Lecture 1 Spring 1901 Diplomacy
Title: Looking at the Game

We have no moves to analyze quite yet, so I will spend our first lesson describing how I think of the game. Some of this is completely original; a lot of it, however, is based on articles I've read in the Pouch*. This paradigm will be the framework for my future analyses and lectures, so pay attention!

There are three primary skills and three primary dimensions to Diplomacy. We will consider first the dimensions. The most obvious dimension is material: the goal of the game is to be the first to 18 centers, and it is easy to count the dots and armies and fleets and tell who is ‘winning,’ and for many players, that is all on which they judge an ongoing game. However, more advanced players will know that having the most centers doesn’t mean you’re winning (unless you have 18, in which case you’ve won!) – they will consider other factors, which I will divide into the dimensions of time and space. Although it is material that ultimately decides the game, advantages in time and space can be traded for advantages in material, and it is thus important to consider them. One example that illustrates this is the Orient Express opening for Austria and Italy, in which Italy leaves Tunis empty and Austria lets Italy borrow Trieste in Fall 1901 in order to gain time and space by moving the Italian fleet into the Aegean Sea. When done right, over the next few years, Italy and Austria will easily make up their temporary sacrifice in material by using their advantages in space and time to take Turkish and Russian centers.

On one level, evaluating material is as simple as counting the number of pieces a player owns. However, it must be noted that some pieces are stronger than others (but all supply centers count the same when the game ends!). For example, units that are far from their home centers represent a significant investment in time (more on that later!). The forward unit becomes even more useful when it is behind the enemy’s lines, as it can often tie up two or three opposing units all by itself. On the other hand, a unit tasked with defending multiple provinces is weak, as a savvy opponent will exploit it to break a line or pressure it, force you to reinforce it, and then shift his attack.

Likewise, there is more to space than looking at the map and seeing who owns what. Owning a space is not necessarily the same as controlling it, and it is often possible to control a space (although obviously not use it) without owning it. For example, a mistake beginning players often make is to leave no or very few forces around an agreed-upon DMZ, seeing only the fact that it is empty and missing the fact that their ‘friend’ has the units around to control it. This control can easily lead to ownership as part of a stab.

Time can be as simple as counting how far each piece has gone from its starting home center. Whenever possible, a player should strive to have his units be active – for them to actually be moving rather than bouncing, issuing supports, or worst of all, holding. Each turn is a chance to improve your position on the map, and the best way to do that is to move your pieces. That said, there definitely are times when bouncing and supports are essential: this makes time the most subtle of the dimensions to evaluate in a game, but the important thing is to keep in mind that freeing up your own units to move is generally good, as is tying down other powers’ units.

Therefore, when considering the board, good players seek to create and exploit advantages in time, space, and material in order to achieve victory or prevent somebody else’s victory: this is strategy. Strategy is the most long-range, and therefore the most difficult of the three skills to master, and, in my opinion, it is what separates the great players from the good players. When formulating strategy, in addition to the dimensions mentioned above, it is also essential to consider geography (stalemate lines, where can you or somebody else get the necessary centers to win) and your relationship with each player. Once a strategy is formulated, the skills of tactics and diplomacy are used to achieve it.

Tactics is the discipline of using units to achieve short-term goals. There are many quality articles on tactics out there+, and I will merely summarize a few of the tactical considerations and tricks available. The basics of tactics are described in the rules: moves, supports, cutting supports, and retreats. From there, we gain the more advanced concepts, such as purposefully disbanding and rebuilding, forward retreats, covering possible retreats, arranged bounces, unwanted supports, convoy switches, and, on some judges (not webdip), unwanted convoys.

Diplomacy is the art of convincing others to fall into your strategy. Persuasiveness is a large component of diplomacy, but it also includes discernment and building rapport. Diplomacy can be short term: convincing another power to support your move THIS TURN, or it can be long-term: building up relationships and knowledge of the other players so that you can better exploit and persuade them later. It is easy to assume that diplomacy is limited to press, but your moves also communicate to the other powers (in gunboat, that’s all the communication you get), and how well your moves and your press correlate can be the most influential factor of all!

This is getting rather long, so we will stop here for tonight. I hope you’re looking forward to the Spring 1901 moves as much as I am.

* http://www.diplom.org/DipPouch/Zine/S1998R/Windsor/caissa.html
+ http://www.diplom.org/Zine/W1995A/Tactics/

Thank you, Professor Wiggin, for the wonderful lecture. Or should I say, Locke? ;)

I agree that Diplomacy circles around the three axis that were mentioned before: Strategy, Tactics and Diplomacy. Since Strategy was covered well by Prof. Wiggin, and we have a wonderful team of players and advisers who would not make to Grad school unless they were good with Tactics, I will discuss the Diplomacy aspect of the game.


"A beginning is the time for taking the most delicate care that the balances are correct. " - Frank Herbert.

The reason I have started with this quote from the wonderful series of books called "Dune" (if you didn't read it, go read it ASAP) is that it encapsulates the whole essence of 1900, 1901 and 1902. Yes, I mentioned 1900, because this is when all non-anonymous games begin.

1900
~~~~
1900 is everything that happened prior this game. 1900 is the culmination of all the games all other players won, lost and drew. "Knowledge is power", so they say, but not often you hear why this saying is correct. Well, knowledge is power because using all the information you have will help you not only to to reach the right decisions, but also help others to reach the right decisions. In order to throw the doubt out from the window, "the right decision" is a decision that benefits you more than it benefits others.

So, check out the games other players have played and learn how well they did in them, playing every country. It will take you half an hour, but you will know who you are facing, and it is a time well spent. Calculate their messages per game ratio, and use this information when dealing with other powers or spreading rumors (after all, "I've heard from X that..." will look more reliable if it comes from a country that talks a lot than from a silent country.)

Spring 1901
~~~~~~~~~
The three L's of real estate are "Location, location, location."
The three O's of Spring 1901 are "Options, options, options."
Make moves that will increase your potential allies, and not decrease them - so when the time is right, you will be able to stab the right person. Never make yourself dependable on one person - others will see it and make him attack you. Talk to everybody. People tend to trust more people that talk to them a lot, than the silent ones. Silence is often thought of as dangerous, and silent countries are often get attacked first. If you only talk to people when you need something from them, they will not hurry to help you. It is important to invest a lot of time in diplomacy during 1901, or your new three O's will be "Oh my god, Oh my god, Oh my god".

Keep talking during Spring 1901 until you know where everybody are going to move - not before you helped them to move to the right direction.

Always think how others may see your moves. A Turkish move to Armenia will be considered as anti-Russian, which in turn will help other countries to consider an attack on Russia, due to the "dog pile" effect. A rather unexpected during Spring 1901 Warsaw-Silesia move might trigger this effect as well. Never underestimate the power of the crowd.

Some say that the nature of the game is random even though there is no dice in Diplomacy, because people are unpredictable. I agree with this statement, however you can reduce the randomness by helping others to reach the right decision, and we all already know what the "right decision" stands for.

More to come after the moves of Spring 1901.

May I ask further explaination on this sentence?
[...]and, on some judges (not webdip), unwanted convoys.[...]

How does this works exactly? Unwanted convoys?

bump

I promise I'll answer Wolf's question and post a commentary later today. I have to get to class now though =)

Question - What is the opinion about defending home supply centers compared to capturing new ones? For example, with Munich, Warsaw, Vienna, Trieste and Venice all threatened, should players retreat to cover (or self bounce out of them) or should they grab up other supply centers (As they were planning to) and deal with a single captured home supply center after they get next years builds?

This article explains the unwanted convoy.
http://www.diplom.org/Zine/S2009M/Norman/unwanted.htm
As for joey's question, I'll make that a significant part of the lecture, but basically, it depends on each situation.

Wouldn't everyone agree that home SCs have a higher value do to being the only place one can build units?

@Draugnar
Yes, but there are cases in which they are easy to retake the next year, while giving up a neutral would mean relinquishing a claim to it for a few years or forever.

So would you say each situation is unique and needs to be evaluated individually?

your students have their books out and are eager to learn before they are tested in 16 hours!

^like

bumpp

I'm writing it now!
@Draugnar: yes. I will evaluate the positions on the board as examples.
@everyone: sorry I'm being so slow this turn: Tuesdays are long, and it's been an interesting day.

Lecture 2 Fall 1901 Diplomacy
Title: He Wants my Capitol!

First, a brief discussion on the Spring 1901 moves. England’s opening is completely conventional, although I myself prefer to put the army in Yorkshire, where it can go to Wales or London directly in case there’s a French fleet in the Channel. Being in Edinburgh gives England the freedom to convoy with either fleet. France too, opened conventionally, covering bur, getting a say in bel, and ensuring that both spa and por can be secured in the fall. The German army in Tyrolia is a bit unusual: Germany usually doesn’t want his army there this early, so my guess is that he expected somebody else to move there and bounce him. One of the possible somebodies seems to be attacking France, although that may change with the German army in Tyrolia. Meanwhile, in the east, Austria’s opening secures Serbia and Greece and gives him a say in rum or a shot at war. The army in Galicia, however, might not make the Russians too happy, but he may have expected a bounce. In any case, he seems to trust Italy, but is probably also wondering why Germany is in Tyrolia! The Turkish opening is completely safe, with the bounce in the Black Sea probably prearranged. Turkey can choose to go in any direction at this point. Russia aggressively opened to Silesia, threatening both Berlin and Munich, but the Austrian army in Galicia could prove to be a problem.

My biggest question after the spring is: why is Germany in Tyrolia? It’s generally (correctly) considered suicidal for Germany to attack Italy or Austria in the opening. Perhaps he expected a bounce, but if so, he got duped.

Now, let us consider the question of whether it is better to defend one’s home centers or to try to pick up new ones. There are a few relevant factors to consider in each case: how likely somebody is to try for the home center in question, how likely you are to gain a new center by leaving the home center undefended, and how badly you need the home center open for a build in the winter. For now, we will not consider the case where one power purposefully gives away one of its home centers, as in the Key Lepanto. In this situation, the home centers under threat are Marseilles, Munich, Berlin, Venice, Trieste, and Warsaw, and we will consider them one by one.

In Marseilles, France and Italy have a guessing game. Here more than anywhere else, France needs to keep Marseilles AND leave it open for a build to defend against the impending Italian invasion. Keeping it is easy – moving either Burgundy or Spain there ensures that it remains blue. However, if Italy then holds in Piedmont (or covers Venice), Marseilles is occupied and unavailable for a build. Even worse, if it is Spain-Marseilles that succeeds, France is cheated out of a build! The obvious solution is to move both Spain and Burgundy there, but there are several disadvantages to that tactic as well. Moving Burgundy-Marseilles means giving up the hard-earned influence on Belgium, and Italy may well get clever and order Piedmont S Spain-Marseilles. In this case, as France, I would order the self-bounce unless I was absolutely certain that England wasn’t going to Belgium, in which case I would take Belgium and take a guess on whether Italy will attack Marseilles. A viable bluff here is to tell Italy that Marseilles will be covered, without specifying how, and then trying to find out from other players whether or not Italy will move to Marseilles. As Italy, I’ve had some success bluffing French players into covering Marseilles and giving up Spain, but it truly is a guessing game. I myself prefer to hold but to give the impression, through silence or a ‘leak,’ that I’ll be trying for Marseilles. That way, I can always claim peaceful intentions later.

In this case, however, Italy, also must consider whether or not to defend Venice. Much depends, of course, on talks with Germany. It is better, of course, not to go backwards in the fall, so if defending, a bounce would be preferred, especially if Italy plans to continue pressuring France. In fact, I would probably hold in Piedmont and move the fleet into Tunis. Germany might take Venice, but if so, he can’t hold it next year, and chances are, Germany won’t try for Venice because he needs to defend Munich. The same logic applies to Trieste: Austria should order Serbia S Albania-Greece. Germany stands even less of a chance of holding Trieste than of holding Venice (that’s an application of the concept of controlling, rather than merely occupying, space, from the last lecture, by the way), and Austria should strive to gain space and time by taking Greece, knowing that, on the off-chance that Germany is silly enough to move to Trieste, he can easily retake it next year. Nevertheless, this is another case where it might be wise to bluff and tell Germany that Trieste will be covered.

This brings us to Germany, which is the only power with the privilege of having TWO home centers under threat, and his case is also the most difficult. Tyrolia should probably go back to Munich: it cannot take any useful center this year, and staying in Tyrolia is most likely a poor diplomatic decision, damaging relations with Austria and Italy. With two foreign armies next to Munich, there is also a decent chance that one of them will move to Munich. The loss of tempo is a concern, but when you’re going the wrong direction, going the other way is moving forwards! Berlin poses a more difficult question. Russia has a very good incentive to go for it, knowing that Germany cannot both defend Berlin and take Holland. In Germany’s position, I would go for Holland unless I had good reason to think that England was going to move there. A Russian army in Berlin can be remedied by building in Kiel and supporting a move to Berlin in the spring, but being bounced from Holland would be a disaster. Of course, letting England into Holland would be just as bad, so Germany’s top priority should really be to ensure that England doesn’t go to Holland.

Finally, there is Warsaw. In Russia’s position, I wouldn’t head to Berlin, because it would be hard to hold, and because it is too early to start a war with Germany with a precarious southern position unless certain that England is onboard, and even then, England is likely to benefit much more than Russia. Whether to actually defend Warsaw, however, is a guessing game. If there truly is to be a war with Austria, having Warsaw available for a build allows Russia to flank Austria. However, losing Warsaw to Austria would, especially if also stood out of Rumania, prove a devastating blow. Here, much depends on Diplomacy and what Russia thinks the Turks and Austrians will do. The two most likely options are Silesia-Galicia, if Russia expects Galicia S Bulgaria-Ser, or Silesia-Warsaw if Russia suspects otherwise. Here, Russia would be very wise to strongly pursue and alliance with Turkey, offering him support into Serbia if only Russia gets Rumania this turn. In Austria’s position, I would recruit Turkey to try and stand Russia out of a build, with Galicia either supporting a move to Rumania or moving to Ukraine to try and get behind the Russian lines.

Once again, a long lecture, but I hope it’s interesting and informative.

Let the stab fest begin! And it is only Autumn 1901!

How interesting! There are quite a few of unusual moves round here.

First, lets look at the carousel of Warsaw->Silesia, Munich->Tyrolia, Vienna->Galicia! Rather amusing. This is almost like a 3-way waltz between Russia, Germany and Austria, with Italy standing too close to the action. It looks like it is in for a tango with France, which is not often seen, but looks can be deceiving...

Turkey
What happened: Completely standard opening. While playing Turkey, it is important to be patient. For Russia's relief, Turkey did not move to Armenia.
Behind the scenes: I don't think that anything particularly interesting happened behind the scenes, except that Italy was probably convinced not to do the Lepanto and to move against France. Was Germany involved in it? Possibly.

England
What happened: Standard northern opening. I personally don't like it much because it might restrict England later on, but it is very common opening and it has its advantages. Norway is guaranteed, and if Germany will bounce France in Burgundy, England can also get Belgium.
Behind the scenes: Obviously, there were some negotiations both with France and Germany. A DMZ in English Channel was achieved, which is a great success for England.

France
What happened: The move to Burgundy opened a lot of opportunities for France. The most obvious is a bounce in Marseilles with Burgundy and Spain. However, what complicates it is that Italy moved to Tyrrhenian AND Piedmont. The English gave France some quite on the north, so France will be able to concentrate on the defense from Italy, while making builds and putting its fleet on the southern cost of Spain. Of all the countries, it is in relatively safe and easy-going position.
Behind the scenes: It is a good thing that France did not go to English Channel, since it would make England angry, and France needs no further enemies. A DMZ in Burgundy was probably promised by Germany (this is why it moved to Tyrolia, probably), and then a word broken. I foresee a war between France and Germany.

Italy
What happened: Italy must consider the option that Germany will act like a terrorist and will actually take Venice, giving Italy no builds in the first year, which might be devastating. On the other hand, sending Piedmont back to Venice, while Tyrrhenian sea is likely to stay in its position to convoy Naples to Tunis or move there itself - all this will make Italy lose tempo with its attack on France.
Behind the scenes: No Lepanto? Awesome. When letting Austria deal with Turkey alone, Italy probably negotiated a DMZ with France, and then violated it. I don't think Italy should attack France in the first year, because it won't be able to make a good progress on this front alone. This means that Italy probably tried to convince Germany and England to move against France - and failed.

Austria
Yet another standard opening, with unusual German move to Tyrolia messing things up a bit. Austria can prevent Rumania from Russians with some help from Turkey, and it will get 1-2 builds in 1901, depending on how suicidal Germany will be.
Behind the scenes: I bet that Galicia DMZ was negotiated, and Austria took advantage from it. If this is the case, Russia can forget the build in Rumania.

Germany
The move to Tyrolia complicates things. If France and Russia made a deal, Munich is lost - either Burgundy or Silesia will move there. The Russian move to Silesia puts in jeopardy (or should I say, "geopardy"?) two German centers, and defending both of them will make Germany to lose a build or two.
Behind the scenes: Tyrolia, eh? However, when looking at all the possible reasons, it is not completely unreasonable that Italy tried to convince Germany to move on France, and got stabbed in Spring 1901 by Germany! Since Germany probably knew that Italy will move to Venice, it used it to its advantage. What Germany did not expect is that Russia will move to Silesia and ruin the attack.

Russia
What did Russia try to achieve by moving to Silesia? The answer is that it probably wanted to humper Germany's advance. However, it is more important for Russia to prevent an attack on Galicia. Russia is in a problematic position. It is under influence of Austria, and it can get 0 builds this turn!
Behind the scenes: With the move against Germany, Russia will get bounced in Sweden. Austria is in perfect position to coordinate a bounce with Russia in Rumania, so I think that Russia will get no builds in 1901.


Cui bono? To whose benefit?
France and Germany will benefit most from cooperating, if Germany will trust France enough. After all, the move to Burgundy is a preparation to move to Belgium without the risk of Germany entering Burgundy. France most likely used this move as an insurance against Germany, and showed that he is a careful player.
Austria, Turkey and England will benefit from a joint attack on the cornered Russia. It is bad for Turkey, though, since it makes no immediate gains and Austria might turn out on him, so a support of Ukraine to Rumania can be negotiated, but there is still the problem of Black Sea bounce.
The only reasonable answer for the German move to Tyrolia is that it has an alliance with France. If this is correct, a build of fleet in Marseilles can be devastating for Italy.


To conclude, I have never seen such an intricated action in the center of the map after Spring 1901. Usually it is the most quiet location, and by creating a turmoil in the center of the map, there are only 3 players who benefit most, and these are the corner countries - Turkey, England and France. Russia lost its ability to benefit from it by the move to Silesia, which adds to the turmoil, but will unlikely strengthen Russia and most likely weaken Germany.


More on cui bono in 1902...

@Draugnar
Yes, each situation is different, and what completely might change even the same situation on board are the negotiations and the level of trust that was achieved off-board. Most of the game does not occur on the board, so reading the map as it is does not show the full picture (and maybe not even half of it).

So, should mentors have dispensed some sort of advice by now?

Professors?

Is there also a possibility that the German opening to Tyrolia could, rather than being anti-Austrian, rather be a pro-Austrian Anschluss Opening, and if so, what do you think might have gone so badly wrong for Germany diplomatically?

@Bob: yes.
@texasdeluxe
The German opening to Tyrolia could be all kinds of things -- that's why it's generated so much discussion. However, in the classical Anschluss, Germany holds in Munich or bounces with somebody in Tyrolia and tells Italy that he will move south in the fall if necessary to protect Austria. While it is definitely possible that the German army is in Tyrolia for Austria's benefit, it is also possible that it was meant to bounce, or, as Bask points out, that it is there for France's benefit. In any case, if it was an Anschluss, it deviated from the classical version by actually ending up in Tyrolia, but that doesn't mean it can't accomplish the same goal as the Acnschluss.

bump

Bumping again

expect another lecture tonight.

Professors, I have a few more questions I'd love your opinions on:

1: Given Germany's awful opening position, do you think it was wise for Germany to move to Sweden and not do a deal with England regarding Hol in the face of an aggressive Russia and (to a lesser extent) France, given that there was a good change that Russia would move to Baltic, thus dividing German forces and England might not get Bel?

2: Given France moved on Bur (possibly angering Germany) and has an aggressive Italy, do you think it would have been wise for France to befriend England and not bounce in Bel?

3: Is Turkey fucked or is there still hope?

Basically, where do you see the alliances and where did you expect to see the alliances before these moves?

(You don't really have to answer these inane questions. I just find this such an interesting start to a game and couldn't resit asking!)

Lecture 3 Winter 1902
Title: 1901 Grades

Austria: B+
Space: Austria now controls the important space of Galicia, and can reinforce it with builds in Vienna or Budapest. A build in Budapest also allows him to influence Rumania. This gives Austria the freedom to choose his ally and his direction of expansion. It also helps that Russia has a fleet in Rumania instead of an army. The fleet is well-placed in Greece, where it can influence Bulgaria, Aegean, and Ionian.
Time: 4 successful moves. In this case, more would probably have spread Austria too thin or made him some serious enemies.
Material: Two builds for Austria in 1901, and he still has all his home centers. That’s always good.
What I would do if I replaced Austria this turn: First, I would point out to Italy that, with Turkey about to put fleets in the Med, he a new fleet in Naples and me as an ally. I want the Russians to build something in Sevastapol to go after Turkey. A fleet is better, as it can force Black Sea in the spring, makes it almost impossible for Russia to attack me, and, if all goes well, will eventually lead to a naval clash with Italy. By the same logic, I would encourage Turkey to build a fleet, telling him that we can work together to take Ionian and Rumania next year. Almost any combination of builds actually works here – I would build whatever I thought would gain me the most friends.

England: B+
Space: Nothing unusual: England controls the North Sea and has taken Norway for his first build.
Time: 4 successful moves. The convoy to Belgium succeeding would have been nice, but there’s a good chance the bounce was arranged.
Material: One build for England is fairly standard.
What I would do if I replaced England this turn: The big decision here is: do you prop up the Germans, or jump into the frenzy? For the winter, my number one priority is to make sure there are no fleets in St. Petersburg or Brest. Since the army is occupying Edinburgh, I would put a fleet in London for the flexibility, even though it will require a lot of diploming to assure France – another reason not to open Liverpool-Edinburgh in Spring 1901. I would put off the decision as long as possible, but eventually move against Germany only if I thought I could get a foothold on the continent and positioning for a stab on either Germany or Russia OR if I were convinced that Germany was going down whether or not I propped him up.

France: A-
Space: Burgundy is still occupied, and the fleet in Spain influences both the Med and Mid-Atlantic. Convincing Italy to back out of Piedmont also helps.
Time: 5 successful moves. I’m not sure how I feel about the army in Portugal. There are benefits to the fleet in Spain, but the army in Portugal now has to go backwards to be anywhere near the action.
Material: The usual two builds. If forward units are stronger, does the army in Portugal count as a weak backwards unit?
What I would do if I replaced France this turn: My goal here is to make friends and secure Belgium. A six-center France after 1902 can then pick his targets based on what’s going on with the German. At the moment, it doesn’t really look like anybody’s ready or willing to attack France except possibly Italy, and the fleet in Spain combined with the Turkish fleets moving westward should make it easy to convince Italy to look eastwards. I would build fleet Brest, army Marseilles, as it doesn’t force me to go in any direction or leave any front overly exposed. However, I would make sure to tell England about the fleet in Brest so that there are no surprises.

Germany: D
Space: Russia units in Baltic and Berlin are bad news, and the fleet in Sweden is isolated.
Time: 4 successful moves. Going to Tyrolia and back was wasteful.
Material: only one build already a home center lost, and really no realistic shot at Belgium in 1902.
What I would do if I replaced Germany this turn: The build must be an army in Kiel to try and retake Berlin next year. I would offer Russia Sweden in exchange for Berlin, and would also lobby hard for a fleet in St. Petersburg/nc to try and make sure England and Russia don’t ally. The army in Holland, and its ability to support England or France into Belgium, needs to be used to gain an ally in one of England and France. At least one French fleet is necessary; if I can convince him to build two, all the better. I also would try to convince Italy to restart the attack on France, pointing out the fleet in Spain and that a strong France is bad for Italy. Likewise, I talk to Austria and Turkey, pointing out that, if Russia is dominant in the north, he will flank Austria’s position and be able to have his pick of allies in the south.

Italy: C+
Space:Tyrrhenian Sea, Tyrolia, and Tunis are all good places to be, but I’m not sure if there’s much purpose to being in the three of them at the same time! It does give lots of options, I guess.
Time: 3 successful moves
Material: armies in Tunis aren’t much use without a convoy chain, and they can’t support movement to Western Med or Ion.
What I would do if I replaced Italy this turn: Italy needs to build a new fleet in Naples unless he’s absolutely set on attacking Austria and certain that he has the friends to pull it off. At this point, attacking Austria is very risky, as even with an army in Venice, that still leaves only two units on that front while the other two hang out in the other side of the boot. Diplomatically, the goals are an empty Marseilles and no army in Trieste. It is essential to reassure Austria that the move to Tyrolia was purely defensive. The choice of direction comes down entirely to where I think I can get somebody to help me against somebody else, whether that be England against France, Russia/Turkey against Austria, or Austria/Russia against Turkey.

Russia: A
Space: Baltic and Berlin are great places to be, and Rumania can be reinforced with a build in Sevastapol. The one drawback is the army in Galicia, but it seems to be friendly at the moment.
Time: 6 successful moves. Making it into Berlin and Baltic so quickly is very nice, however.
Material: Two builds, and forward units in Berlin and Baltic.
What I would do if I replaced Russia this turn: The top priorities are to ensure a friendly England and a friendly Austria. Convincing Austria to leave Budapest empty would be quite a coup. A build in Sevastapol is necessary to keep Rumania. I would prefer a fleet here, as it gives better options against Turkey, and an army would probably upset Austria, who has the power to make his displeasure known. In the north, an army in Moscow is slow to get to the front, but can go in any direction, while fleets on either coast of St. Petersburg are more aggressive and indicate that I have a solid alliance and a plan of attack. Trading Berlin for Sweden is a viable option if Germany wants to cooperate, and, unless I can be sure Austria will allow me to send more armies at Germany, will probably be the best option because otherwise, England or France will take the majority of the German centers. I would talk extensively to France, coordinating our policies towards England and Germany and working together to make sure that England and Germany do not ally. Likewise, I would try to influence Italy to head east, both to free up France and so that at least one of Turkey and Austria has to worry about his western front.

Turkey: B+
Space: Absolutely nothing unusual here: Black Sea empty, army in Bulgaria.
Time: 3 successful moves. Moving the army from Smyrna to Constantinople and back is rather unfortunate, but I guess there really wasn’t much of anywhere to go. The unused support for Galicia-Rumania is a pity, however, and I have to wonder whether Austria flat-out lied to Turkey about that.
Material: The army in Smyrna is a bit limited, as it can’t communicate with the army in Bulgaria and can’t be convoyed yet.
What I would do if I replaced Turkey this turn: The nice thing about Turkey is that it’s very safe. It appears that he tried to woo Austria against Russia and was spurned. Turkey isn’t in a good spot for offense right now, but can shut down all but the most determined attacks. The one annoyance is that the fleet in Constantinople cannot support Bulgaria AND help secure a sea space, thus trapping a new fleet behind it, and Bulgaria could be doomed if Russia and Austria ally. On the other hand, I would point out to each of my neighbors that, while Bulgaria might be vulnerable, my home centers are easy to defend, and that it would therefore be much more profitable to attack somebody else! I would try to encourage England and Germany to work together against Russia.

Answers to texasdeluxe's questions:
1. I wouldn't have moved to Sweden in Germany's place, although I'm not sure if I would have been gutsy enough to go to Baltic.
2. The bounce may well have been arranged. In any case, I don't think either France or England are too concerned about upsetting Germany right now, as Germany has first to deal with Russia.
3. Turkey could easily lose Bulgaria, but the gains for anybody attacking him will be meager at best after that, and he needs to use that to his advantage diplomatically.

bump

"3. Is Turkey fucked or is there still hope?"

Lemme get back to ya on that one...

Eden we're not supposed to post on here lol

Why do you think going to Tyrolia and back was wasteful? Germany rarely uses that third unit anyway in 1901; Ruhr and back is pretty common, as is the burgundy bounce and hold. I thought the Tyrolia move demonstrated loyalty to Austria and was a creative use of the army. Germany also might have been expecting italy to come north.

Also, what is the point of letter grades if you cant see the press? i mean, isnt 1901 about setting alliances and developing trust? the moves alone don't really tell us a whole lot, other than obvious mistakes and stuff