In other threads, I have debated about the importance of strategy versus tactics in high-level play. My interpretation of this game is that both England and Italy played strategically and diplomatically very well, but Italy made much less tactical errors (the only obvious ones being sub-optimal fleet movement in 1908-1910, and his decision not to take Marseilles earlier on). Can the professors elaborate on tactical opportunities that England missed that cost him his solo chance, and now possibly the game?

Bump. Game over.

Even from my fairly privileged position wrt game information, I wasn't actually expecting that.

Good game and well played by all. Congrats to A_Tin_Can and Mendax (his TA) for the Solo victory. Looking forward to final thoughts from the profs as well as End of Game statements (EOGs) from all players and TAs.

(If you would put at the top of your EOG the nation you were involved with and whether you were the player or TA, that will help me keep track of who has and hasn't posted, so I can send reminders if need be).

Wow...did not expect the solo; it really went from one way to the next.

Do you want an EoG from both TA and player i.e. two per country?

That was indeed an abrupt ending. I'd be interested to learn England's strategy the last turn

I would like that, yes.

Austria – TA

First of all, although Austria was the first nation eliminated, I want to congratulate Enoch on a very strong early-game for a very difficult nation. It is often said that Austria has 3 natural enemies and no natural allies and that is often true. Enoch did a great job playing the press in the early game (as I hope his neighbors will confirm) and if it were not for a gamble in late ’02 he would have been in a very good position into the mid- and even late-game.

The professors has some very negative things to say about the early play of Italy, Russia, and Turkey. I hesitated to say it at the time, but much of that was due to Austrian press. The standoff in TRI (which does nothing for Italy) was orchestrated by Austria both to keep TRI safe and to keep it open for builds (TRI being the only Austrian center that has the option of fleet builds). The war between Russia and Turkey that the professors condemned in the mid-game was also sparked in large part by Austrian press in the early years. By creating a war and then remaining largely neutral (at the start) Austria managed to (1) prevent the Juggernaut, and (2) keep his options open in 1901. Say what you will about his early demise, but looking at the map after the Fall of 1901 any player should be impressed with the Austrian position – Austria at 5 centers while all the other eastern powers (even RUSSIA!) only have 4.

The 1901 builds should be discussed, since they drew the ire both of the profs and, it would seem, of some of Austria’s neighbors. It was largely due to my recommendation that Austria split his builds 1 army/1 fleet rather than building 2 armies. Although the 2nd army might have held more immediate use (as was pointed out in commentary already), it is my opinion that Austria is often better served to build her fleets when she can. Unlike Turkey, Italy, and France (the other nations who might vie for Mediterranean superiority), Austria can only build 1 fleet at a time – and that only when her most vulnerable SC is clear. Although the profs disagreed, and although the fleet build may have caused the Italian attack in 1902, I still stand by the decision that was made.

Also, concerning builds, I must point out that the Turkish build, which came as a surprise to the profs and which essentially trapped Turkey in his corner, also came at the urging of Austrian press. Although he only lasted four years, the early game was exceptional, filled with diplomatic victories.

There is little to say about the Spring of 1902. The war between Russia and Turkey continued just as Austria would want it to: the two nations spending vast resources fighting one another while neither of them gained any ground. The attack by Italy could not have been foreseen and was well executed on his part.

The Fall of 1902 was a difficult one and was well marked by the profs as the downfall of Austria. He finally chooses a side in the war between Turkey and Russia (securing Russian support for the next several years) and he attempted to pass off his move into AEG as a part of the Italian stab – telling Turkey that he expected Italy to attempt a modified Lepanto by moving into AEG, a move he intended to bounce. Trusting the strength of his press (which had been incredible thus far), he made the fateful decision to grab 2 centers (securing himself a build) rather than taking the sure 1 from BUL (which would have at least prevented a disband).

That is the difficulty of making a gamble: if it had worked, Austria would have built an army in VIE and would have been in a good position to throw out the Italian. As it was, he was forced to disband a unit and thus began his decline. Perhaps it wasn’t the smartest move, but I would be lying if I said I would not have at least considered it myself. With as strong as his press had been the 3 seasons before, with the Italian stab lending credibility to his claims, and with the promise of some progress to Turkey (who was otherwise stuck in his corner) there was a chance – though perhaps not a strong one – that his gamble could have paid off big.

From that point on, the best explanation for Austria’s moves is France (whose moves and builds also had the profs utterly confused). Spring 1903 – a French unit in TYR and a fleet build in MAR leads Austria to believe that France is anti-Italian. France offers support into VIE but then gives that support to Italy instead (then moves against Italy the very next turn?). That loss, coupled with a threat of aggression from Russia, took the wind from Austria’s sails. The loss of his last home SC in Fall ’03 left him too weak to help anyone or cause anyone sufficient difficulty. Thus, his game ended ingloriously.

Again, I cannot speak enough praise of the opening 3 seasons that Austria had. Diplomatically I think his early game was incredibly well played. A single gamble – the order of a single unit (AEG ordered to SMY rather than to CON) – ended the game for him. All in all, a very good game and lots of lessons well learned by Enoch. Well done.

Isn't Italy/Austria one of the best options for Austria? I'd say a fleet built is indeed wrong, especially so early on. You will only worry Italy in regards to Venice and really you are declaring you want to go to war with him eventually. You cannot afford to make that statement so early on.

Same goes for Turkey a naval Austria means Turkey is not a viable partner. So it could only have worked if he would have a very strong connection with Russia and were to be aggressive about it. Still I don't really like an alliance with Russia as Austria

Wow, game over! Congrats Italy! Yes, if all the players and TA's could post a quick end of game summary, that would be great. 500 words or so is perfect.

Please reserve this forum for prof commentary and EoGs for now. Thanks.

Congrats to Italy for a gift wrapped solo. I'll write up an EOG from my perspective later today, but for now, I'd like to address triumvir's claim that an Austrian fleet build in 1901 was a good decision.

"Although the profs disagreed, and although the fleet build may have caused the Italian attack in 1902, I still stand by the decision that was made."

First off, thanks triumvir for the excellent writeup - its a model of what we like to see from TAs. Granted, you only had a few years to write about, but I'll let that slide for now ;)

As triumvir mentioned, Austria is a very tricky power to play in the early game. You're bordered by three potential enemies, and although two builds can be reasonably expected, both come in the powder keg of the Balkan centers, so they'll immediately be in danger in 1902. The issue then becomes getting past that fifth center. Assuming Russia is in Rumania and Turkey in Bulgaria, not only is Austria facing a dearth of possible centers, but staunch opposition that is not easily driven out of their territory in Russia and Turkey.

In other words, taking Rumania and/or Bulgaria is usually the goal of most Austrian players after 1901.

(Note: there are so many exceptions here that it would take all day to list possibilities when alliances and press are taken into consideration. In general, though, the large majority of Austrias will need to take either Rum or Bul after 1901.)

In this context, then, how does a second fleet help Austria accomplish this goal of getting a sixth center in 1902/1903?

Unlike, say, France and England, Austria does not have the luxury of time. Planning ahead is often a worthwhile consideration in Diplomacy, but you can't put the cart before the horse. Austrian existence is simply too tenuous in 1902 - he needs as many immediately useful units as possible. A second fleet for Austria is a luxury item and should never be considered in a normal context this early in the game.

As good as Austria's diplomacy appears to have been, it was seriously compromised by this boneheaded build. A second fleet in 1901 means one thing - an attack on Italy. I don't care what you tell Italy, but if I'm an Italian player and I see Austria build a second fleet, he will immediately be considered an enemy.

Russia and Turkey were fighting each other for most of the early game. In this situation, Austria and Italy need to take advantage! All that great diplomacy was wasted - Austria had a free pass to the Aegean Sea, Galicia (by extension, Rum and Bul). He should have picked up a build in 1902 and 1903, putting Austria at 7 centers and a major player in the midgame. Instead, this is a lesson in how one bad play can ruin a game.

I welcome any input from experienced players on the Austrian fleet build in 1901.

2WL - I appreciate the feedback, but would hesitate to open up the discussion on such a minute detail this early. This thread will fill quickly enough with EoGs. If we add to that a bunch of random commentary, the EoGs will quickly be lost in the shuffle. I think it would be better to save the space for now.

Bump. Once again, Game Over! Congrats Italy on the second ever solo in a SoW game!

Out of interest, how many SoW games have there been? *ego inflates*

I don't mind terribly if you want to keep this thread for yourself, but please don't bump it unnecessarily then.

I've allowed Austria to build a second fleet right away as Italy before (and not had Austria attack me as a result), but that was in the context of a league game where I knew it was strongly not in Austria's interests to ever attack me. In a regular game, the fleet build could be a good play, but not if attacking Turkey is the immediate goal, IMO.

I'll write up something on Germany this evening since I was a TA, but I'm not really sure what I'll say, since my first student disappeared.

A fleet build by Austria in 1902 is terrible in all cases except one: Italy opening against France. If Italy is looking to go east, Italy is hoping to get the Turkish home centers as his 5th, 6th, and 7th centers or to attack Austria at some point. An Austrian fleet build strongly biases Italy toward attacking Austria. First, the second fleet *serves no purpose* except to either attack Italy or to try to get the Turkish centers for Austria. There is literally nowhere else to go- Austria already has Greece. It is 100% anti-Italy. Second, and equally bad, it throws away Austria's ability to have a meaningful response to an Italian stab. One of the best ways to respond to (or deter in the first place) a stab by Italy into Austria is the threat of Austria prioritizing defending Trieste/Vienna/Budapest and thus bleeding centers to Turkey, who will be able to overwhelm Italy after Austria. This is basically the fundamental reason why Italy doesn't attack Austria early in most games, and throwing that away makes Austria incredibly (and unnecessarily) vulnerable. Third, it's worth noting that Austria doesn't need that many fleets to solo- maybe 3. The usual goal for an Austrian solo is something like below the stalemate line (perhaps minus Tunis) plus Munich and/or Berlin. You don't need too many fleets for that anyway.

I'm also surprised to hear Triumvir say that Austria was "dominant" diplomatically at the start of the game. Austria's number one priority is to ensure Italian support, and that failed miserably. It's also worth noting that the Turkish army build in 1902 was catastrophic for Austria, so to hear that you two were encouraging it is very surprising. That was equally bad for you as your fleet build as, again, the best defense for Austria is the threat of throwing to Turkey. With Turkey so vastly out of position, Italy was free to stab without the threat of reprisal. That build was a win for Italy, not Austria.

@StackelbergFollower
I'd be much more interested to hear you talk about the first German player and his tactics/strategies much more. They had much more options than I had as the second German. Sure, there is still something to be said about my moves, but that doesn't have to be nearly as in depth because I was solely trying to survive for those years.

@uclabb: Funny story, as Italy I attacked France in 1901 (the one time I've ever done that) in the game where I OK'd Austria's fleet build!

hawkeye, I'll be sure to take a look at both my conversations with the original Germany and what I thought of his moves later this evening.

@jmo: We all sent you goals as we went into the late game. Will those be published?

Points about the fleet build are well made. I will agree that it was perhaps a bad choice given the outcome (that is, the Italian attack the very next year). But I will not agree that it such a build is always the wrong choice. Also, uclabb's point about the Turkish army is well made and again I both agree and disagree. While it's true that a Turkish fleet might have made Italy think twice before moving East, it also proved all but useless against Austria. In that respect, it was good for Austria.

While perhaps the tactical decisions were poor (and if they were, I blame myself as TA more than my student), the fact of the matter is that the nations around Austria, for nearly two years, did everything that he wanted them to do (often to their own disadvantage, as the profs often pointed out). The fleet build in '01 and the gamble in '02 were the real killers, not any diplomatic deficiency.

Do the profs still intend to give commentary on the final season. It seems some missteps by the Anglo-French alliance allowed Italian victory. I'd be interested to hear your thoughts. ((Anything to divert attention from my own errors.))

Now that the game is over, I'd also like to ask 2WL about the clear path to Italian solo he mentioned in his 1912 commentary. At the end, I thought there was a real chance that we weren't going to get the solo, and this was echoed in the commentary.

Was the clear path to the solo 2WL mentioned assuming that England and France didn't team up, or did we misstep (by eg not taking Marseilles, or some other missed opportunity)?

I will have my end game in a day or two

First off I would like to thank all players, ta and profs. This was a good learning exp for all three
groups. Above all else the players. My ta provided lots of good advice some I used some I did not. I will divided my post game break down into various sections. Opening plan, Austrian alliance, fall of Austria, fall of Russia and some specific moments.

OPENING PLAN
I wanted to make a alliance with Austria and destroy Turkey. This would provide me with a 100% Russian Juggernaught. Free from the Turkish/Russian back stab of that opening. I did not want to have a juggernaught called out called by all those watching and playing the game. I felt it would be to obvious.
Also I wanted to take the oppurntity to try a reverse juggernaught. I don't know if my opening has a name or not. So that is what I will call it. I felt that if it could be done I would be very very well off.
Once I had destroyed Turkey I would fight with Germany and England. At some point fight with Austria. I was hoping that a Austria free to expand west would lesson the back stab vs Russia. If me and Austria went to war I would at least control my edge of the map. Depending on how things turned out Italy or France would be useful against them. So that was my plan, now here is how things went down.

AUSTRIAN ALLIANCE
Austria:
I got very good relations with Austria really fast. I felt like they were in my corner and never really felt a danger from them this game. I got the impression we could work with each other in the very long term. We never were able to crack Turkey and my support of them lasted for the most part to the bitter end.

Turkey:
Turkey wanted to work with me very early on. They made many good attempts to do so. However they were plauged by a Russia which would never truly listen to them. I needed to keep Turkey in a constent status of no gains.
To do this I lied to them endlessly. As the lies progressed I was shocked he kept talking to me as long as he did. I made clumsy efforts to get them out of the Black Sea. He at the start of the game wanted to DMZ the Black Sea. I said no as I felt a juggernuaght might get called out. I expressed to him my fear of Juggernaughting which was true. That we needed to hide it if so.

Germany:
At the start of the game me and Germany had a uneasy peace. We talked about peace and him not bouncing me in Swedeen. Which he did. This issue was eventually resolved when he found himself at odds with England. I told him if he wanted to work with me he needed to give me Sweden and he did. This set us up to work with each other. As England wanting support to Denmark made me fear a English attack on Sweden and short empire in Scandnavia. However when the German player got replaced I started talking to England as I felt like Germany would not be useable anymore.
The new German player tried to work with me and we somewhat did a bit. But it was a weak effort as I had been talking to other nations during his civil war.

France:
We spoke at the start of the game and wished each other luck. Not much else to say on that.

Italy:
Italy expressed a desire to work with me. But I wanted to see what way the wind was blowing before making to many agrements around the board. I held them at bay a bit. They wanted me to attack Austria with them. Which I obviously did not want to. I said ok and just let the idea die. Without to much further talk about it. Eventually I told Italy I did not want to see a dead Austria and that's why we can't work toghter right now.
England:
Me and England set up some DMZ'S in and around Scandnavia early on. Germany got me to switch sides after England attacked them. That along with England wanting me to help them into Denmark was a signal for war with in England in Scnadnavia. So I hit first. For a short time I thought I could hold on to Scandnavia, but was wrong

FALL OF AUSTRIA

Austria:
We never did get into Bulgaria till it was to late. I wanted to enter Galicia to support Austria but they did not agree to such intil it was to late. Just before Austria fell I finally decided to work with Turkey. I sent Austria a formal declration of war to keep trust with them if they somehow got out of things alive.
Austria however managed to convince me to stick with them to the end. Which resulted in the forever end of any hopes of Russia/Turkish alliance.

Turkey:
I feared greatly the hole game if Turkey and Italy ever linked up given my horible relations with Turkey that they and Italy would destroy me. This was also part of the reason to prop Austria up endlessly.

Germany:
I finally turned on Germany comptley at this point taking Berlin. I figured they were done for and I wanted some of the scraps.

France:
France talked to me a bit at this point but we never really agreed to anything. I was seeing France as more of a force to hold back with Italy at that point.

Italy:
Me and Italy talked about holding France back and keeping Turkey bottled up. With Austria gone I needed someone in the Balkans to play nice with me. So my hope and really only hope was Italy. So I had to choose Italy and hope for the best.

England:
Me and England were talking peace at this point, I had fear it wasn't true and went with them. I was wrong and it cost me baddly.

FALL OF RUSSIA
I made a deal with England to survive in Moscow and support them winning. In exchange they would keep me alive and share a draw with me if one happened. Turkey however got their attention and they changed their minds. England gave me far warning of this. I then turned to Italy again.
It was obvious Italy was coming for me via Galicia. I told Italy I would work with them and hoped for the best.
However as my alliance with Italy progressed I found England knocking at my door in friendship. I explained to England they had their chance but changed their mind. However as time went on I started to feel like Italy was not in the position to cover me that England was. So I switched sides.
However I informed Italy I was switching sides as I wanted to maintain some level of trust with them down the road. This resulted in Italy courting me vs England. In the End I told Italy I had made my bed and had to lay in it.

WARSAW HOLD
I used it as a option to go north or south early on in the game. It should of moved more. The second hold I regret. The first one I'm happy with. But also Warsaw was always waiting to enter Galicia to prop up Austria. So that is part of the reason.
SUPPORT KIEL
I forgot to change the support to Kiel after England decided to go with Turkey again.
HOLD SEVASTOPOL
I figured that I had bounced Turkey every turn in Black Sea. That they would assume I would again. Not order to Black Sea and move a army to SevaSTOPOL taking it from me. Leaving a unsupported fleet in the Black Sea. A fleet which would have been a thorn but had to disband as Russia fell.
However I told this to England, and for whatever reason failed to change my move after England switched sides. I'm very curios Turkey. Had England not told you of this which I can't see why the woudn't of. Had England stuck with me. Would I of guessed right.

FINAL THOUGHTS
I would be very curios if some one has tried the reverse jugernaught before and how it worked for them? Does the opening have a name? If someone finds themselves playing Russia in the future and wants to give that opening a shot. Please send me priviate message. I would love to watch the game and see how it would work for someone else.
My support of Austria I think was the big down fall for me. Austria got a lot out of our deal, in terms of survinving and holding on for a long time. However I ended up just watching the war and losing valubale time.
I was very proud of my self for coming out of 1901 with no builds and growing inspite of it. That I can say I did very well.


Once again thank for everyone playing and my TA for expending his time! I learned a great deal about Russia which I had never played before. Or really anyone in the east much at all for that matter.

I just want to say in Turkeys defense for being stuck in their corner. They got a lot of flack about not trying to work with Russia on the thread at times.
They really did try to work with me. However they were dealt a very bad hand. Before the game even started I had decided I wanted to kill Turkey and create a 100% Russian Juggernaught in the east. Free of the Russian/Turkish back stab down the road.
As Austria had no problem jumping on board. They really were in the corner with no friends from the start. For the most part no matter what they said to me.
But they tried very hard to change my mind.