1. The Professors for this game are uclabb, yonni, slyster, and goldfinger. They are expected to post a lecture approximately twice every game year as well as to answer questions posed in the thread.
2. NOBODY but the professors is to post any commentary. However, anybody may ask any relevant question, even extremely leading questions. Answers to questions are considered commentary.
3. Nobody who is playing in the game or advising somebody in the game is to post in this thread while the game is active. However, once the game is over, End of Game statements from the TAs and students are encouraged.

Since the game has yet to start I advise students, both in this game and waiting for Game 2, to read over the threads for past school of wars. If you do so, you'll find that I shamelessly copied and pasted Dean Wiggin's rules from the School of War in which I was a student. However, the professors of past School of Wars are all esteemed players and their opinions on issues will give you a lot of insight into advanced strategy/tactics before you begin your game, as well as what you can expect from professors in this game.

Here are the links to the last 4 School of War threads.
http://www.webdiplomacy.net/forum.php?threadID=672851#699131
http://www.webdiplomacy.net/forum.php?threadID=738795
http://www.webdiplomacy.net/forum.php?threadID=739795
http://webdiplomacy.net/forum.php?threadID=884531&page-thread=1#threadPager

bump to the top. I'll just be bumping until the game starts, and then I'll make some opening comments.

bump

Other professors are more than welcome to post their opening remarks. I didn't mean to make it seem that they aren't allowed to. Its just I didn't have time the past few days to.

I've never been on this side of things. With two games worth of profs, should we try order ourselves a bit or is it more commentary the better?

I thought we could post commentary..? One of the ban threads included a complaint by someone I cannot recall (hellalt maybe?) that we no longer were allowed to comment on on-going games, but someone said the SOW games could be commented on. Was that incorrect or have the rules changed?

@dubmdell - I was the one who said that, but going back through the rules, it historically has not been so, though interaction with the general public is one of the things that in my opinion School of Wars have been lacking in. Pretty much the rules state that so long as the commentary is in question form, it is admissable, at the discretion of the professor.

@Yonni - I honestly hadn't considered that bit. Hmm. In my opinion the more the merrier, so that students can see in general differences of opinions. One thing that should be avoided is commentary that may sway student's opinions on how to proceed. In my opinion, the more commentary there is the more likely a student won't be swayed by any one single line of thinking.

but still, jmo is the final arbiter of all this, so it's on him

So if I offer commentary like, "Shouldn't France move to Irish Sea this turn so that he can take over England, no holds barred, and then proceed to solo?" then that is permissible, but "France should move to Irish Sea ..." is not permissible?

The public interaction is on the professors, if you allow comments then everyone can post comments. The only thing I specifically don't want to see is something like this:

"England should attack france because france is wide open next turn" or "Does anyone disagree that turkey should stab italy now?"

anything from the general forum members that could influence moves in future turns should be avoided. The professors have to figure out how to help everyone without completely affecting the moves. And the more press/conversation between professors the better. Feel free to talk to each other about the game via pm, etc.

The professors have full control though, if you want to allow only questions that is fine. If anyone is breaking the rules of this thread let the moderators know and they will be asked to stop, and then silenced temporarily if they continue. The only people who aren't allowed to post here at all are students or TA's unless it's to discuss/request a pause.

@dubmdell - the other professors and I will have to agree on this (via PM please) but currently, I think the question form will suffice, since the professors will be answering this, but hopefully in a manner which will not affect gameplay. I asked a very similar question to that in the last School of War thread and Tru Ninja answered in a objective way, so I think those are permissible, but place a bigger burden on professors to answer them in a way not to bias the thoughts of the student.

Come to think of it, so long as the question is retrospective, I would think its perfectly fine. So just wait one phase and ask "Shouldn't England have moved to X". I think that is the best way to proceed. As jmo, said, the point is to not affect the moves.

Do we have a list of TAs and corresponding countries yet?

Yes ghug. Check the other thread.

Alright, so the other professors and I conferred and we're going to be pretty liberal in the commentary we allow, because we want to keep the thread interactive and lively. Also, the more commentary there is, the more students can learn.

The only restrictions, however, are that we do not want commentary to influence moves, so keep all comments retrospective and please do not speculate on future moves or what players will/should do.

And I see the game is up, so I'll post my opening comments in a few hours.

Just wanted to repost peterwiggin's excellent opening comments from a previous SoW:

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/

Another great post by former professor lvo lvanov:

Here're some suggestions on how to play the game, plus some common mistakes I’ve seen with new players.

Attitude and communication:

Try to avoid emotions. Imagine that you are the President/King/PM of the country you're playing and your mission is to do what's best for your people. Ass-kissing may be involved, being nice to morons and such. You have to take a long-term approach and build relations, hopefully matching your own preferences, which make it possible for you, at any point, to be able to send a message to any other player and initiate a reasonable discussion. This can be viewed as a role-playing game, in terms of the mindset one has to take. You have to be a statesman/diplomat. Try to do a professional job without being an ass of provoking others to be. The game is brutal enough by design… seven enter one leaves.

At game start, when dealing with your neighbors, the main goal should be to make it clear to them that you are friendly and reasonable and they can work with you… it gives them the confidence to be more aggressive in negotiations with others :). If you’re GER and FRA gives you a plan to invade ENG don’t argue about details, get them to fight.

Countries further away usually don’t get much attention at the beginning, but it’s good to at least say hello. You want them to know that you’ll be on their side, even without much compensation, should they decide to go after one of your neighbors.

Don’t lie without a very good reason. People take notice. It’s all relative, but if you’re the first one to lie to another player, chances are you got yourself into a war. That’s why it’s very important to not lie at first turn… there’ll be two people to do that and if you’re one of them and the other hits you it’s game over.

Small lies also count. It is ok to respond that you are not willing to share information.

Spreading the word on who said what has the adverse effect to make people worried about what should they tell you, if anything at all… and if you’re lying it’s even worse.


Strategy and tactics:

You have to take a long-term approach and be patient. This game takes a long time. There will be bad times, but more often than not, things can change. Most games can be split into two phases:
- Beginning, which is usually the end for a couple countries. Your obvious objective is to stay alive. Killing one of your neighbors helps. Killing two is a guarantee. Having said this… never start two wars if you can avoid/delay it, one step at a time. You need at least one solid ally. If you don’t have this, no one else should have it either. Make offers that cannot be refused, until you break their alliance.
- Ending (not very creative naming convention), where either someone wins or, after some fighting, a draw is agreed. Your main objective here is to not let anyone else win. Then, try to win yourself. This usually works best if there’re more survivors. Don’t kill minions, use them.

Games tend to have a natural flow and it’s important to try and see/predict it. Who’s fighting who, where is it going if the current situation develops with no surprises, who’ll be the winners and the losers. Which ‘broad’ alliance (defined as people not fighting each-other) do you have to join to have a majority (4 vs. 3, 3 vs.2) and at which point does it make sense to change sides. When do you expect others to realize they need to change sides. After every turn, try to look at the map as if it were a new game, forgetting all history and communication, and think about each nation. What makes most sense for them.

It is also very important to spot it when the balance of the game is against you, and come up with a plan to change it altogether. If you’re facing a stronger opposition, forget about military victories, actually in some cases it may be a good idea to lose a center or two at one end, in order to unbalance the opposing alliance, in the process also becoming less of a threat yourself. If your ally is about to get too big, maybe a preemptive stab is needed.

When thinking about unit movement, at minimum try to always consider the following:
- what is your best move
- what is the worst-case scenario counter-move from your enemy
- what is your enemy's best move
- what is your best move to counter the enemy's best move
- what will be your unit position at the end, logistics are important
- disbanding enemy units and locking build centers can be the difference between winning and losing a war with an equally powerful opponent

Here are two of my favorite old SoW threads:
threadID=501033#503253
threadID=474841#474841 This one is especially excellent.

So, finally for some remarks which are not copied and pasted from other previous professors.

This little lecture will be on conversations and game dynamics, since if you read the previous posts, grand strategy is pretty well covered, so its my job to get into some more of the intricacies.

As I have always told my students in previous Schools of War, you should always be talking. I make a habit to respond to everyone's press immediately, and follow up if they haven't sent anything back in a while. This usually makes me the most talkative player in the game and - like the squeaky wheel is the one to get oiled first - the talkative player is the one whose needs are often met. Press is the only thing you can judge a player by going into the first move, and the first move can sometimes be the difference between having a tough road ahead or easy sailing.

When composing your press, try to present yourself as a reasonable person to deal with. Avoid curt messages and in general make yourself out to be a player who dynamically responds to others' ideas. Formulate complete plans with your neighbors, and only let yourself know which one you are going to do. The best situation for you to be in at any time in the game is to be "allied" with all of your neighbors, and this should be what you actively strive for. Note that this doesn't mean you are actually at peace with them, but they are under the impression you are.

However, despite your best overtures and pretty faces, stabs will happen in this game, be it you are about to stab them, or they will stab you. Stabbing is an integral part of the game, but there is nothing worse than a botched stab. One of the best ways to tip off your neighbor that a stab is coming is to change the volume of press with them. If you're talkative and all of a sudden only send a few messages, or vice versa, then an experienced enemy will know whats coming and prepare for it. Thus, you must always act as though you are 100% committed to going on with the status quo up until the phase changes in order to give you the best chance of a successful stab.

In terms of the physical moves needed to stab, I won't say much. Just remember a stab is not judged by how many centers you take, but rather by where your units are positioned. Is England better off if he convoys an army into Brest or Gascony? Its really a case-by-case basis to judge. Don't always think a stab entails moving on someone else's territory though. Withdrawing a support hold can be just as damaging, and can also have the benefit of being easily explained away to the hurt party (but X SC of mine was being threatened, so I had to cover it)

But what about if you're on the other side of the coin? A few points on this matter. First off, don't clam up when you've been stabbed. Your best chances for survival are if you talk, but more importantly, you should never avoid talking to the person who stabbed you. Being irate won't help either. Just calmly congratulate them on the stab and offer them terms to be friends again. Again this is not a guarantee, but it will improve your odds.

In sum: talk often and with everyone, don't change your volume or content of press before the stab, an keep your posts high quality. This will do wonders to get players to trust you.

Now onto the second topic of discussion, which closely relates to the first. Ramifications of moves.

The actions of every nation have a chain affect across the board that may not immediately be noticeable. However, what England does in 1901-3 may decide whether Turkey is able to solo or not in 1909. Here is why.

In essence, diplomacy is a zero sum game. If you attack one country you only do so by sacrificing your ability to attack another country. Played out across the entire board, you can see in advance where countries will be stressed and where vulnerabilities will happen. A lot of this is common sense. If you're Turkey and Russia and Austria come at you in 1901, you don't necessarily want Italy attacking Austria to help you. The optimal solution in this matter is to create an E/G and encourage Italy to attack France. This does many things. First off, the E/G creates a huge stress on Russia. He must make rapid gains to the south against Turkey (unlikely) or face the loss of his entire northern front. Many, if not most, Russia's will find this loss unacceptable and try to defend their holdings, sacrificing troop strength to the south. Italy attacking France has a dual purpose. First off, it encourages the E/G to form by partially removing France as a player in the West (France will likely have to dedicate 3-4 units to defend against a 3 unit Italian attack). Secondly, it is a carrot you can dangle infront of Austria as your negotiations proceed, inviting him to attack a distracted Italy.

Now, that is only one scenario, but this type of analysis should be going through every players mind. If Austria is being attacked quickly off the bat, England should be concerned with this, as a quick consolidation of the south decreases the likelihood he'll be able to break into France. A stalemate in the West should be looked upon unfavorably by Turkey, because a dead or weakened France is the best scenario in which Turkey can grab SC's west of the stalemate line.

As a closing thought, nine times out of ten it is better to leave a power alive than kill it. The larger in number (not size) an opposing coalition is, the easier it is to defeat due to communication errors and such. The more little powers alive at the end of the game, the easier it will be for you to coerce one into helping you, be it out of embitterment and spite or fear of being eliminated.

Well I hope my comments have been helpful. This isn't exactly the most pertinent overall information to new students, but I believe the lectures uclabb posted are great for looking at the big picture. I look forward to seeing the upcoming years' moves.

Alright, so I see a lot has already been said through the last posts from other professors and I find it quite interesting to see how they think. A lot has already been said, so I'll focus on just some specific points about the first year and describe how I usually approach the first year.

Whatever country you're playing, the first year is all about creating good relations with your neighbours. You have to show you can be one to be trusted in this game. Trust should be your biggest weapon. So, since the key is to create trust and good relations with the 6 other nations, now how can you do this.

1) Always keep an open mind to what others are telling you.
Basically, tell them what you like about what they're saying to you, their ideas and what you feel comfortable with. Tell them what kind of player you are, what you're looking for in a game. So basically, you're just telling, here, who you are as a person so they can go and understand where you're coming from with your ideas. I find this is the first step into developing relations with your neighbours. Do whatever you can to have them trust you and quick. Make them laugh, see how you can help them in achieving goals

2) Work for mutual benefits
Now comes the analysis part. When you feel you start to connect with some players and the relations are set, you usally start to feel who you can start to trust and who you would rather not. Then, go on and start analysing who you would like to see grow with you, and what kind of common goals you can have with other powers. The first years are all about that. No one can grow if they can't share common goals with other powers. Now, what kind of game you'd want to see happening.

For example, Russia. The worst that can happen for Russia in the north is to see an EG alliance right from the start. Then try to think how you could make them to *not* ally together. If you are Turkey, you obviously don't want Italy to open with the Lepanto, so who can side with you regarding that issue?

So, long story short, just go with the flow through the first year and start to get hints of who you feel you can trust and whom you feel you can't trust. Then, start discussing moves, NAPs, etc. Finally, I'd say that you should always choose Diplomatic considerations over tactical considerations in the first years as it is trust that will bring yiy far in this game, but greed will rarely bring you anywhere.

I don't know how useful that can be, but since a lot has already been said, I thought I'd keep this short! So, have a good turn, and see where this brings us next!

bump

Well, there is already a Zine's worth of advice here for Spring 1901 so I'll hold off until next season (A collection of SoW posts could make a nice entry for one, no?).

As cheesy as it sounds, my comment is to have fun and make the most of the game. If you're enjoying the game, the conversations, and the strategizing it will show in your play. Chatting to everyone will be less of a grind and more of what it should be, a great and captivating hobby.
I know many of the top FP players play one, or at most, two games at once. When you're having fun you can get so immersed in the game that they don't need another one to satisfy even your most depraved diplomacy needs.

On that note, I'll try compliment my posts with a some (relevant?) tunes for your listening pleasure. Enjoy the game, enjoy the community, and enjoy the tunes.
This year's song comes from a guy I'm seeing this Friday and is as meaningless as Spring 1901 press.
Dan Deacon - Woody Woodpecker
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vcr-AfYsb6o

Yonni if we got together all of the School of War posts, I'm sure we could be able to have a whole issue devoted to WebDip.

Looking forward to seeing the opening moves

Lecture 2
Autumn 1901
Title: Advanced Preparation

After this lecture, I'll adopt a more standardized format, dividing up the map into East and West and assigning grades to each power based upon three criteria: space (where your troops are), time (how many of your moves succeed, and material (SC count) within an overall strategic framework.

But for now, you should all be thinking about 1902, both the builds phase and the spring moves. "Wait goldfinger, it's only 1901!" you may say, but since this spring saw some very vanilla openings and no country is really threatened yet, you can safely start strategizing for what your neighbors will do next year.

What they do next year depends upon how many builds they get and what/where they will build. I will not speculate on what a country should build, so let's look at what shape each country is in heading into the fall moves. There are 12 neutral SC's on the board, so let's see who will get what.

Norway: solidly English.

Sweden: up for grabs between German and Russia. Germany has control here, and how Sweden goes will determine a lot of the northern dynamic. Or it may not, depending upon how devious the negotiations are. Should there be a bounce, expect both sides to lobby England for support.

Denmark: solidly German

Holland: up for grabs at the moment. England has the freedom to choose to make an enemy of Germany and cripple him in 1901.

Belgium: See Holland, above. Only France would not be harmed nearly as much since he has two builds guaranteed.

Portugal: solidly French

Spain: solidly French

Tunis: Solidly Italian

Serbia: Solidly Austrian

Bulgaria: Solidly Turkish

Greece: Most likely Austrian, though Italy and Turkey working together could deny Austria the extra build.

Rumania: Most likely Russian. Austria and Turkey working together could deny him the center though, which would be a major blow.

I should also mention that Trieste is threatened, but seeing as this is the case nearly every game and Vienna is free, I won't dwell on it any further.

So what's the overall picture? England, Turkey, Italy, Germany and Austria all have one center guaranteed, with the potential for a second center. France has two centers guaranteed, with the possibility of a third. Russia is alone in having the potential for no builds next year, but also having two center open for him.

To be clear, when I say "guaranteed" it is not saying that a country would be best off if they grabbed that SC now. Remember from earlier lectures that sometimes it is worth a short term sacrifice in SC's to get your units in a better position for later, with the classic example of Italy's fleet moving to the Aegean in F1901 to get a better position on Turkey for the Lepanto (usually accompanied by Austria lending an SC)

Now, for a more personal analysis

England: A standard northern opening. Your position looks pretty secure at the moment. I prefer opening A Liv - Edi to give me the option of convoying the army into Norway, but what you did is safer since it could defend Wales or London. You have options though. You'll likely only get one center this year, but can shape the balance of power in both the West and the north this fall. Yours is a good position to be in at the moment.

France: Another standard opening, but things couldn't have gone better for you. None of your SC's are threatened, you have friendly neighbors, and a 50% chance of getting three builds. Just be mindful of what attention that will bring you.

Germany: Another safe opening (to warn the reader, everyone did a safe opening here). The bounce in Bur means Mun will not be threatened in the fall, and your neighbors to the south and east are being cooperative. This gives A Mun considerable leeway for the fall. F Den can can also play a role in your relations with Russia, so be mindful of that. Overall though? I don't like the opening. It limits your options and makes your fall moves too predictable. For those of you who have played with me, I focus a lot on unpredictability. I mean that in the sense of if someone looked at the board out of context they wouldn't be able to tell what I was about to do. However, within context (meaning having knowledge of your press, so if I was a player in the game) then it is not good to be completely unpredictable. So in that sense your moves should be more, but not completely predictable. But I got off on a tangent. Back on track now.

Italy: A safe move, but I don't like holding armies in year one. Armies should be moving and with a purpose for most of the time, but especially in 1901. I think there were other diplomatic options you could have explored but either didn't or considered and rejected.

Austria: This is one of my preferred Austrian openings. While Italy's unit in Venice will threaten Trieste, that is hardly a worst case scenario for you. Depending upon your relations with the Turk you can block Russia from Rum this fall,so you're currently the dominant power in the Balkans.

Turkey: This is probably the safest of the three Turkish openings that are generally rotated between. The others are opening A Smy - Arm, which would make Russia not like you very much, and opening F Ank - Con and A Smy - Ank. The latter is my preferred opening since it allows you to get your fleets into the Med faster, but at the risk of ceding control of the Black Sea to Russia, which is generally no bueno.

Russia: Standard southern opening, but I consider you in the worst position on the board right now. Two bounces have your units treading water, and you have the potential to be without builds this year. Note that I only say this because everyone else is just in a safer position, not because your opening is inherently bad. People don't like seeing a wall of purple coming their way in 1902-3, so a slower start may mitigate that.

Closing remarks. I may sound mildly disappointed by the moves this spring, but don't take that to mean you should do bold and daring moves every turn. The game is not one of "WOW LOOK AT WHAT HE JUST DID" but one of solidifying your position and advancing with cold ruthlessness. As much as we love cool and innovative moves, they are much higher risk/doubtful reward, as I personally can testify to.

Anyways, I look forward to the fall moves and my lectures should be getting a bit briefer from now on and more focused on country analysis rather than overall facts and strategy.

Whoops, one final remark. Consider your opponents' moves this fall and how strong they will be in the spring with their builds. Then consider if its in your interest for them to be like that. Always think ahead, just not too far ahead. I think that after a year (at max two) you cannot predict how the board will be with any sense of accuracy, save if someone is going on a solo run.

I think I’d like to add a little bit about 1901 diplomacy and comment on a few things that have been said so far.

“One of the best ways to tip off your neighbor that a stab is coming is to change the volume of press with them”

This is true but, for better or for worse, we all have lives outside of diplomacy (Blasphemy, I know). If you know you’re going to be away or busy, let people know and be up front about it. A simple “Won’t be posting too much this weekend – don’t worry, I’m not stabbing” can do the trick. It gets tired if you post it every weekend but can try ease your neighbours nerves if your press dries up. I think I’ll touch on this again when we get to our first 6 day season. That’s always a tricky beast to navigate.

“Italy: A safe move, but I don't like holding armies in year one”

I really don’t mind it one bit. If the goal is to create trust with Austria, there’s no better way than to have one of your idle armies not take his open centre. Leaving your army in Venice is a show of self control to your neighbour and can foster a relationship in which you can navigate your units past his centres without pushback. Of course, it can also be sitting there in order to stab in the Fall. It’s all good. I just don’t see another spot for it. Perhaps some of the other professors see it differently though.

First year press:

The first year of diplomacy is a unique beast. In all following years you will have unit movement, press history, and board dynamics to help you determine both your own path forward and your opponents’ likely paths forward. However, with a virgin board you don’t have any of that to work with so what are your goals? What are you trying to work towards? Here are some objectives that I have encountered either in my own games or from discussions with people on the forums.

1) Find out who you are compatible with

For me, this is the primary role of 1901 press. I want to get a grasp of who I can get along with. You’re going to be chatting with these people on and off for the next month. You’re going to have to brainstorm, resolve arguments, and confide secrets with each other – really, do all the things that you’d normally find impossible to do with a stranger. You don’t need to be best friends with the person but finding someone with common diplomacy goals, style of press, etc. can make life a lot easier going forward.

I normally have an idea within the first couple of years of who my target partner in crime is and will dedicate the most time and effort into befriending the person. If you can do it honestly and without the pretense of the lying, thieving, and backstabbing game you’re playing, then all the better. I think I’ll post some more on this later as, for me, it’s what appeals most about Diplomacy.

2) Create an advantageous board dynamic

The most obvious example of this is in the West where there are 3 powers. The natural progression is for this to turn into a 2 v 1 and you want to do everything in your power to not become the 1. However, there are some subtler things that you may want to influence. For instance, as France you might want to see a cooperative Russia and Turkey or as England you might want to see an Italian fleet moving West. These are all things you can try influence in your 1901 press.

I often find that the best way to go about this is to plant seeds early so that they can keep your offer in the back of their mind while diploming with everyone else. While everyone is jockeying for diplomatic positions on the board it can be advantageous to present your alliances as offers. Ask for your partner to take the lead. I’m sure you can go Freudian on this and discuss how it makes them feel safe etc. but I won’t. Suffice to say that it’s been successful for (and against) me thus far.

For example, as Russia, you could say something to Italy such as “I’m having a hard time deciding between going against Turkey or Austria but, as Russia, I always value a strong relationship with Italy so let me know where you’re moving and I’ll follow suit.” You might not get the definite answer that you’re looking for but they’re looking for a willing partner as much as you are so, if you present yourself, it’s tempting for them get in bed with you.

3) Determine specific tactics and strategies

I’m normally quite weak on this front and shy away from it during the first year while things are murky but I’ve played with people who have quite clearly and efficiently presented how our alliance would play out. The disadvantage of this is that it locks you into a course of action for the next year or so. However, you do gain a leg up in having a more concrete alliance. If your alliance has already reached this point, then it’s much less likely that you’ll be stabbed in 1901/2 which makes it quite a worthwhile goal for 1901 press.

Also, some things that you may or not know about already.

This site is a great resource for information on openings, stalemate lines etc: http://www.diplom.org/index.py

Underneath the board there are 5 buttons. The arrows let you navigate through each season of the board. The middle button shows you an enlarged version of the map. On this map, you can see failed supports etc. that don't show up on the small map. It's essential for GB games but can still be useful in FP.

At the bottom of the page there are links to past orders and messages. There, you can see all your old messages even if you can't scroll back to them in your press with individual countries.

Bump over the political rubbish.