Pairs Diplomacy Observer Thread

[DougJoe]

...not getting in for the A02 turn really hurt because there would have been no way I would have left Burgundy undefended.

[UnknownHero]

Thanks for participating in my little experiment everyone! Congratulations to all involved in the final draw, though it should be acknowledged that the result was impacted by the French NMR earlier on. My bad for not acting quick enough when DougJoe stepped up as a replacement.

First my thoughts on the results of the Pairs aspect of the game: I don't think the diplomacy impacted the game as much as I expected, though it certainly had some effect so that the game was not a true gunboat. I agree that perhaps the medium of the forum for diplomacy contributed to this. Particularly in my case in playing Austria, I didn't get the consistent diplomatic interactions I was hoping for so I mostly played the game like a gunboat. The coordinated German support into Warsaw in 1907 was the main notable exception, as I never would have counted on that in gunboat.

Some commentary on the progress of the game, based on my best recollection:

1901

The early diplomacy just resulted in direction for me to open with standard moves, not antagonizing anyone. Nothing too notable here. I was watching the diplomacy between Russia and Turkey carefully and was hopeful that the communication between them didn't seem to click immediately.

1902

This year didn't go as well for me. Russia and Turkey managed to establish an alliance, and while Italy remained friendly, they chose to head east, leaving me to stand alone against a Juggernaut. Not a promising situation.

1903

Press from my diplomat had dried up and I wasn't getting backup from Italy. Time to face the juggernaut alone gunboat style. In such a situation I sometimes employ an offensive defensive style, especially as Austria against a united foe. I need to stay unpredictable. I decided to make a move on Rumania, though choosing to leave Greece vulnerable to do so. The Spring results in me taking Rumania from Russia but losing Greece to Turkey.

Fall: I got a new diplomat. I didn't have a concrete direction to go based on their diplomacy, however. The Russian and Turkish diplomats seemed to be still allied against me, despite offers of peace being tossed around. I decided my only hope of survival was to break the Juggernaut alliance. Turkey's units were situated in a way such that peace with them seemed infeasible. I decided to place hope in Russia. I made a gamble to vacate Rumania and take Bulgaria instead, hoping to placate Russia and make a stab on Turkey tempting. I also ordered a bounce on Galicia rather than trying to take it as an offering of peace.

1904

My gambit on Bulgaria worked! And with an English army in St.P, Russia now faced a distraction. I began to feel a little more optimistic in this year. My diplomat wasn't really working towards an alliance with Russia, but I felt like I could speak directly to the Russian general through my moves and I began to worry less about my diplomat at this point, to be honest.

I took the offensive defense approach against Turkey again and targeted Greece. I ordered a bounce in Galicia and prayed that Russia would be nice. Having a Russian fleet in Rumania rather than an army eased my nerves a fair bit.

Fall: It worked! Russia stabbed Turkey! The game suddenly looked a lot different to this Austrian. Russia still looked big and scary but at least they weren't going after me.

1905

Russia attacked Turkey. I attacked Turkey. I finally got a build. Yay! But the source of my next build looked less clear. Russia didn't look likely to give me Constantinople.

1906

Russia built a northern fleet, so a German Russian conflict seemed imminent. With no where else to go, I decided to try and get the jump on Russia and count on Germany to attack Russia too.

This stab worked out quite well, though I lost Greece to Turkey. I didn't have room for another build anyway.

1907

In the spring I serendipitously blocked an Italian convoy to Alb, which I treated as a stab. Even if it were going to be meant for Greece, I'd rather not have an Italian army in the Balkans. In the fall, I got German support into Warsaw, took Sev, and Italy looked to be interested in peace. Strong year.

1908

I got Moscow this year, bringing me to 9 centers. By this point it was clear that the end game had arrived. I considered my solo options to be slim, as the diplomacy between Italy and Germany had been strong, and stabbing either would invite retribution from both, not to mention the fact that I didnt have the fleets to take on Italy and the Turkish centers held by Russia on my own. Without the ability to do my own diplomacy, I didn't feel there was much I could do to make a solo run possible. Germany was ahead on that race too, so I decided my best bet was to prepare to hold the stalemate line in case Germany got the jump on Iberia or something. Perhaps with diplomacy I could have tried something more interesting like working with the Russian or something.

1909 to end

The rest of these moves were just the wrapping up of the three way draw.

[sin(2x) = 2sin(x)cos(x)]

Wow, I wish I had taken notes throughout the game as well.

I was happy to play as Italy and survive the final draw. And I couldn't have done it without my general. I'm glad we didn't have any issues with each other, which some of the different countries did. For the most part, we agreed on orders, and my general opinion was correct when we did.

I wished we could've gotten more of the Turkish centers, but a draw is a draw.

As for the game style, I enjoyed it! Of course, I'm probably a bit biased because I didn't have any communication/disorder issues, but I think this game mode has potential.

- Italy

[DougJoe]

Wow, I wish I had taken notes throughout the game as well.

I was happy to play as Italy and survive the final draw. And I couldn't have done it without my general. I'm glad we didn't have any issues with each other, which some of the different countries did. For the most part, we agreed on orders, and my general opinion was correct when we did.

I wished we could've gotten more of the Turkish centers, but a draw is a draw.

As for the game style, I enjoyed it! Of course, I'm probably a bit biased because I didn't have any communication/disorder issues, but I think this game mode has potential.

- Italy

There was a turn where your General moved to ION and you wondered in the global press why he did that... were you truly unsure of what he was doing?

I'm writing a post in the game thread, but I think there was a turn where you and your general could have made a run for the solo.

[StraightFlush]

Hello comrades, I am the Russian general. As the entirety of my homeland has turned red, I assume the game ends in a somewhat historically accurate fashion (insert Soviet anthem here). I was fascinated by this game format from day one, so much so that I actually got another game for it running on a different forum! If you want to check out what happens when the diplomats actually try to make an impact (albeit clumsily), I invite you to spectate here: https://www.smogon.com/forums/threads/blind-date-diplomacy-game-thread-spring-1904.3754338/

As for this game in particular, I had fun but felt like my agency was limited by a diplomat who didn't care enough to remain involved at critical moments. It's common knowledge that Russia is the weakest country in gunboat play, and even in a press environment its positions are unsustainable without good diplomacy. That is why I felt like I struggled more as the game progressed into more of a pure gunboat game, and it's unfortunate because I think the relationship with Austria in particular would've been smoothed over had the diplomats actually talked to each other more. This is to say nothing of the missed opportunities with Italy: imagine what could've been if there was a way to reassure them I was on their side after Spring 1907, when they immediately gave up after a clumsy stab attempt. I felt that I had a good relationship with the Austrian general, but that can only go so far on its own.

When the game began I played fairly standard opening moves due to the two arranged bounces from my diplomat; he technically gave me the choice about what to do with A Mos, but I am of the opinion that the northern opening is unviable without a DMZ in Galicia, so I was really hemmed into one specific moveset for the 1901 turns. The spring moves were all as I'd expect, but the fall brought a major challenge from the north with England charging headlong into Scandinavia with a convoy and move to Barents Sea. I was not immediately threatened by this since Germany had let me into Sweden, but it was an unwelcome distraction from southern affairs.

Speaking of the south, let's go down there for a bit. As Italy was going west, I agreed with my diplomat's assessment that an alliance with Turkey was a wise choice, so I played towards that outcome for the next couple of years. However, I was too conservative with my tactics due partly to my own habits in gunboat and partly to the total lack of direction from either the Russian or Turkish diplomats. They didn't need to spell out movesets for us, but perhaps give us specific tactical objectives for the turn/year to guide our thought processes? I sympathize with the Turkish general's situation, he was dealt a poor hand in this part of the game.

I intended to stick with RT for as long as necessary since I knew that Italian help wouldn't be forthcoming for Austria for some time, which made his downfall inevitable if we pushed through. However, we still didn't get on the same page tactically and this left Rumania in Austrian hands momentarily. When the Austrian general vacated the center in the fall, I knew that I had found the ally I actually wanted in this game and prepared for a stab. I'm surprised that retaking Rumania with a fleet didn't ruffle any Turkish feathers at the time, but it was an effective stab nonetheless. I felt fairly proud of myself for managing to secure all of Anatolia, and I don't regret going for that despite the diplomatic tension it created with Austria.

Let's go back to the north now. I hated how this north played out. There was never really an alliance structure on that side of the board; the French general swap, the west-facing Italian, and English incompetence all added up to an environment where Germany got crazy powerful in a fairly short time. You'd think it's impossible for Germany to fight both England and France and win, but they really weren't doing that; he was fighting France with help while taking English dots that were left undefended because England decided that tickling me was more important than living. In fact, it's arguable that losing the guess on St. Petersburg in 1903 snowballed into the ruin of my entire position, although not directly. The fact that England continued to attack me after it was clear that German help would not be forthcoming was a suicidal decision, and their retreat into Livonia in spring '04 followed by keeping that army on the board until death was insultingly poor play that I hope is not repeated by anyone seeking lessons from this game.

Back to the south for the sake of my mental health. From 1905 onwards I wanted to play towards a pure AR alliance, which I thought would be the right strategic decision for Austria as well; I signaled this strongly with a second southern fleet in W04. Once it became clear that EFT would be eliminated, I saw two potential courses for the game: an AR vs. IG war (which AR would inevitably win with proper tactics), or a Central Triple that would swallow me up without mercy. I felt that Austria would be amenable to an AR because Italy had done, to put it charitably, f**k-all for them up to that point, and Germany was becoming a major issue on the other side of the board that we were well-positioned to counterbalance. Ultimately, though, I was proven wrong. The Austrian general is not as much of an alliance player as I try to be in gunboat, but I think that makes me an anomaly rather than him.

My decision to attack Germany in 1906, which left the course of the game entirely in Austria's hands, was not made lightly. I had hoped to arrange some kind of GR cooperation when it became clear that England was a common enemy, but due to England's questionable strategic priorities, I was unable to project power in the north outside of Scandinavia, which killed any hope of a proper GR since such an arrangement requires Russia to have access to the British isles. As such, here was a threat that had run out of western centers to eat, and would be looking for another foe. Where else would they go next? Into the Med against Italy? Don't make me laugh. I simply had to land the first strike, which would hopefully spur Austria to action as well. Unfortunately, the turn I landed this strike is also the turn where Austria decided he was done with me. I think the diplomatic situation with Austria was salvageable after 1906, even with the sneak into Warsaw complicating matters, and I think it was entirely reasonable for Austria to want Rumania in that scenario; however, nobody made an attempt to salvage it, ensuring the CT would form as Germany and Austria now had cause to directly cooperate.

After 1907 made it clear that the homeland was indefensible, I turned to other options. I tried to maintain my Turkish government-in-exile, which would've had a chance of working if my diplomat was around to negotiate some kind of detente with Germany that would let me keep one northern center (thus letting me keep AEG, EAS, Con and Arm on the board). I think Germany might've found this attractive if proposed, since it would secure them the board top and make them the only potential solo threat, but nobody ever proposed it because my diplomat was not only inactive by this point but also lacking in imagination. I tried throwing St. Petersburg to Austria to sneak into the draw from Scandinavia in the face of a solo threat, but Austria never became that threat because they remained unwilling to attack Germany or even Italy. It's genuinely crazy how Italy got all the security benefits of an AI alliance while never helping Austria in any significant way and attempting to stab them once.

You may come away from reading this with the idea that I had a mostly negative view of the game, but I did have a lot of fun and saw the potential in this game format. Thanks to UH for putting it on and making the southern game interesting.

[DarthPorg36]

Hello comrades, I am the Russian general. As the entirety of my homeland has turned red, I assume the game ends in a somewhat historically accurate fashion (insert Soviet anthem here). I was fascinated by this game format from day one, so much so that I actually got another game for it running on a different forum! If you want to check out what happens when the diplomats actually try to make an impact (albeit clumsily), I invite you to spectate here: https://www.smogon.com/forums/threads/blind-date-diplomacy-game-thread-spring-1904.3754338/

As for this game in particular, I had fun but felt like my agency was limited by a diplomat who didn't care enough to remain involved at critical moments. It's common knowledge that Russia is the weakest country in gunboat play, and even in a press environment its positions are unsustainable without good diplomacy. That is why I felt like I struggled more as the game progressed into more of a pure gunboat game, and it's unfortunate because I think the relationship with Austria in particular would've been smoothed over had the diplomats actually talked to each other more. This is to say nothing of the missed opportunities with Italy: imagine what could've been if there was a way to reassure them I was on their side after Spring 1907, when they immediately gave up after a clumsy stab attempt. I felt that I had a good relationship with the Austrian general, but that can only go so far on its own.

When the game began I played fairly standard opening moves due to the two arranged bounces from my diplomat; he technically gave me the choice about what to do with A Mos, but I am of the opinion that the northern opening is unviable without a DMZ in Galicia, so I was really hemmed into one specific moveset for the 1901 turns. The spring moves were all as I'd expect, but the fall brought a major challenge from the north with England charging headlong into Scandinavia with a convoy and move to Barents Sea. I was not immediately threatened by this since Germany had let me into Sweden, but it was an unwelcome distraction from southern affairs.

Speaking of the south, let's go down there for a bit. As Italy was going west, I agreed with my diplomat's assessment that an alliance with Turkey was a wise choice, so I played towards that outcome for the next couple of years. However, I was too conservative with my tactics due partly to my own habits in gunboat and partly to the total lack of direction from either the Russian or Turkish diplomats. They didn't need to spell out movesets for us, but perhaps give us specific tactical objectives for the turn/year to guide our thought processes? I sympathize with the Turkish general's situation, he was dealt a poor hand in this part of the game.

I intended to stick with RT for as long as necessary since I knew that Italian help wouldn't be forthcoming for Austria for some time, which made his downfall inevitable if we pushed through. However, we still didn't get on the same page tactically and this left Rumania in Austrian hands momentarily. When the Austrian general vacated the center in the fall, I knew that I had found the ally I actually wanted in this game and prepared for a stab. I'm surprised that retaking Rumania with a fleet didn't ruffle any Turkish feathers at the time, but it was an effective stab nonetheless. I felt fairly proud of myself for managing to secure all of Anatolia, and I don't regret going for that despite the diplomatic tension it created with Austria.

Let's go back to the north now. I hated how this north played out. There was never really an alliance structure on that side of the board; the French general swap, the west-facing Italian, and English incompetence all added up to an environment where Germany got crazy powerful in a fairly short time. You'd think it's impossible for Germany to fight both England and France and win, but they really weren't doing that; he was fighting France with help while taking English dots that were left undefended because England decided that tickling me was more important than living. In fact, it's arguable that losing the guess on St. Petersburg in 1903 snowballed into the ruin of my entire position, although not directly. The fact that England continued to attack me after it was clear that German help would not be forthcoming was a suicidal decision, and their retreat into Livonia in spring '04 followed by keeping that army on the board until death was insultingly poor play that I hope is not repeated by anyone seeking lessons from this game.

Back to the south for the sake of my mental health. From 1905 onwards I wanted to play towards a pure AR alliance, which I thought would be the right strategic decision for Austria as well; I signaled this strongly with a second southern fleet in W04. Once it became clear that EFT would be eliminated, I saw two potential courses for the game: an AR vs. IG war (which AR would inevitably win with proper tactics), or a Central Triple that would swallow me up without mercy. I felt that Austria would be amenable to an AR because Italy had done, to put it charitably, f**k-all for them up to that point, and Germany was becoming a major issue on the other side of the board that we were well-positioned to counterbalance. Ultimately, though, I was proven wrong. The Austrian general is not as much of an alliance player as I try to be in gunboat, but I think that makes me an anomaly rather than him.

My decision to attack Germany in 1906, which left the course of the game entirely in Austria's hands, was not made lightly. I had hoped to arrange some kind of GR cooperation when it became clear that England was a common enemy, but due to England's questionable strategic priorities, I was unable to project power in the north outside of Scandinavia, which killed any hope of a proper GR since such an arrangement requires Russia to have access to the British isles. As such, here was a threat that had run out of western centers to eat, and would be looking for another foe. Where else would they go next? Into the Med against Italy? Don't make me laugh. I simply had to land the first strike, which would hopefully spur Austria to action as well. Unfortunately, the turn I landed this strike is also the turn where Austria decided he was done with me. I think the diplomatic situation with Austria was salvageable after 1906, even with the sneak into Warsaw complicating matters, and I think it was entirely reasonable for Austria to want Rumania in that scenario; however, nobody made an attempt to salvage it, ensuring the CT would form as Germany and Austria now had cause to directly cooperate.

After 1907 made it clear that the homeland was indefensible, I turned to other options. I tried to maintain my Turkish government-in-exile, which would've had a chance of working if my diplomat was around to negotiate some kind of detente with Germany that would let me keep one northern center (thus letting me keep AEG, EAS, Con and Arm on the board). I think Germany might've found this attractive if proposed, since it would secure them the board top and make them the only potential solo threat, but nobody ever proposed it because my diplomat was not only inactive by this point but also lacking in imagination. I tried throwing St. Petersburg to Austria to sneak into the draw from Scandinavia in the face of a solo threat, but Austria never became that threat because they remained unwilling to attack Germany or even Italy. It's genuinely crazy how Italy got all the security benefits of an AI alliance while never helping Austria in any significant way and attempting to stab them once.

You may come away from reading this with the idea that I had a mostly negative view of the game, but I did have a lot of fun and saw the potential in this game format. Thanks to UH for putting it on and making the southern game interesting.

Great job working with what you had. As your diplomat I'm sorry for being distant and not being more helpful, life got busy and I was only briefly checking dip for a few weeks and this game, never popping up on my needing moves bar, fell off my radar. Despite that, I should've tried to stick with it. You moves were well done, I would've done the same thing in your position on most moves, although I am curious as to the thought behind the Turkey stab. I actually was hoping for a Juggernaut to run the board. If we had been able to hold Anatolia, I think we could've won out, but alas it wasn't to be. As for my lack of direction, I understand now what you're saying. I did quite frequently just say "figure it out" - the board seemed to favor these kinds of actions, and I was reluctant to explicitly give you orders because I didn't want others to mess up your plans. I should've been a little more helpful. Anyway, game well played, keep your head high, you played well.

[qrzy]

I think, there is a misunderstooding in so.e other's players head. I have (I has) never tried to stab back Austria, and if Austria was in danger, I would have helped him. But Austria was enought smart to defend hi.self against a Russian-Turkish alliance alone, and after Russia stabbed back his only ally in a bad position, Turkey and Russia did not have chance at all.

[Theodoric]

Turkish diplomat here:

I'll try to write more later on my reasoning through this game, but I wanted to make a quick note about why I (and presumably the Russian diplomat) didn't provide more specific tactical guidance during the Juggernaut period. I looked at the tactical options each period and tried to find strong moves, but we were in a continual guessing game with Austria. I felt that announcing an objective or asking for specific supports from Russia would simplify Austria's "offense as defence" strategy more than it would coordinate our offense. I haven't played public press before, so perhaps there are better ways around this, but I think what we ran into was the inherent weakness of two players coordinating against one defender when they can't talk privately. I also think that the Austrian general did a phenomenal job throughout the game and simply played that period very well.

I enjoyed the format. There were many serious frustrations, but they were in many ways the point. One thing that was particularly challenging was that it was harder to lie/bullshit than it would be even in a normal public press game. For example, I was repeatedly reassuring Italy that we would not push into the Ionian in the intention of sucking Italy further west. My secret hope was that my general would defy my instructions and move on Italy, but I had no way of communicating that without announcing a stab ahead of time.

Since we didn't know who we were talking *for*, and couldn't send our generals any messages, we

[DreamTrawler]

German diplomat here! I unfortunately kind of checked out of the game in the latter half, though it appeared most of the other diplomats did as well. Nevertheless I really enjoyed this format for all its foibles.

As for strategy - early on, my only goal was to make sure England and France didn't ally. At some point, England tried to convince us to form a Western triple and turn east. In the first year, everyone had been very conservative with offering alliances, so I saw this as a chance to side with France instead of going along with a plan that would leave me vulnerable. However, as I ended up in both North Sea and Burgundy very quickly, and Russia and Italy were both friendly, I figured I could just attack them both.

I mostly meant what I said to my general - I think the only point where I was trying to imply something else was around fall 1904/spring 1905, where Russia had left only one unit in Scandinavia. I had said something vague about England being willing to work together despite the past, and was hoping maybe my general would take the opportunity to snag Sweden.

As for the late game, it went about how I had expected. I wish I had continued to give press - there may have been a way to manipulate the G/I/A alliance in such a way that we could have soloed.

[DreamTrawler]

...not getting in for the A02 turn really hurt because there would have been no way I would have left Burgundy undefended.

Yeah, that was very unfortunate. For what it's worth if I had not gotten into Burgundy I think as the diplomat I would have tried to continue to pursue the France-Germany alliance in the short term.

[Theodoric]

Turkish Diplomat with a bit longer description from my perspective:

My #1 early goal was to avoid a lepanto, ideally by convincing Italy to open West. My #2 goal was to get an alliance on reasonably favorable terms with either Austria or Russia.

My general feeling with Turkey is that I only like to ally with Russia if Russia is willing to help me take Serbia--otherwise it often just means throwing two Turkish fleets against two Italian and one Austrian fleet until France swoops in and attacks Italy or Russia betrays you. And attacking Russia only works if Russia doesn't see it coming.

I was fortunate that Austria's press immediately excluded Italy from the Balkans, which I seized on to ask that Italy open West. Italy agreed pretty readily, and even requested that their general open to the Tyrrhenian. I then had relatively vague alliance offers from Austria and Russia. I pushed both (especially Russia) to be more concrete, and particularly tried to get Russia to agree to either let me have the Black Sea or to promise to let me into Serbia in the following turn.

I was only half-successful here. Italy did decide to go West, and I did end up with an alliance with Russia. Unfortunately, we weren't able to hammer out specifics and I wasn't able to get any promises on Serbia, or control of the Black Sea. I also ended up in a position where Italy had okayed a Mediterranean fleet build, which was great for a juggernaut. I hoped that my general would recognize that that was the right decision without me having to say so and freak out Italy, and he did.

That put me in a position where we were playing a classic juggernaut with Russia against an isolated Austria. We had a long-term advantage, but (other than asking Russia to prioritize a Turkish build), we couldn't effectively communicate plans and has to out-guess Austria. I felt like the diplomatic situation was pretty much ideal until we could make tactical gains. At some point we would want to stab Russia or Italy, but I hoped my general would take initiative there.

Unfortunately, Austria did a great job stymying our progress for several turns. I gave tactical suggestions where I could, but largely tried to avoid doing so (while negotiating for things like the right to move into the Ionian). We were left way too exposed to Russia, Russia stabbed us, and we were put in a very bad position.

From there, I did my best to try to offer to use my units to help several different powers, but was largely ignored. The game ended for us with a series of hold orders and a whimper.

**********************************************************************

Overall, I found this to be an interesting challenge. I'm proud of a few things: I think that I did a good job negotiating for an advantageous early alliance system, and I'm proud that I kept trying to talk even as things went poorly. On the other hand, I wish I'd found a better way to use diplomacy to get through the tactical logjam against Austria. I think the fact that I had different expectations for how tactically involved I should be than my general did made this especially frustrating--from my perspective, we played a bit too conservatively and didn't try to cooperate enough with Russia (while playing blind). From my general's perspective, I think this came from waiting for instructions from me that didn't come.

My only suggestion for how to make this work better next time would be to allow one strategy conversation between generals and diplomats before the game starts. I understand that one of the problems with doing this is that, if we know who the other person is, we can cheat by talking in some other forum. The only way I can see around this is a "prison guard" role--basically have someone volunteer to be the go-between for each of the messages.

[StraightFlush]

Turkish Diplomat with a bit longer description from my perspective:

My #1 early goal was to avoid a lepanto, ideally by convincing Italy to open West. My #2 goal was to get an alliance on reasonably favorable terms with either Austria or Russia.

My general feeling with Turkey is that I only like to ally with Russia if Russia is willing to help me take Serbia--otherwise it often just means throwing two Turkish fleets against two Italian and one Austrian fleet until France swoops in and attacks Italy or Russia betrays you. And attacking Russia only works if Russia doesn't see it coming.

I was fortunate that Austria's press immediately excluded Italy from the Balkans, which I seized on to ask that Italy open West. Italy agreed pretty readily, and even requested that their general open to the Tyrrhenian. I then had relatively vague alliance offers from Austria and Russia. I pushed both (especially Russia) to be more concrete, and particularly tried to get Russia to agree to either let me have the Black Sea or to promise to let me into Serbia in the following turn.

I was only half-successful here. Italy did decide to go West, and I did end up with an alliance with Russia. Unfortunately, we weren't able to hammer out specifics and I wasn't able to get any promises on Serbia, or control of the Black Sea. I also ended up in a position where Italy had okayed a Mediterranean fleet build, which was great for a juggernaut. I hoped that my general would recognize that that was the right decision without me having to say so and freak out Italy, and he did.

That put me in a position where we were playing a classic juggernaut with Russia against an isolated Austria. We had a long-term advantage, but (other than asking Russia to prioritize a Turkish build), we couldn't effectively communicate plans and has to out-guess Austria. I felt like the diplomatic situation was pretty much ideal until we could make tactical gains. At some point we would want to stab Russia or Italy, but I hoped my general would take initiative there.

Unfortunately, Austria did a great job stymying our progress for several turns. I gave tactical suggestions where I could, but largely tried to avoid doing so (while negotiating for things like the right to move into the Ionian). We were left way too exposed to Russia, Russia stabbed us, and we were put in a very bad position.

From there, I did my best to try to offer to use my units to help several different powers, but was largely ignored. The game ended for us with a series of hold orders and a whimper.

**********************************************************************

Overall, I found this to be an interesting challenge. I'm proud of a few things: I think that I did a good job negotiating for an advantageous early alliance system, and I'm proud that I kept trying to talk even as things went poorly. On the other hand, I wish I'd found a better way to use diplomacy to get through the tactical logjam against Austria. I think the fact that I had different expectations for how tactically involved I should be than my general did made this especially frustrating--from my perspective, we played a bit too conservatively and didn't try to cooperate enough with Russia (while playing blind). From my general's perspective, I think this came from waiting for instructions from me that didn't come.

My only suggestion for how to make this work better next time would be to allow one strategy conversation between generals and diplomats before the game starts. I understand that one of the problems with doing this is that, if we know who the other person is, we can cheat by talking in some other forum. The only way I can see around this is a "prison guard" role--basically have someone volunteer to be the go-between for each of the messages.

I appreciate the more detailed commentary about strategic difficulties. I thought about making a greater effort to give Turkey Serbia as the main focus, but ultimately I was approaching this from a gunboat perspective and when I'm playing Russia in a gunboat RT, I tend to be much more cautious with center parity; Turkey gets very stab-happy when they're no longer reliant on Russia for their next build, much more so than in press. I wanted to stabilize the northern situation before Turkey was truly set free from his famous cardboard box, letting me maintain a two center advantage (7-5 assuming Serbia as the Turkish fifth) but that English rat got in the way of things quite a bit.

[Jamiet99uk]

I think the fact that I had different expectations for how tactically involved I should be than my general did made this especially frustrating--from my perspective, we played a bit too conservatively and didn't try to cooperate enough with Russia (while playing blind). From my general's perspective, I think this came from waiting for instructions from me that didn't come.

As your general, that was exactly it. This game was effectively a gunboat for me, aside from the general instruction from you to "be allied with Russia". I tried to do that but there was not really much co-ordination from Russia, and I found the lack of more specific instructions very frustrating.

My only suggestion for how to make this work better next time would be to allow one strategy conversation between generals and diplomats before the game starts. I understand that one of the problems with doing this is that, if we know who the other person is, we can cheat by talking in some other forum. The only way I can see around this is a "prison guard" role--basically have someone volunteer to be the go-between for each of the messages.

I think this is a good idea. You could have someone act as a neutral go-between, to pass messages without breaking anonymity.

Perhaps also allowing the Diplomat to send one 10-word message, per year, or every second year, via the neutral person, would be an idea?

[sin(2x) = 2sin(x)cos(x)]

One thing I wanted to add is that I personally played a lot of public-press games, where the only chat area is in global chat, and everyone can see what everyone is saying. Am I the only one who likes to play games like that usually?

[JECE]

I like public press games too.

[DougJoe]

...I've never played public press, so I don't have a strong opinion on it yet (more samples required). As a general, I didn't have to write anything, but I still had to try to decipher all the communications between the diplomats. It was definitely different.

[Theodoric]

I've never played public press before either, but it's something I've been interested in trying. I found the public diplomacy to be interesting and satisfying--there are a lot of strategies I usually use that didn't work (like proposing the same moves to multiple players with different justifications), but there were also new opportunities--like highlighting the discussion happening on the other side of the board to try to convince my neighbors to do what I wanted them to do.