Count. Turkey could not get Italy with that stalemate line. England had the second fleet needed to bottle up Portugal. So, for Turkey to solo, he would need Berlin, Munich, Kiel and Marseilles. Kiel wouldn't hold, so maybe Turkey would be able to break through via Marseilles, but Germany would need to heavily assist that, and would also be trying to survive to a draw. I put the odds pretty high that England would take the needed number before Turkey punched through

Another option is StP, but then that means Turkey might not have the assistance needed to take and hold Berlin

Yeah, I thought StP looked more likely. I suppose you're correct that if Germany is at all conflicted about throwing, and maintains a measure of self-interest, it actually becomes harder to stop England.

Not my full EOG but I figured I needed to take a center from England and put enough units on my northern coast to give him pause in order to earn the draw. Portugal wasn't an entirely smart move however I expected him to try for holland or Denmark not backfill and so was expecting to be able to mess with him in MAO / Spain the following year. I like to think my press in global and my moves that last year made the draw happen.

I believe they did, CB. I didn't have time tonight for a full write-up, but I promise to do one in the next day or two

no problem my EOG is coming in 10 minutes, hopefully you can gleam some insight into my less advisable moves.

Introduction: This game was LOOOOOOOOOOOONG. I think my first issue is with the wait orders function it was overused imho and made for a bit of demoralization for the most reliable player in that game. if at any time england or turkey had actually NMRd instead of getting an extension this game would've been very different. however to have gripes with an agreed function of the game is not fair. I did feel professor press was lacking in the mid game and unreliably late throughout. I understand not giving direct evals in the late game, but some conversation starters wouldve been nice. i digress. the game itself was interesting as i think some players completely gave control to their TAs without giving their TAs full press, while others ignored their TAs to their own detriment. this made the game especially unpredictable. i found early a good ally in England, he seemed willing to compromise and to work toward goals. usually his press matched his moves and i appreciated that, also france was a nut job at the start (new france was a doll, wish hed been in since the beginning).

Much like James Comey i wrote short memos each year detailing my moves and thoughts. ill post those and then let anyone ask questions.

1901- Set out for a solid alliance with France early on. Ended up with confidence in a WT but wanted to bounce Bur to throw off the scent and keep france out of Bur early. Lobbied hard for english control of Belgium to prevent 3 center france. Bounced Russia to keep him weak in north to keep England confident in his northern trajectory. By end of Fall realized France was a bit sneaky and dishonest. Something about him put me off. England became my prime ally; and I worked out a decent relationship with almost everyone even Russia.

1902- After French breach of DMZ and builds I was pretty certain he was coming against me. Lack of press made me decide to take matters into my own hands. I went hard west. Fortunately France moved on England instead galvanizing our relationship. Meawhile in the east i decided to support austria to galcia greatly hurting my russian relationship.

1903-This years highlights include successfully convincing russia to move on st.petersburg. Russia was suppose to support himself into st.pertersburg while i went to sweden under the guise of helping defend england. This would have put me in sweden where i would then tap norway in the spring giving st.petersburg back to russia. For some strange reason russia decided to bounce me at sweden. Which just gave england more confidence in me. Meanwhile france is asking me to stab england… which i am trying to do. But russia is making it very hard.

1904- I tried to use some diplomatic pressure from france and italy to get russia to let me into sweden in spring. This didn’t work. I however also decided to start setting up my contingency seeing turkey and italy grow. At this point i realize i should focus on my survival and making myself vital to a stalemate line.

1905- I attempted to work with austria but his miscommunication left me with a bounce in livonia. At this point i decided his lack of ability was a major hinderance and liability. In the fall i took him out of the game to sure up my own position. Seeing France eaten by England i know i have to act, hopefully i can pick up atleast 2 centers from france, and hopefully earn brest in some trade with England.

1906- Moscow and Paris are mine this year, however i didnt get in warsaw as i wouldve liked. I tried getting turkey to move to moscow himself by offering my support. I am going to build a fleet to deter an english stab.

1907- France moving to Bur is not what i expected. Feeling a bit of pressure to quickly eliminate france. England is demanding marseilles. I need to give some concession as i cant afford a two front war right now.

1908- tried to get brest and england originally agreed but he took it back? Little confusing now trying to figure out what exactly he wants, he has his draw vote up but is clearly going for the solo, will play along. Losing moscow was unavoidable but maybe by putting england in direct contact with turkey i can convince him to draw? Offering england support into prussia was a play at mingling england on the stalemate so that he would be less inclined to stab and so turkey would be more inclined to draw.

1909- holding the line. simple . boring. However england supporting italy instead of ending him gives me a big worry. Need to stomp out that confidence before it becomes a solo.

1910- move everything against england scare him into submission. If this doesnt work i lose as england will solo. If it works. Draw.

I appreciate that I was only in this very briefly, and did not play much of a significant role in the long run, so please take my comments with a pinch of salt as my opinion is not worth much. I definitely made mistakes and learnt a lot, but the main thing I realised was that I would value doing another one of these but having the opportunity to start from the beginning. It would be unfair of me to entirely blame my inability to get anywhere on a shoddy positon to come into in the first place, but it is difficult to play a situation in which your style differs so completely from that of your predecessor.

I also experienced a significant degree of (personal) frustration with the disconnect between the advice I was receiving from my TA and the thoughts of the profs. The usual situation was this: I analysed the situation as I saw it, my TA disagreed and we talked it out and I was usually convinced by the argument and changed my tactic. Moves would happen, and the profs would then give their thoughts - exactly along the lines I'd suggested to my TA! But there we go, that is not a comment on anyone else, just a measure of the difficulty I found with having to discuss my moves with someone! By no means a bad thing, just a learning experience and one I would value repeating from the start.

Lack of press always frustrates me. I'm a fairly verbose person and I like to try and get a measure of my opponents/allies by actually chatting to them. I can do much more with disagreement than I can with silence. For me, this game was another exercise in futility on the press front (with the notable exception of Germany). This also contributed to my general frustration as, while I was being told by the profs that I had failed to break the E/G, I felt like I was there and had made really good headway with Germany (his EoG seems to support this assertion). However, because of Russia's bizarre refusal to play ball, and his lack of contact to explain his position, it appeared to the profs as if I had failed! Frustrating...

But there we go, none of this is a comment on anyone else, just a note of how different playing styles between players, TAs and profs can cause an odd disconnect. All in all, I think this was a fascinating game, and I think Germany played on the general apathy that seemed to permeate the final stages to get a well earned draw! Kudos!

Kench you had me ready and working to turn on England's bad if Russia had made an effort to work with me on that then most certainly I would have. My intent was to get sweden and Norway and then move on Englands home centers. Supportingbrussian advances to the south into former Austrian homeland and working with you on England. Russia really messed that one up.

I think my grades are:
England: B , would be an A if you'd gone for the draw.
Turkey: C, you had good press but I think your moves were lacking and you lucky having Russia and Austria as your neighbors they were very inexperienced and played as such.
Italy: C, helping turkey sealed your fate in the late game. Could've had a much better situation if I'd been able to help you against turkey instead of you supporting him into my line.
Russia: F , do I have to explain?
Austria: F, you had terrible press, you were too rigid, and honestly that style works well with countries with early advantages like Russia or France but not with Austria. Everyone hated you in 1902. You had 0 allies.
Old France: F, see austrias example, but here you just established yourself as untrustworthy and it hurt your ability to earn anything for your efforts.
New France: B, your efforts were very well done and I'd love to play some games with you from 1901. Your moves were eh, but at the end of the day you impressed upon me a sense that you'd keep a game entertaining and competitive; which is hard to pull off.

This has given me some interesting insight into what happened earlier on in the game. I do hope the other players will put in their two cents as well.

And I apologize for the late prof commentary, CB, but as I said months ago, phase change was at a bad time for me. Had it been 12 hours earlier (or even 6) you would've likely gotten commentary within the first 12 hours of the phase rather than the last 24

I understand that. Doesn't change the reality. Just makes it poor organization.

Final Grades

Well, it was certainly an interesting game to follow. Each nation had its own high points and low points, and I certainly hope that everyone has been able to learn something from this experience. I'll give final grades, and a bit for everyone to work on. Again, if you have not already posted your EOG's or final thoughts, please do so. TA's as well. I'll be sending each of you a PM just as a friendly request :)

ENGLAND - B

You started off very strong. Made good decisions as far as alliances, and set yourself up in Spring 1902 to have your choice of allies. And I think that sticking with Germany was the correct choice. Germany's EOG shows that he was willing to turn on you in 1904. This is completely due to the deadlock Germany put himself in with his 1902 moves. You should be more mindful of these effects and be able to anticipate stabs coming, or perhaps work harder to mitigate them once you see situations like this developing. Luck got you out of this one, rather than your press. An alternative here could've been to make peace with France and take out Germany, but this would've almost assuredly let to a neat 3-way draw. So, I approve of sticking with Germany as it gave you a better solo chances.

Now, I'm knocking you a bit precisely because you had the best solo shot of all the players, yet didn't choose to go for it. Honestly, any time between 1906 and 1909 was really a good shot to go for it. The best chance was probably fall 1908, frankly.

You have to at least try, man. This game is all about going for the solo, and when you have a shot, you need to try. Ignore people's threats to toss it, because they'll always prefer a draw to a death when things come down to it. Only the truly spiteful will actually toss it.

So, Opening Years: A+ Middle Years: B+ End Years: C
Tactics are good. Press evidently was good enough. Just gotta work on that strategy.


Russia - D

Now, from Germany's EOG, I can see that much of the failures in this game were due to your own lack of press. From Spring 1901, you were on your back feet. Spring you were stabbed by Austria. Fall stabbed by Germany. And with Austria in Galicia, you choose to move to Black Sea? Absurd. You survived as long as you did due to Italy's poor decision making in stabbing Italy and Germany's tactical cowardice in not attacking you. You could've made some impact on the game but you were largely blind to the ambitions and plans of the other powers, and probably turned a deaf ear to all but those whom you were working with at the time. The lack of cooperation with Germany when he was willing to turn on England is inexcusable. You might've been able to turn things around for yourself before Turkey ran away with things in the south.

Tactics could use some improving, judging from the loss of Warsaw in 1904. StP or Warsaw could've remained yours. That whole northern area could've been under control or regained if better moves were made. You must also learn to think where your units are strategically, and what effect they may have. I don't know if Turkey asked for your fleet to remain in Black Sea, but that was something that clearly unnerved him.

So, things to work on - press. First and foremost, this game has shown me that you need to talk to everyone more. I don't care if they're attacking you, or if you're attacking them, or if their feet smell a bit off. You should talk to everyone each and every phase to get a feel for the board and what other nations are doing. Ask an ally if there's anything that concerns them. Be mindful of how people are explaining unit movements. Did Austria break their word in 1901 with the move to Galicia? Who has said friendly things about Austria? Etc etc. Press gives you information and foresight, which were the two biggest thorns in your side.

Being as you were under the gun from the beginning and didn't have many strategic decisions to make, I can't really judge that from you. All your alliance shifts were essentially compulsory. As far as tactics, they could use a bit of improvement, but its press you need to work on. In your next games, be sure to talk more.


Germany - B+

Getting the draw really bumped up your grade there for me. Good job with that. But you let your guard down for far too long.

Let's rewind a bit. Opening years actually looked very good for you. Silesia put pressure on Russia, England in Belgium prevented too much French pressure, and you had the relative expectation of getting more builds from either Russia or France. Evidence of good press, good strategy and good tactics. For 1901-Spring 1902, I'd give you an A.

Its the fall where you put yourself into a hole with that move to Belgium from Burgundy. First off, I'm not too sure on why England left Belgium. Secondly, I'm not sure why he went to the North Sea instead of the open English Channel. That should've been red flag #1 going off that England will care more about England than about you. Third, when attacking France, you should never give up Burgundy. Please say that five times. It could've easily been taken without English help, and with your unit remaining in Burgundy. From there, you would've had a 50/50 each season on advancing further into France, or force France to commit a fleet to Gascony (which would've opened up the seas for England). But instead you voluntarily put yourself into a stalemate position.

Now, your reaction to the stalemate was good. You reached out to France via press and would've turned on England, had Russia only cooperated. I suppose this does explain why your units remained in Germany for so long instead of pushing East. Had the plan been to stick with England, I do hope that you would've pushed much harder to the East, as giving up Burgundy to France wouldn't have meant all that much. So yeah, 1903-1904 were not so great years, but you got back on track in 1905.

Eliminating Austria was the correct choice, but I think that's what spooked Russia into working with Turkey again. Austria's move to Livonia was proof enough that they were too dangerous to keep around. At that point it was everyone against the Turk or the extras aren't worth keeping around.

Now, your end game needed a bit of working on. I'll say this once and I shouldn't have to say it again - you should've lost Munich in 1907. Bur-Gas was a terrible move. And given Italy's fleet destroy, you should've been able to pick up that he was about to change sides. Given that Italy was working with Turkey, the East was untenable, and you needed to fall back immediately to Berlin-Munich and *especially* demand Marseilles.

Honestly, by spring 1908, I would've been in full panic mode at England eliminating me. You kept yourself far too open to a stab, and honestly the move back to Ruhr wasn't enough, imo. Holding Silesia and Bohemia was pointless, as was keeping a fleet in Baltic.

So, if I were to sum it up in a few sentences, I'd say this. Great opening spoiled by a major tactical blunder. A few years of failed negotiations (no fault of your own) followed by a good recovery. Then, leaving yourself far too open for the worst stab imaginable.

Two areas to work on - tactics and strategy. Tactics is pretty self-evident. There were a few cases where you simply took a territory using the wrong unit. Or got a unit destroyed that shouldn't have been. By strategy, I don't mean your strategy, but rather recognizing the strategy of others. England's motivations and intent should've been very clear to you. A better England would've stabbed you to shreds. So try to recognize these situations as they are developing, and prepare countermeasures so as to dissuade them from ever stabbing in the first place. Maybe pre-emptively take a center off them. Establish that you're not to be trifled with. But overall, a good game.


I'll get to grades for the rest tomorrow. I have some interesting stuff to say for the rest of the class :)

+1 for commentary. Appreciate the insight. Definitely agree in retrospect. I'm still a bit pissy about Russia lol.

Grades (cont.)

France - C+

So, where to begin where to begin. To the latter France, take it with a grain of salt, as you inherited some problems.

1901 was good. A solid year setting yourself up for a move on Germany and an English ally. 1902 was disastrous. Why you would move on England there, I don't know. England built friendly to you, you had antagonized Germany, and there was an opportunity for you to move into Germany there. England even vacated Belgium for you! And not backing up Burgundy was an oversight that shouldn't have happened. You're very lucky that England chose to move out voluntarily.

Now, from here on out, its purely tactics to fault you with. I already hashed out a few of the mistakes that happened in previous lectures, so I won't go over it again here. The worst of the mistakes were in 1905 with the loss of Brest and the disbanding of the army and not the fleet.

The last real shot was 1907, where you should've lobbied hard to get Munich (guaranteed) instead of trying for Marseilles instead. Maybe by this point you were disheartened by the failure of negotiations with Germany and had stopped trying - because that's certainly something that I could see happening. I just can't see why Italy and Turkey wouldn't have been receptive to that offer.

Either way - a wrong decision in 1902 and a lack of will to negotiate (old France) really did it in for new France. There was a limited amount that you could do there without Russia's help in negotiations. The tactics really need some improvement for the both of you though - so try to work on that :)

Italy - C-

Don't attack Austria as Italy. Don't attack Austria as Italy. Don't attack Austria as Italy. Now write it a bunch more times.

Don't attack Austria when R/T are cooperating. Don't attack Austria when R/T are cooperating. Don't attack Austria when R/T are cooperating. Now write it a bunch more times.

This game and its result showed a systematic lack of strategic vision from you. Usually, I'd expect the TA to help out a bit more in these situations, but that appears to not be the case. I would've called off the Austrian attack after Spring 1902. I would've demanded more than just Vienna and Trieste when you divvied up Austria with Turkey. And then when you sell yourself as a mercenary for one power, you either commit all the way until you breach the stalemate line or you only turn when you can be sure you're not going to be eliminated. And as I've laid out above, not allowing Turkey into Tyr Sea did just that. Now, had you allowed France into Munich and managed to keep Tunis, you might've just been able to survive there - in a world where both England and Turkey were on the cusp of a solo.

But in your upcoming games, try to look ahead a few years to see the consequences of your actions. The Austrian stab here really wasn't that good for you. Now, it may be my opinion, but of all the possible power pairs on the board, I/T are the most natural enemies and least likely allies of any pairing.

Austria - B-

You gave a lot of effort here, but from some of the EOG's above, it seems that you got jaded and the press plummeted from there. Italy's moves shouldn't really be seen as your fault - sometimes when someone makes moves that make no strategic sense, you can't talk them out of it. Sometimes people just can't see the common sense infront of them. But the response to early failure like this - against an opponent who is sabotaging themselves as well as you - is not to shut down, but to double down on press. Send even more press out to your opponent and all neighbors.

As far as tactics, i don't see anything too bad. Strategy-wise, it looks as though you tried a A/T and Turkey immediately stabbed in spring 1902. You didn't pick up on it though, which I'll pin more on your TA than you. I'm also not too sure on the continued support for Turkey in 1904, and the move to Galicia. You could've held out there a bit longer, and perhaps gotten through to Italy via press. Getting to Warsaw was a good shot, but I'm unsure as to why you moved to Liv.

Overall, I have a few things to work on. First, send more press. If you're not getting through to someone, be more persistent, not less. A reasonable Italy should've been able to be persuaded, as well as Russia. You had potential allies there, but weren't able to seize the opportunity. But perhaps that was due to Turkey, which leads me to my next point: be careful of what you believe from others. From my diagnosis, Turkey was able to seduce you multiple times via press and keep you strung along when you should've really been able to see through the lies. Improve in those two areas, and you'll see better results in future games.

Turkey - B

I can't mark you down too much, but I can't give you good marks for that finish. You should not have drawn the game - there was still room for you to play if you were able to get England to try for a solo.

The other main area where I found fault with this game was the decision in 1904 to stab Russia. Russia was pliable, I think, and you would've been better served smashing through Italy to cross the stalemate line, as Austria was more than willing to work with you. You would've had Marseilles before France fell, and that's the only SC you'd need (and very defensible)

But other than that and the lack of the push at the end, I don't see much wrong in your play. Strong on all levels - press, strategy and tactics. You just needed to execute better on the strategy.

So that's all! Thank you all for the game, and it was a pleasure to commentate on it for you. Now I'm off to pester those who haven't posted EOGs here

To my fellow players: if you managed to complain for the past few weeks about profs not commenting and then you manage to not post EOGs then you are spineless and lack any real sense of integrity.

Just got up and saw this, and maybe this'll give some explanation for my seemingly inept dealing with Austria. I'd apologize for any insult this gives Austria, but after he spewed profanity at me every turn after he died, I find it hard to care.

S01:
Austria encourages me to attack France, and demands I open Tyrrhenian, to "remove my competition for greece" despite also claiming he wants me to lepanto. France seems friendly, so I do not open Tyrrhenian. He lectures me about trust, then attacks Venice despite telling me that fleet was headed for Greece. Additionally, I had told him I was considering moving to Piedmont because France was waffling on a no fleet in mars agreement (and he said it was a good idea). So he's attacked a center that could likely have been empty. (As a side note, I keep in touch with Russia most of this game, but their slow-rolling death prevents anything from really happening in that regard)

F01:
I hear Austria is lying to other people as well, in fact, every other player in the southeast claims he's already lied them. Nonetheless, I stick with my normal opening to see how it all develops, because I don't really trust Turkey yet. The Turkish move to Greece this year, despite telling me he wouldn't, makes more even more reluctant to trust him.

W01:
I ask Austria not to build in Trieste and Turkey not to build a second fleet. France comes to me and explains quite well, and earnestly, why he wants to build a fleet in marseilles despite our agreement. After discussion, I give France the tentative go-ahead to build F mars, so long as he moves it to spain in the spring, and Turkey explains why they need a second fleet (to get into Black Sea). Austria does not give feedback, and builds Trieste anyway.

S02: I try to talk to Austria about how splitting Turkey would work if/when I lepanto, but he negotiates in bad faith, literally refusing to acknowledge that his preferred split gives him many more centers than me. Instead, I turn to Turkey. France wins my heart by moving to spain, Austria moves to Ionian instead of supporting me into Greece as promised (making me feel much better about stabbing him), and Turkey claims they misorder their move to Ionian (which, in the end, I think was the truth, but I didn't believe it then).

Rereading this game is getting me annoyed again, so I'm going to stop here, but the rest of this game is me trying
A. To get Russia to IR with me (because I don't trust Turkey and Austria is openly hostile), but Russia can't work with Germany, despite my begging them to every turn. At some point I do convince Russia to attack Turkey, but it doesn't go well.
B. Figure out if I can possibly trust Turkey (which is hurt by the fact that for three turns in a row (S05, F05, S06) I misorder by forgetting to change my orders to attack Turkey)
C. Try to get anything out of Austria (in order to maybe work together?) that isn't him spewing profanity and personal attacks.

I feel like I must respond to the last post. one reads "Austria moves to Ionian instead of supporting me into Greece" in the spring of 02. It is factually false, as anyone looking through the order log can see

Uh... Spring 02 Austrian order:
"The fleet at Albania move to Ionian Sea. (fail)"

Well, presumably since this discussion should have an educational value, I though there cannot be two opinions on the order lot, it seems it could. Here is the relevant part of log (itslian fleet was at ionanan by the time)
The fleet at Albania move to Ionian Sea. (fail)
The army at Serbia support move to Greece from Ionian Sea. (fail)

So people posting ' I lost because so and so' should at least exclude factual mistakes

#alternativefacts

Sorry. I get your point now @user1981. You did honor the support from Serbia to Greece for Italy : "The army at Serbia support move to Greece from Ionian Sea. (fail)" (I think you just explained it poorly at first, but now I see that you gave support in a different way.)

I honestly thought that a very smart move on Austria's part, as it defended against a possible stab and got his fleet out into open water in a strong position had it succeeded. The taking of Greece was guaranteed, should Italy have accepted it.

Granted, it puts Austria at an advantage in terms of balance of power, but that's what the relationship should be like in the early years - Austria calling the shots

Agreed.

Now I am disappointed that Austria was lying so much in 1901 despite my very first lecture being on the importance of truth in the first year. And it did seem to me, at times, that Austria was trying to attack too many targets. But there wasn't a pressing need for Austria to build Vienna (besides establishing good faith) because Russia was definitely headed back to Warsaw. And after the spring moves, I never would've attacked Austria. The R/T cooperation was too obvious and it was evident even then that an R/T would really just lead to a massive T, because R had no real negotiating power due to E/G/A

@goldfinger Can you see, though, why it's a bad move for the alliance, though? He was fully aware, from press, that I was moving Ionian from Naples (he even requested it by telling me to get my fleets in for a lepanto so I could push for east med), and decided (without telling me) that he'd bounce it. It's one thing to say Austria should call the shots, another when they don't share the shots they call. Working with someone who regularly hurts you to test your trust doesn't sound like smart play to me.