GvI balance

[CptMike]

Hello all,

I have been thinking about this for months (not to say two years ). I think there are openings and moves for Germany in GvI that should be restricted by gentlemen agreement. They give to the player who makes the right guess in a coin flip a close-to-garanteed-victory (if he knows what to do) because it comes too soon in the game with huge consequences.

1. Munich gambit in Autumn 01.

* Kie > Hol
* Mun > Bur (variant: Mun > Boh)
* Ber > Sil (note: Ber > Mun is not an issue.)

This opening leaves Munich empty after Spring 01 so that Germany can get 6 centers (+3 units) unless I does not go to Mun (assuming it is at Tyr after Spring 01).

The coin flip result gives the victory to the fortunate player if he knows what to go after.

The several ways to manage the situation do not really change the outcome:
- if one of Bur or Sil bounces with Tyr in Mun, it is over for Italy;
- if Bur or Sil go back to Mun whereas Tyr go to Tri or Ven, it is over for Germany;
- if Bur and Sil bounce at Mun whereas Tyr go to Tri or Ven, it is over for Germany;

Only a triple bounce there by Tyr, Bur and Sil keeps the game equilibrated.

2. Venise(-Munich) gambit in Spring 02.

The most standard opening leads to the following position at the beginning of year 02:

* G: A Tyr - A Mun
* I: A Ven - A Tri

and is most of time followed by the traditional:

* Mun H Tyr!
* Tri S ( Tyr from Ven )

The problem is when Germany does not play Mun H Tyr! and whether retreats to Pie or directly goes to there. ( A retreat to Vie is not an issue. )

The situation becomes:
* G: A Pie - potentially Mun empty
* I: A Try - A Tri

The management of the coin flip is more complex given it depends on the other units on the map too but again its result gives a conclusion to the game if the fortunate guesser knows what to do (for Italy and finger in the nose for the Germany). There is a risk that Ven falls or that an Italian unit goes back to there preventing a build in the Autumn 02. This gambit does not just concerns Venise but also Munich given Munich must be empty end of Autumn 02 else Germany should lose the game (if Italy knows what to do and assuming Italy didn't lose Venise.)

But again the whole future of the game depends very much on the results of this gambit.

3. Forbidding gambits ?

The idea is not to forbid gambits. Most of the strategy in GvI depends on the control of Tyr, bording Mun (German center) and Ven (Italian center) and there are intense moments in the GvI games where one player or the other must take risks. But both the mentionned gambits comes very soon in the game and make the game toggle in one side or the other based on a single coin flip forced by the German player who already has advantages, which in a way kills the game.

4. Gentlemen Agreement on Mun/Ven.

So that the whole GvI game does not depend on a provocated and too strong in consequences coin flip, I would suggest the following restrictions:

GAMV-1 :
(S01: Mun > Bur or S01: Mun > Boh) and (S01: Ber > Sil or S01: Ber > Pru) = 0.

Note: this leaves Germany free to play Ber > Kie > Den, which is risky but not silly and Mun > Ruh > Hol but I would not advise this. (Mun > Bur) and (Ber > Mun) is also open given there is no gambit but just a particular opening for Germany.

GAMV-2 :
If (S02: Tyr > Pie or S02 :Tyr retreats > Pie) then (A02: Pie > Ven) = 0

Note: this leaves Germany free to hold there, support a move or go to Mar.

-----
What do you think about all this ?

[badivan1]

Regarding the '01 gambit:

If both bounces in Mun, while Germany has 2 builds to Italy's 1, they still need to vacate Mun to build 3 next year. There are still bounce/non bounce guessing games for Italy to equalize the build count. However, having an extra unit for at least a year is a nontrivial advantage.

If both don't go to Mun, Germany has 3 builds; Italy, 2. Compared to the conventional opening, Germany is not pressuring Austria as much. If Germany is not going for Austria, then they need Sevastopol (usually) and 1+ center(s) from Mar/Por/Spa. Given enough time, Italy will take over the Iberian peninsula and Mar. However, with a fleet setup in North Sea for a convoy to England, Germany can win as early as '04, thanks to the 3rd build in '01. Maybe Italy can disrupt Germany in Russia long enough for the fleets to take control of MAO and the Iberian Peninsula. I personally don't have any experience with this situation, but at first glance, Germany looks favoured in this line of play.


Regarding the '02 gambit, Germany can opt for a different opening to achieve a similar position:
http://webdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=213958

S01
Germany: Bur, Mun, Hol
Italy: Tyo, Ion, Apu
A01
Germany: Mar, Tyo, Bel
Italy: Vie (Tri could be better in hindsight), Gre, Ion convoy Gre
Builds:
Germany: A Mun, A Ber (A Kie could work)
Italy: A Ven, A Nap

S02
Germany having A Tyo (as opposed to Italy) gives them a positional advantage.

With A Vie instead of A Tri (in the more conventional opening), Italy can't simply go Ven-Tyo with Vie support. Forcing such dislodge will encourage a retreat to Tri and the advance Mar-Pie. Not good.

1) Knowing that Italy can't afford to dislodge A Tyo, Germany can go Mar-Pie with Tyo support. Italy defends with Ven-Pie (bounce) and Vie-Tyo (cut support).

The game continuation saw A Rom built instead of the typical A Nap (for the convoy). The followup from Italy felt suboptimal, but their options were limited.

2) If Germany anticipates Italy's defense in 1), then they can hold A Mar and and move A Tyo-Ven. Ven-Pie and Vie-Tyo fails to it. (Germany can also move Mun-Tyo to bounce in Tyo) To defend this, Italy must not move away from Ven (as disloging Tyo in the game position is not an option).

3) If Germany anticipates Italy's defense 2), then A Mar-Pie will make the situation worse (assuming Italy convoys A Nap to Gre).

To "improve" this, Italy could go Tyo-Tri in A01.

Now (S02), dislodging Tyo with Ven-Tyo with Tri support is an option, but it doesn't address Mar-Pie. This would lead into a similar situation as CptMike's A02, but with Germany A Vie additionally (retreat from Tyo dislodgement). Also, with A Vie in A02, Germany could move A Mun and backfill with a second army in S02 to setup Mun-Tyo with Vie support in A02. Mun being perfectly safe, the odds favour Germany.

If you don't dislodge Tyo in S01, then we have the same guessing game as in 1) and 2).

[CptMike]

Hello badivan,

I agree with your comments.

1. Munich Gambit

The 6 vs 5 instead of the usual 5 vs 5 gives a +1 bonus to Germany, which is already favored in GvI. This desequilibrates the game. G should win unless making mistakes.

What is not acceptable is that this is the consequence of a pure "coin flip" that could have lead to the total defeat of Germany: losing Mun.

2. Venise Gambit

I think that what you describe is not a gambit and is not the same. That's a positioning. Germany is at no time at risk or doesn't generate an unacceptable risk that Italy cannot manage without themselves taking crazy risks. (Unless it makes mistakes.)

What is not acceptable in my version is that the outcome of the Venise gambit as I describe it gives the Victory to the one who wins that 'coin flip'.