allows me to stab often – which I do, and not have the board turn against me. I’m not saying that is the correct way to play, but I do feel likeability is the most important part of your press (even more so than clarity, but I’m open to having that debate).

As far as openings go, I honestly don’t think there is a wrong way to open in Diplomacy. Some ways are easier or safer than others, but press should dictate your decisions early, not tactics imo. I rarely open the most popular way, and it hasn’t held back my success. The key to me is that regardless of whether you are doing something unconventional (YES! I love unconventional openings) or something run of the mill – you want to pick a direction. Passive play early makes you a target. Suggest a route and go that route. Leaders are few and far between early in Dip games. Weaker players look for someone to latch on to. If there is a weak ENG for example, he/she will respond much more favorably to GER suggested a strong blitz of France compared to a FRA that suggests a bounce in the channel and to see what the board looks like before we discuss who gets BEL. PLAYERS CRAVE DIRECTION EARLY ON BECAUSE THEY DON'T WANT TO BE THE ODD MAN OUT. For example, ENG worries that FRA and GER are going to move against him. If he/she gets a message from GER suggested a strong blitz of FRA, they will often latch on to this plan just because it means they are not in the crosshairs (They are playing to survive year one, and are willing to follow someone to do so).

I encourage everyone spectating and following the thread to ask questions. That is probably the easiest way to learn from this, because while Stackel and I will comment on the game, there is only so much we can glean without knowing the press. The most useful SOWs are the ones were folks following the game ask questions – often it relates to a situation in the game, but sometimes it just reminds them of a situation they have encountered previously.

More to come as we begin! Good luck everyone.

An excellent post, Tom. It spells out most of this what I (sub)consciously sense about the game myself, in a very coherent and convincing way! I'm certainly going to be following your commentary!

A good lecture, Professor. I'm eager to see more as this continues.

Game progressed to Diplomacy, Spring, 1901

Not yet..

The game has started! Good luck to the players, and thanks to the Profs for helping this run!

Excellent. Good luck all. Remember to be aggressive. Passive players finish last.

Post 1

Hi folks. It’s going to be an exciting game and I hope I’m going to be able to offer interesting commentary for players and spectators alike. I know everyone who loves playing diplomacy usually also loves talking about diplomacy, so I encourage spectators not in the game to keep the discussion going after the Professor’s posts.

Tom’s first lecture above, and some of the profs in the regular SoW game, have highlighted that playing diplomacy requires you to combine three skills: diplomacy, tactics, and strategy. I’m going to talk a little bit about strategy and diplomacy in this post, to see if I can get a good discussion started in this thread by offering my perspective. We'll get to tactics in my next post - I'm a firm believer that there is no single best opening move and that your diplomacy and strategy should be determining your opening.

So, first, strategy is, loosely speaking, about having a plan to keep growing and eventually get to 18. At the start of the game, you want to see which country you’ve drawn and think about what your most likely collection of 18 SCs is. Think not only about how your own alliances help you grow, but about how the other alliances on the board are setting up the stage for your next conflict - does that map leave those 18 SCs you think can take on the table?

And then, of course, what immediate and intermediate steps does your strategy require? For most players, at the start of the game, it involves finding an ally and selecting a target, but that is a relatively flexible goal and you'll need to supply yourself with a new goal before you achieve it. You should have your next stage in mind, though, even if it is constantly evolving.

And now, for diplomacy. If you talk to players on this site about learning to play diplomacy, they will generally give you one piece of advice first and foremost: talk, talk, talk. Talk to everyone and often. Develop a rapport with all players. Learn and share. It goes on. This is a good place to start, but it’s not exactly how I think about my communication with players.

I’d like to give this discussion some structure, so let’s start by saying that I think you have two meta-goals for your diplomacy: you want (1) influence over other pieces/players and (2) you want to build a useful reputation.

1. INFLUENCE: You don’t just want to ask for help all the time, or send your ally a list of moves you think would be cool and haggle over who gets the next build. That’s a pretty boring, and ultimately ineffective, manifestation of what effective diplomacy looks like. You are seeking influence over what every other piece on the board does (ideally, you are seeking direct control, but influence is the next best thing!). How you get that influence depends a lot on the nature of your rivals, so take in as much information as you can and update your assessment of them every time you learn something. Try to develop an intuition about how they are making their plans and what information would cause them to react in certain ways.

You might find that, sometimes, asking for a piece to make a move is not the best way to get that move to happen. And more to the point, sometimes you’re not the person someone is going to listen to! But you still need those moves to happen. How can you get them? What other levers can you pull? I recommend spending some time throughout every turn thinking about that. There will be players you can’t just *ask* for a move. Can you get that move anyway?

2. REPUTATION. When you hear something in the real world, your reaction to what is said, if you are human, is coloured by your perception of the reputation of the messenger. Some people deny this, but honestly, I say, as well it should be! A speaker’s reputation is information about their message.

You have a strategy and you are trying to harness influence so that other players’ moves help you achieve your strategy. Think about your style of communication and what comes naturally to you. What sort of reputation can you add to your preferred style of communication to make it more effective at increasing your influence? What can you do in the first turn and in your first messages to build a useful reputation? And once you have a bit of a reputation, think about how it changes what you say to others. Does it amplify your message? Or does it undermine your message?

-----------------------------------
That was all a little abstract, so thanks to everyone for indulging me. My next post will be very grounded in what we’ve seen from the opening moves, and I’ll be touching on some tactical notes too. As Tom said, I encourage folks to post questions and commentary here - that’s the best way for everyone to get the most out of this SoW.

So while I wait with bated breath to see how you fine folks open this game, I wanted to spend a quick second talking about non-neighbor allies - because they are truly the best allies in the game, and are what drives a successful opening into a successful mid-game.

To help put this in perspective, I'm going to assign every player some homework. Whether or not you complete it is up to you, but someone (I can't recall who) suggested this to me and I think it improved my game - Every year I want you in your notes tab, to list the 18 centers you are going to take to win the game. Obviously this will change, and you will adapt, but the long-term strategy should never be forgotten. Once you start thinking turn by turn, you'll be falling behind the best players. Going through this exercise each year will help guide your strategy - and then let the communication and tactics follow that lead.

I bring this up because of how important I think your "non-neighbor" allies are. Obviously your direct neighbors are very important, in particular in the openings and you should spend a great deal of time working with them and understanding them. But too often I see people get caught in their own spheres and forget their potential non-neighbor allies. Think of the western triangle of ENG/FRA/GER. They will quite obviously talk extensively in the first years as they are fighting over neutral SC's and limited routes of expansion. But if I looked at each of their notes tabs, I bet they all have the other 6 home centers in the group of 18. So while it is important to work with your direct neighbors, there will always be mistrust, stab paranoia, and conflict. These are mitigated, at least in the opening years, when it comes to your non-neighbors, which is why it is so important to rely on them for information and influence. The most celebrated of these alliances is RUS/ITA, but I would argue that is only because it is the most obvious to spot due to how early it typically becomes apparent. Some of the most powerful alliances in the game are across the board - like FRA/RUS (which I will use for this example). Lets go back to the discussion of the western power struggle between ENG/GER/FRA. A good French player will maneuver the board to convince one of ENG or GER to work with him and defeat the other. A GREAT French player will have done the same, but with the addition of having fostered a non-neighbor alliance with RUS, and after defeating one of the powers, he/she coordinates with RUS to defeat the other. It is a delicate balance of working in the present and working towards the future, but the best players are always thinking one step ahead. Working towards not being the odd man out is a good idea - but think bigger. Start making alliances across the board assuming that you will make it to the mid game. Confidence is good, and those players on the other side of the board have less reason to lie and manipulate you - so start talking big picture and always keep the 18 in mind!

( I use examples here, but am in no way saying these are the correct strategies to have each game. There are many strategies out there, and many different ways to get to 18. So when I use an example it is to illustrate a point more clearly, not a tip on how to play a certain country)

Is there any advantage in the readiness status of moves at diffenrt stages ie green ticks , grey ticks, or no ticks ?? Does this influence palyers potantail working partners ??

potential not ponytial sorry.

Smokey - My opinion on the readiness check marks is that they shouldn't be visible and shouldn't be used as a strategic tool. That being said it is naive to think people should just ignore them while they are visible.

Generally I do get a bit nervous if someone has finalized their moves (green checkmark) before talking with me, but that is the only time I really worry about the readiness status.

I've had players before not save orders until about 5 minutes before the deadline with the hopes that someone will change their orders assuming they will CD. So I would take those readiness indicators with a grain of salt and not read too much into them.

Spring 01 moves are in! Bump for prof commentary.

To be completely honest, I think grading opening moves is nonsense so I’m not going to do it. As I’ve stated previously I think any opening can be successful, and my grades will all go towards how someone’s moves affect their chances to get to 18, or how their moves affect their likelihood of making it to a draw (if they are fighting to remain in the game). Without knowing the press, it is too early to see how the board is shaping up and I’d argue everyone still has the same odds of reaching 18.
Most of the openings are fairly standard with the exception of the brave Russian who made a move to Livonia which is very uncommon. I’m intrigued to see how this plays out as it is a higher risk move in that he is keeping only two units south, but not opening in a way that threatens Norway in this fall turn. The bounce in Armenia is also of interest because we (along with everyone besides RUS and TUR) don’t know if that was arranged or not. There is a chance of a being held without a build, but I’m thinking he made these moves with a plan in mind.
The other point of note is the unsupported taking of Burgundy by France, which is always a hot topic in the west between France and Germany. I know ghug and I debated the merits of bouncing there as GER and FRA, but I’d be intrigued to hear what spectators think the best way to handle Burgundy is for both France and Germany. In the current game we have ENG/FRA/GER all having potential to pick up Belgium, so lets see who has the diplomatic chops to get it done.

"As I’ve stated previously I think any opening can be successful"

...England triple bounce?

...

I like reading the board after Spring 1901 because it is usually full of mysteries. You learn a little about their first order impact (the maximum and minimum number of builds each player can get in the first year, which is important both tactically and diplomatically, for sure), but largely you start to get some hints about what alliances might be emerging.

There are a couple of spots on the map that players always look at in the first year. These are the flashpoints, the non-SC spaces on the map that form the borders between players. My list of them is: English Channel, Burgundy, Piedmont, Tyrolia, Galicia, Black Sea, and Armenia. These are the spaces where players will usually go out of their to negotiate a DMZ, a bounce, or try to sneak into for a more effective assault on their neighbour. Their tactical importance has been discussed in probably every guide of opening strategies you've ever read. My read of a map after Spring 1901 is largely based on what happened in this spaces, and it is never conclusive.

In the west, the English Channel is empty, Piedmont was a bounce, and France is in Burgundy. You could assign each of these outcomes as an indicator of friendliness between pairs of powers, but that is by no means conclusive. And France's unchallenged move to Burgundy could be the result of successful negotiations with Germany, as much as it could be a betrayal or an attack. I'm curious to see what this unit does this turn, and for that reason I'll hold off on writing too much about its potential.

In the east, Galicia and Tyrolia are both empty, which is generally a great outcome for Austria, and Turkey has claimed the Black Sea and bounced Russia in Armenia. My heuristic from above is more obviously applicable here: Galicia and Tyrolia being empty are clearly +1 for Austria/Russia and +1 for Austria/Italy (though Tyrolia being empty is fairly common, an early alliance with Italy is still generally considered necessary for Austria in most games). Likewise, Turkey and Russia have a more obviously active border, which is either suggestive of conflict or behind-the-scenes machinations. That's why reading the board is so hard after the first turn. But I'd suggest reading this is easier if you know what players are saying to each other, so the players in this game should be working on it and arriving at a better guess than I have.

Turkey's and Russia's moves are an uncommon combination of moves in my experience. Everyone on the board should be wondering what agreements are behind those moves. I have some thoughts about Livonia, probably the most unusual here. I'll save my comments on this move for after the fall phase.

I agree grading is silly in this turn, and maybe that's clear because I wrote an essay about how hard it is to know what's what right now. But if I had to offer some general impressions about opening moves, I'd say I'm pretty happy with how France and Austria have opened, and I have no particular objections to how England, Germany, and Italy opened. I am confused and intrigued by Russia and Turkey's openings.

The main reason for these rankings is that I think F/A have done a good job of opening up their options and this increased their ability to gain influence among other players, while E/G/I seem to preserved their options from the start and show some signs of confidence in winning an ally (an asterisk on Germany, though). I can't tell for sure, but I am worried Russia and Turkey have both limited their own options with their openings and decreased their ability to expand or win other players over diplomatically. We'll see if I'm right to be worried next turn.

Would anyone be able to give a brief overview of "the merits of a non-standard opening"?
To the best of my understanding, it's often due to non-standard opening alliances (or promises of), and is sometimes harder to defend against because it's unexpected.
But also the standard openings are the most tried and true, so what's the (general) motivation behind non-standard ones?

Before I respond to AttiWoolf, I want to bring up the bounce in Piedmont, because while I don't know if it was planned (and who planned it) I assume that it was discussed and I think it was a very strong move by Italy. It serves the purpose of leaving Venice where it is at - with the option to move on AUS either by going to Trieste or Tyr this fall. And the bounce forces France to take Portugal with MAO and Spain with an army - a great thing for Italy as a fleet in Spain south coast is much more worrisome than a fleet in Portugal. When I spoke earlier about having influence on the other side of the board, it is moves like these that are a good example of that. With a move to Portugal the most likely route for that fleet in MAO, GER and ENG in particular should be involved in discussion as Italy has made a southern blitz a bit slower for France to try to pull off. If I were ENG in this scenario I would have preferred France open in a way that allowed him to put that fleet in Spain, not Portugal.

Regarding non-standard openings:

I think this all comes down to personal preference as there is certainly nothing wrong with standard openings - they are standard because they work! I am an advocate of unique openings mostly because I think it is more fun - so there isn't a strong strategic reason I do it other than to make each game a bit different than the last.

From a strategic standpoint I do think there is a certain level of confusion that happens when you open in a strange way, which can be a good or bad thing depending on how you play. I tend to embrace confusion because of my playstyle (I change who I work with often and tend to stab more often than many), but for someone who prefers a long term alliance and a large stab late this confusion may not be ideal.

I also think that unique openings or unusual alliances are often not taken seriously early as players think the alliance will fizzle out - or the opening will blow up in your face. And again, people like playing with people they like - and I think people are curious about unusual openings and you can play that up as part of your charm. I've found that if I open strangely, and talk to the other players about it, it is an easy way to build friendly rapport with the other players early.

I agree with everything Tom said. I would also add a specific reason for "non-standard openings" related to your point, AntiWoolf, about non-standard alliances, and Tom's point about how it affects diplomacy.

One of the reasons behind most standard openings is caution: most standard openings allow you to defend from one or more of your neighbours in a specific way if you get attacked in 1901, and they do so at the cost of growing faster. The most standard of all standard openings, I would say, is probably England's opening to Norwegian Sea, Yorkshire, and North Sea (as happened in this game, which is not by any means a criticism). And it's standard for good reason - England would need to be attacked by all 3 of her neighbours in 1901 in order for this opening not to result in a single build.

But more experimental openings, in some sense, throw caution to the wind a bit and allow you to (a) commit more quickly to attacking someone specific and maybe grow faster as a result, and (b) demonstrate your credibility more quickly to your ally. The tradeoff is usually that you're covering one of your flanks less than you would otherwise.

A good example of this might be a hypothetical game in which, in Spring 1901, Austria moves Budapest to Rumania in the hopes of entering into an alliance with Turkey against Russia (Austria/Turkey is one of the more uncommon alliances but I happen to be a fan of it as either power; I'll try to dig up an example of a game I played where something like this happened).

Bud-Rum might traditionally be thought of as a bad move, both because Russia can typically be expected to attack Rumania with 2 units in Fall 1901 and because, Turkey can typically be expected to want to attack Austria and make Austria's life difficult if he doesn't move to Serbia on the first turn. But if Austria and Turkey get on the same page quickly, and they had the right diplomacy, they could end the first year having occupied Serbia, Rumania, Sevastopol, Greece, and Bulgaria collectively, basically putting Russia on a death spiral right away.

So with the right mix of players and diplomacy, Bud-Rum, a move that a lot of players would balk at, might actually be good. It definitely gets everyone's attention. It also gives Austria an option that Austria and Turkey collectively a lot more ability to damage Russia quickly than they would have otherwise, if that's their goal. And it might help build some trust early on between Austria and Turkey. But it clearly comes at a cost; Austria can't do this and defend Galicia, or Tyrolia, or secure Serbia. It's a risk, and it could pay off.

Ho wmany times have you sold the BUD-RUM opening vs how many times they went wow Aust easy kill ?

Looking at the board as a noobish player I would say Russia is in a lot of trouble.

It will be hard for him to get RUM with Turkey in Black sea.

Austria in box seat they hold balance of power.

Russia cant block ARM move and is at risk of a SWE bounce resulting in no SC gains and being thratented into the next year.

My question would be how far ahead do you try to plan , if yoy are Austria now ??