FRENCH END-OF-GAME STATEMENT
Thank you NunaEtsuko, Gonnor, IshmaelGuantanamoIV, Lethologica, pangloss, domwnec and backscratcher for a fun and exciting game - I enjoyed playing with everyone, both as friend and foe. Thanks also to Chancellor Valis for organizing (and subbing as my TA early on!) and to Professors Hellenic Riot and The Hanged Man, and to everyone who commented in the forum thread (the peanut gallery really makes the SOW). The greatest heaping of thank-yous goes to Ogion for the benefit of his wisdom and a huge number of important lessons on the playing of this game. It was a privilege to be tutored by such an expert!
And finally, apologies for being a windbag and writing a wall of text. I've tried to scale down my original notes as much as possible and only retain the essence of each year.
PRE-GAME STRATEGY
I figured that the most reasonable thing to do was aim for the 17 centers of the Western Stalemate Line, and pick up Moscow or Tunis as the 18th. In retrospect, not deciding on which of those two would be my eighteenth was a grave error. One does not simply "pick up" an eighteenth.
I also reasoned that I couldn't attack Germany on my own without the leverage of a fleet in the North Sea. This implied destroying England first. I hoped for a Sea Lion alliance with Germany to achieve my short-term goal of removing England from power, and a long-term alliance with Russia to break down Germany afterwards. I also planned on long-term friendship with Italy, the only neighbour I thought I wouldn't need to come into direct conflict with except in the case of my very last centre.
OPENING
I had planned on taking Spain and Portugal and maneuvering myself into a position to have a small say in the Belgian Question. Ogion suggested instead that, since Spain and Portugal are essentially uncontestable centres for France, the better opening was to gain strategic leverage of Belgium, capturing it by whatever means possible, picking up one of the Iberians in 1901 and the other in 1902.
I lobbied hard with France and Germany, arguing that "French Belgium" was "more stable" than the alternatives. Both agreed. I was presented with an early conundrum, though: England wanted to go to the Channel. Since he had already granted me rights to Belgium, I argued that a Channel move risked netting him zero builds if Russia moved Moscow to St. Petersburg. I also pointed out that an opening to Yorkshire, Norwegian Sea and North Sea guaranteed he could defend London if I was treacherous and went to the Channel myself, while still netting him Norway. He agreed.
Meanwhile, I had problems with Germany. He was slow to respond to communications and reluctant to share his objectives. I later learned that this was because he had suggested a Western Triple to myself and England, and I had expressed my dislike for such an alliance with England, who had passed it on to Germany. Nonetheless, my overall impression of Germany was that he was suggesting moves to me while not sharing his own. On the other hand, England and I had engaged in honest, authentic debate over Belgium, the Channel, and our long-term objectives.
And so my pre-game strategy was trashed, and the Entente Cordiale was born. As my TA had reminded me, "The game is Diplomacy, not Tactics."
1901: L'ENTENTE CORDIALE
This was overall an excellent year. Italy not only kept the peace with me, but attacked Austria (I'd passed the idea to Turkey that he recommend Italy occupy Tyrolia; whether this message got through and convinced Gonnor I'm not sure); Germany didn't seem to quite pick up on the significance of the English-French alliance, and repeatedly antagonized Russia in Sweden; I lifted The Hanged Man's idea for a Holland bounce and proposed it to England, who complied; and Russia built his army in Moscow, which I had suggested as a "good compromise" for "diplomatic purposes." The only needle was the obvious heavy targeting of Turkey, which implied a potentially quick resolution in the east. I provided as much advice as possible to Turkey to keep him going.
Finally, I lifted Germany's statement, "Look, I'm going to attack whoever's being attacked," and used it to paint him as untrustworthy and opportunistic to the other players. I don't know whether this really converted into wins for me, but Germany did seem quite isolated and targeted until his destruction (and that isolation may have played into my opportunity to use him as a janissary later).
1902: OPERATION RHINELAND
I spent a long time agonizing over move sets fearing an early stab by England. Ogion and I debated move sets that included moving the Brest army to Picardy to defend Belgium, but in the end I decided to haul full-on with the alliance. My rationale was that England had already scuttled his cachet with Germany with the Holland bounce, forcing him to align with me, and also - probably more importantly - that making signs of untrustingness to England spoiled the alliance and didn't allow me to take full advantage of the flexibility an alliance grants.
Both England and I got Russia's help to take German SCs - a serious stroke of luck for me in the form of Munich (an idea Russia took a long time coming round to). This became more problematic as I realized that Russia was little inclined to go to war with England. Russia, though he wanted Berlin, slowly seemed to back off that aggressive track - and generally wouldn't commit to involving himself in a war with England at all (leaving me very concerned about my next target, as neither Italy nor England seemed easy marks). He seemed wary of destroying Germany and utterly opposed to the destruction of England.
Luckily, I convinced England not to build a fleet in Liverpool, insisting that my fleets would head south towards Italy - though at that point I still wasn't quite sure what I would do with them.
1903: A GIFT FOR QUEEN VICTORIA
Stabbing England was an agonizing decision, and one that in retrospect reasoned incorrectly about which centers it was most important for me to break into. I was running with the logic that "France and England can't be friends forever," but without really understanding the importance of timing to that statement.
Specifically, I was worried that I would get into a slog with Italy in the Mediterranean while England parachuted into St. Petersburg, whereafter he would have nowhere to expand except into my undefended derriere.
This sounded good rationally, but I had an excellent relationship with England. (Lesson learned: you can probably reduce your chance of being stabbed if you can make everyone like you.) In retrospect, attacking England meant I never broke into the Mediterranean and scuttled any solo ambitions, and it also left me feeling very isolated: I didn't have the same quality of relationship with anyone else on the board. Even though I profited in the short-term, this stab was one of my biggest regrets, and I continued to feel guilt and wanted to find a way to resolve the English conflict that kept him alive up until he broke his janissary status in 1910.
The rest of my diplomacy this year was geared towards keeping both Italy and Russia appeased and on my side (though Russia continued to be a laggard and refused to cooperate in my assault on England). I brought Germany onto my team by promising him Holland, which I did not provide, and then Kiel, which I did (to England's detriment). My greatest success was convincing Germany to build a fleet, which I truly did think we could use against Denmark - until Germany showed up in Livonia and the Baltic, at which point we were forced to act otherwise.
(I also believe this was the turn I recommended Turkey get support back into Ankara, which turned out alright as well, though Turkey was still doomed much earlier than I had hoped.)
1904: THE WALL
I would've preferred that Germany remained alive as long as necessary for me to finish my war with England; the destruction of Germany implied a war with Russia to my mind. I was not impressed with Russia's moves to Livonia and Baltic as he had done nothing to alert me to his ambitions in Germany and had in fact repeatedly refused to entertain a joint offensive there. I had to assume his moves were, even if principally anti-German, in the long term anti-French.
Once Russia was in a position to attack Berlin and I had moved into Silesia (expecting a bounce there as Russia, I presumed, would move there from Warsaw), I saw no choice but to make sure that I took Kiel when Russia took Berlin. An extra stab at Warsaw was chancy but could've put me in a solo position so had to be done. My aggressiveness here was largely due to Russia giving me only lip service and no in-depth view of his plans, forming an image of him in my mind as an opportunistic land-grabber I couldn't rely on for more than a phase.
1905: WAR OF RUSSIAN AGGRESSION
At this point my relationship with Russia deteriorated drastically (tactically, anyway - we were still kidding around in the press, though we also both provided very complete lists of utterly false moves to each other... maybe we got along because we're both wretched, scummy liars...). Russia's advances and his cooperation with England had me on my back foot and feeling hard-pressed. This all could have turned out very badly if Russia hadn't been ridiculously overextended, fighting in Austria, Turkey, and occupied Germany at the same time.
Diplomatically this was a very quiet time, as I had two enemies to fight in the north and relative peace in the south. That would change with Italy's builds.
1906: NEVER TRUST AN ITALIAN
Italy chose this year to disband one of his forward units and come back with two shiny new fleets ready to land in my waters. This was probably the only time I traded seriously aggressive press with anyone. I was deeply annoyed that Italy had so clearly decided to attack me, but more so I found it absurd that he continued to deny that that was the purpose of his builds. He later claimed that my insistence on moving to Western Mediterranean (because he had disbanded an army for another fleet, threatening me) was what made him decide to go to war with me. I still think that's obviously absurd and it was a calculated preparation for aggressions (and very good, well-timed preparations, too, since it kept him out of the Med permanently)... but I will leave the truth to Gonnor!
Elsewhere, war continued sluggishly and painfully as I now juggled three fronts. Diplomatic exchanges were still at a low. My empire grew, but it didn't feel like I was getting any more powerful.
1907: THE ENTENTE STRIKES BACK
With the blows Russia and I were trading, the only way to move forward was to bring England back on board. This opportunity came when Russia stood in Norway and broke down the English empire further - apparently, without the English monarch's authorization.
England and I concocted a brilliant plan and deceived Russia mercilessly: I convinced Russia I would leave off my offensive so he could attack Denmark, and that by moving to Sweden he could prevent an English retreat there (surely North Sea wouldn't do anything but rash!). This would benefit us both by letting us turn our attentions to the Austro-Italian upstarts in the south. Meanwhile, I promised England safety in Denmark and had him order his North Sea fleet into Norway, and mounted an attack on Kiel myself. Russia lost his grip on Scandinavia (finally destroying his Swedish fleet), and the result was a significantly reduced Tsardom and forward movement for the western forces.
1908: PARANOIA INTENSIFIES
Although the blow delivered to the Russian behemoth was satisfying, the main result was intense paranoia of an Austro-Russian alliance. England had suggested this possibility to me, and although I initially doubted it the more I thought about the ramifications the more it made sense. With Russia facing doom, it seemed reasonable that there might be a rapprochement.
Such an alliance did not form, but I lost Spain and England NMR'd, and Austria was moving into a progressively better position along the MSL (to be honest, I only realized the importance of his Silesian and Bohemian armies when he added Prussia to the list the following year). Despite my progression in the west, things were not looking so rosy anymore, and I began to understand the true nature of stalemate lines.
1909: NO TALK
Not that talk was unnecessary or undesirable, but at this point, I was essentially gritting my teeth and playing gunboat. This was obviously from stress and an inability to think of how to bargain my way to a better position... although Italy and Austria's cooperation against me made sense, and it can be hard to argue with a really sensible strategy. Nonetheless, my disappearing solo chances certainly played a role in my (aggravated) silence.
1910: DOWNFALL
England's daring run into Norway and then NWG surprised me, though it shouldn't have. Although I truly was trying to find ways to solo while keeping England alive (partly out of guilt, but mostly because I just really liked playing with NunaEtsuko on my team), obviously from England's perspective it was all lies.
I was seriously becoming worried about Austria's position, and the one victory I could claim this year was having fear-mongered about Austria to Italy, suggesting he attack Trieste to guarantee no fleet builds. He never replied, but lo and behold, Trieste was green in Autumn.
1911: DIRTY ORC TRICKS
England's move to NAO was brilliant and filled me with righteous rage (I'd been sending him reverse-psychological messages hoping he'd make a go for NTH). Although I had spent the whole game since the stab feeling guilty and trying to imagine scenarios where I could solo with England surviving, I at this point was fantasizing about popping that last fleet like a fly. Genius move, you dirty dirty pig.
The only good idea I had to work with came from Ogion, who suggested I ask Italy to DMZ Gulf of Lyons so that I could disengage from the Spanish zone to destroy England for a three-way draw. Italy completely ignored this, which was the right choice: I would've used any opening as an excuse to barge into the Mediterranean.
I ended up deciding to use global chat at this point to try to sway Austria and Italy to disengage from me to allow the kill. My reasoning was that I had utterly used up all diplomatic cachet: I had lied, stabbed, lunged, and otherwise been aggressive and duplicitous enough that everyone knew better than to trust me. I figured the global approach might make me look more transparent, but overall the discussion didn't resolve in the way I had hoped and we soon all fell back into bilateral communications.
1912: Zweihander Alliance
Jumping on Italy's decision not to draw, I cancelled my vote and suggested a two-way draw to him. This involved some hard bargaining since a two-way had to be along the MSL and that implied Spain and Marseilles remaining in my hands.
Although Italy was - though not entirely in agreement with my plans for my southern colonies - initially amenable to a two-way, I was astonished that he didn't move against Austria: Tyrolia and Trieste simply holding, though he couldn't have saved Trieste anyway, really surprised me.
What I perceived as an Italian lack of will to do the dirty work encouraged me to try to drum up a two-way with Austria, but he had long ago decided he was ready to draw and no spitballing was going to change his mind.
It seemed that the Zweihander was dead the same round it had been brought to life.
1913: LEAGUE OF EXERTIONS
As much as I had latched onto Italy's admission that drawing the game without stalemate lines was hooey, hoping to leverage that into the win, when he nearly NMR'd in 1912 he came back to me and explained that he was low on time to play and would vote to draw.
Not wanting to be the guy who forced everyone to keep playing in what one might hope would be a collegial rather than a ruthlessly competitive atmosphere, I decided the solo (which was a long shot anyway) wasn't worth being a dink and drew as well.
MAJOR LESSON LEARNED
To riff off a post by A_Tin_Can, the single most important thing I learned in this SOW is that stalemate lines are to be crossed, not held. I came in thinking that attaining the MSL was a legitimate goal. Now, I know that the real goal is to get across it as soon as the opportunity arises. Although I thought I was doing quite well up until even 1908, and though I clung to hope in the final years as well, the reality is that the borders of the MSL were so strongly contested and/or held that there was no real hope for me to break over and find my 18th.
This goes back to the very beginning of the game, where I hadn't decided where I would get that number 18. ATC suggested that one should pick not just an 18th, but a 19th, 20th, 21st, and so on; and that getting those "higher" SCs earlier is better. In games I've played since I made this realization, I've reduced my emphasis on the "natural" parts of a power's likely 18 SCs and focused instead on the more peripheral SCs - Austrian SCs for Germany, English SCs for Russia, etc.
REMATCH
Rematch?
vdiplomacy what is it ??
. add your name in list format below. I will send out the Passwords at 3pm EST
)
)
)
)
)