Sorry for not commenting in here sooner. I am actually appreciative of the pause, BUT...goldfinger and I have been in contact.

Bump

And anyone else we waiting on?

bump

An exciting game so far, the pause adds tension, Austria's starting position looks risky, lots of room for expansion but multiple threats to it's all or nothing, turkey looks particularily secure in the corner but it may be difficult to get out, englands island is similar but two fleets makes leaving easier while invasions might be harder, france uas a fairly strong position while germany rivals france in many ways like austria germany may have too many neighbours, italy's position is weaker with less room for growth but may pick up a lot, Russia stand ahead of the rest but is he spread too thinly?

Very interesting choice of starting positions, and much time during the pause to consder opening moves. Good luck all!

It may have been scheduled to only start on Friday. Depending on what timezone thehamster is in it could be anytime.

It's bound to start today though, good luck to all the other students! The anticipation of the first moves is overwhelming.

Unpaused

I wanted to post an opening commentary last night, but I fell asleep. I should be able to finish it tonight and have it up for you guys. Good luck to all the players

Bump for the star. Looking forward to watching this game. Go England go! :D

Haha! Thanks RAZ000! Looking forward to this game! ^_^

Lecture 1
First, while I have never been a student in a SoW, I did apply a lesson from the last one and use it to win a game. In Winter 1901 of the 2013 SoW, I asked the professors why they thought it was important for England to build armies early, if at all possible, when England is typically a fleet power. They explained that England needs armies early on the continent to solo and that, if France or Germany invade, armies can provide a tenacious defense of the British Isles. So in my next game as England, I built armies early and often, starting in 1902, and won in 1908. While this wasn’t due entirely due to building armies, or even my play, as the other players made many mistakes, having armies on the continent and marching as far south as Sevastapol definitely made the solo possible. That game can be seen at gameID=131295.
CK introduced the three skills of the game in his opening lecture: diplomacy, tactics, and strategy. I’m going to expand on that a bit here. Diplomacy and tactics must always serve strategy. It doesn’t matter how good you are at convincing others to do things your way and figuring out their moves if it isn’t moving you closer to a win. Likewise, tactics can give you effective turns, but you need a strategy to string those turns together towards a win.
The relative weight of each skill also changes throughout the game. While there are many ways to divide games into opening, mid-game, and end-game, I prefer to think of the opening as the phase where diplomacy has the most effect on the game. As alliances emerge and nations rise or fall, the game moves into the mid-game, where players must make strategic decisions – stabbing an ally, which centers and areas of the board to prioritize, or what builds to make, for example. The strategic decisions in the mid-game are often what separates great players from good players, as they allow great players to turn bad positions into draws and good positions into wins. Finally, in the end-game, players have generally settled into a strategy, and as stalemate lines emerge, tactical decisions become ascendant. Of course, this does not mean that any of the skills can be ignored at any stage of the game, only that certain stages of the game tend to emphasize certain skills. After all, even the earliest moves must be made with a strategy, however fluid, in mind, and mediocre or poor tactics in the mid-game will get you eliminated so that you never make it to the end-game!
As the players write their opening presses, then, I’d like to discuss some components of effective 1901 presses. In Spring 1901, your diplomacy needs to give you both short- and long-term options for alliances and growth. With your direct neighbors, the goal is to either get them to leave you alone and head the other direction, with plans to work together later, or to negotiate an agreement to split up a third neighbor quickly and then move onto secondary targets. With cross-board powers, such as England and Turkey, there may still be opportunities for direct cooperation, but even if that’s not the route you’re going in the opening, you want to set up a relationship that gives you insight into the moves and motivations of the other players as well as building relationships with all possible allies in the future. If you do this right, every other power on the board should believe that you are the ideal long-term partner, and at least a few of them should be thinking of you as their primary partner. Let’s look at an example of how to use opening presses. These are from a game I played as Austria, in which, despite my opening presses, Italy attacked me directly and Russia was leaning towards it. However, in the Fall of 1901, I was able to, through my relationships with the other powers, hold both Italy and Russia to 0 builds while grabbing two myself. The game can be found here: gameID=122933. Let’s take a look.
My first press to Italy:
“It is essential for Italy and Austria to work together in the opening. If we fight, then Russia and Turkey will roll us up. For this first turn, I propose that we empty tri and ven. If you want to go west, that's fine, but if not, then we should come up with a plan for moving east into the Balkans, Turkey, and eventually Russia before turning west together.

Austria and Italy make very good allies as long as they have the wisdom to not go for petty stabs over tri/ven. I look forward to hearing from you and working with you.”
Note that stating why it’s important for us to work together and why we would make good allies, proposing some specific moves (emptying tri/ven), describing the short- and long-term goals of our alliance, and optimistically stating that we are going to work together. Seeing as Italy opened ven-tyr, rom-ven, I probably could have elaborated more and gotten a more effective opening, but in general, I tend to send frequent, rather than long, press. I also believe it’s advantageous to get the first presses out in the game and in each turn whenever possible.
My first press to Turkey:
“Too often, Austria and Turkey default to fighting each other, which merely lets Italy and Russia pick them apart from both sides. However, the AT, while not often seen, is very powerful when done correctly, in large part because is is always unexpected. In the first year, the goal must be to deny Russia rum through moves to gal, bla, and arm in the spring and supported moves into rum and sev in the fall. Once sev and rum fall, Austria builds armies to finish off Russia while Turkey builds fleets to break into the med, Italy, and eventually Iberia. That way, the two powers have different avenues of expansion while preserving opportunities to support each other.
Looking forward to hearing your thoughts.”
Once again, I start with why we should work together, discuss short- and long-term goals, and specific moves. I didn’t convince Turkey to go to arm in the spring, but in the fall, he did bounce Russia out of rum while offering support for Italy into gre, convincing Italy to forgo tun and then leaving him to get bounced out of gre by my supported move. Turkey and I became game-long allies.
My first press to Russia:
“Russia and Austria make very strong allies. In the opening, we have a common enemy, and in the midgame we can help each other in the middle of the board while focusing on expanding in Scandinavia and the med.
The corner position makes Turkey a difficult nut to crack once well-established. All he has to do is sow enough discord to prevent us from working coherently, and in just a few years his position will be impenetrable. However, it is much easier to dig Turkey out of his shell in the early game if Russia and Austria work together. Ideally, out goals for the first year should be to prevent Turkey from gaining more than one build. In 1902, the goal is to take bul and either bla, arm, or both in preparation for an assault on the Turkish home centers.
As a practical matter, I would prefer that there not be a Russian army in gal after this turn, as it is next to two Austrian home centers, and it would greatly upset the citizens of Vienna if there Opera season were disturbed.”
Same principles at play here. Russia opened ambivalently towards me, then, wanted my help when Turkey bounced him in rum, but I decided to side with Turkey. In this case, I would have liked a friendlier opening, but I think I could have ended up allying with Russia if I had wanted to because of my success in getting Turkey to attack Russia.
My first press to Germany:
“Austria and Germany, surrounded by more secure and potentially hostile edge powers, must stick together diplomatically and militarily. Our first priority must be to ensure that EF and RT do not ally, as those two alliances target each of us, respectively, in their openings. Second, it is to both our benefits if Italy goes after either France or Turkey instead of me. An early Italian assault on Austria tends to result in the formation of a Juggernaut, and a Russia bloated on my home centers will quickly turn towards yours. Therefore, I would appreciate it if you would steer Italy away from attacking me!
After that, there are a few possible strategies. It can be beneficial to both of us if we can persuade Russia to move mos-stp and threaten nor, as it gives you your pick of allies in Scandinavia while almost ensuring that there will not be an army in gal threatening my home centers. Perhaps you can offer to give Russia swe in return for pressure on England, or at least no pressure on me?
In the longer term, a central alliance between AIG can be very effective. One way for that to work is for AI to invade Turkey with Russian help while you invade England with French and Russian assistance. One the corner powers are crippled, IG can turn on France while AG turns on Russia.”
Same principles here again. This one was actually my longest one, as I was explaining to Germany not only what I wanted him to do and why he should do it, but also trying to coordinate our diplomacy to weaken our common enemies. Germany ended up bouncing Russia in swe, which was instrumental in my early success.
Now, let’s look at press to powers further away. First, England:
“Although we are far apart at the moment, we have some common interests. If you are interested in sending Italy towards France early, I could definitely push him that way. We also need to coordinate on Russia so that he helps our interests (instead of Germany's or Turkey's) without getting too strong.
Looking forward to hearing from you.”
Notice that I’m still stating why we should work together, if only diplomatically. Do not underestimate the effects that other powers’ strategies and diplomacy can have on your success even if they do not border you directly. I’m also hedging my bets with long-term allies here, as either he or France will probably come out of the west, and I need whichever one it is to be at least as loyal to me as he is to his local partner if I’m to succeed in the mid- and end-games.
Finally, my opening press to France:
“We are not neighbors yet, but we have many common interests. First, we need to send Italy after Turkey. If he comes successfully after one of us, it will not be long until the other is also a target. We need to convince him to move east, and then when we are both stronger, we can consider moving into the boot together.
PS I hope you enjoy the fine Viennese chocolates.”
Same principles as with England, and also proposing a specific way we can work together in the near future.
Let’s see if anybody actually makes it through all that! The rest of my lectures won’t be this long, I promise!

Goldfinger asks the most important territories for each country, to either control or make sure no one else controls, in 1901. I am going to go through by territory rather than by country. There are several territories in 1901 that are more important than others, both for their tactical or strategic significance and because of what they say about the direction that the board is going.

Some of the ones you might run into frequently:

English Channel: England or France taking this usually indicates hostility; continued bounces indicate distrust. A bounce in the Channel is something of a waste, in terms of tactical development, since it cuts the possibility for France to get a third build and England a second, not quite conceding Belgium to Germany but certainly making him a bigger part of the conversation.

Black Sea: The same thing, but for Russia and Turkey, and more important to either (especially Turkey). I was once told that the only bounce in spring 1901 which does not indicate a failure of diplomacy is in the Black Sea. I don't think that's true, but it gives you some idea of the significance of holding the Black Sea; it's worth essentially wasting a unit's turn to do.

Galicia: If Russia is in Galicia, that's a very bad sign for Austria. It's bad for Russia, too, but not quite as bad, depending on how things are with Turkey and the spring move of the army in Moscow.

Tyrolia: Italy in Tyrolia is a big enough deal that, in some circles, it's quite common for Germany to threaten or actually to move to Tyrolia to protect Austria. I think that a nervous Austria gets better results from bouncing in Vienna. Tyrolia and Galicia matter together because Austria is in such a risky spot and has to grow fast. If Galicia and Tyrolia (and, ideally, Vienna) are open in fall of 1901, it means a very good chance of two builds and for Austria to survive on into midgame.

Sweden: In almost every game, Germany has the option of bouncing Russia in Sweden. Occasionally you see Germany put the fleet in Holland; this raises the odds of three Germany builds, but reduces important leverage on Russia. A Russia getting bounced in Rumania and Sweden is in a tough spot indeed.

Burgundy: Bouncing in Burgundy reduces both Germany and France's chances of determining what happens in Belgium, but losing it can be very tough, especially for France. Germany can just move the Munich army back in the fall, which means Germany can't build in Munich and the army can't do whatever it was trying to do (probably in Ruhr, aiming for Belgium). But for France, a German army in Burgundy can be fatal; Paris and Mars must be covered or potentially sacrificed, and the army can slip into Gascony and potentially threaten four French centers.

Piedmont: I don't know if I've ever seen France move to Piedmont in 1901, but Italy moves there quite often. It forces the French to risk either losing Mars or losing the build from Spain.

Rumania: It's pretty unlikely that Russia get bounced in Rumania, but it is possible.

I would be interested to see if other professors have their own thoughts.

Peterwiggin, that was an excellent lecture. I did make it through to the end :)

Are TA's supposed/allowed to ask questions or not? If not, ignore the rest of this message.

I've noticed that all your opening messages follow the conventional strategies. You establish a relation, you indicate why working together, and you offer the long-term prospect of working together towards the end of the game. I myself like to write longer messages, and include specific plans for opening moves, often a little bit unconventional. The philosophy being that if my message somehow stands out from the rest, my opponents might be more inclined to work with me, if only out of curiosity.

How do the professors feel about a solid, conventional opening versus pro-active, slightly goofier openings?

Two suggestions.

It was proposed in the last SoW that the link to the Diplomacy Archive containing starting moves be posted at the start of all future SoW games. A bit of a primer for the newer players to read.

Also, after the first year or two are over, post an example EoG for 1901 from a previous SoW. It will give the players an example of what kind of notes they should be playing (and it takes forever to read through a SoW thread to get to the EoGs!)

Spring Moves are in

Crap.

S 1901

I'm going to look at the opening moves in the context of two different theaters: the east (Turkey/Russia/Austria/Italy) and the west (England/France/Germany/Russia). Russia has a foot in both theaters, which isn't as important now, but get used to seeing these terms - East and West - used by the professors in most writeups. Games tend to break down along these lines pretty nicely, especially in the early game, where players are more concerned with their immediate future than their long term strategy. Austria, for example, isn't as much concerned with who takes Belgium as he is with securing his own borders and focusing on his immediate threats.

THE WEST

ENGLAND - England's 1901 builds, the vast majority of games, come from one of two centers: Norway and Belgium, Belgium being the much rarer of the two, given that Norway is nearly always open for England and a good safety play. The Channel opening is always risky, since a bounce means that you've not only blown your cover, but you better hope that Russia has opened south to let you into Norway. In this case, some shrewd diplomacy has let England walk right into the Channel. A move to Wales gives England two options: an immediate convoy into France (Belgium/Picardy) or using F NTH to support a convoy into Belgium. The wild card here is Germany. Are they working together, or do they both want Belgium? If that's the case, England may want to strike a deal and rethink his Belgium attack. If it was coordinated, it was nicely done.

GERMANY - "Early leader syndrome" is a term you'll seen tossed about the opening literature for Germany on the Diplomacy Archive. If one country goes +3 in 1901, the other countries tend to view them as the threat. Germany is commonly associated with this phenomenon, which mostly happens when Germany is able to take Den, Hol, and Bel. Its not terribly uncommon for Germany to go +3, and its not necessarily a bad thing, especially if he already has an ally in England. Its always risky to go for 3 though. Does England decide that its worth bouncing the third build to prevent a strong start for Germany? Does Germany guess wrong, bounce France, and end up in a hard fight over Paris? Or is it all part of a Germany/England long term plan?

FRANCE - When peterwiggin did his writeup on the most important territories, he mentioned the importance of both the English Channel and Burgundy. Unfortunately for France, he gained neither of those key territories, choosing instead the unconventional route of F Bre - Pic and A Par - Gas. When France loses one of those, its considered a poor opening. When France loses both, which is admittedly rare, I'd say that's a worst case scenario, especially when all three home centers are vulnerable as a result. I can understand the desire to secure Spa and Por immediately, but you also need to take your own security into consideration, and these moves hardly satisfy that requirement. France is traditionally the most powerful country on the board, but it will be difficult to overcome this poor opening.

THE EAST

ITALY - No surprises from Italy, which is the best opening for the least powerful country on the board. I am a big fan of A Ven - Mar, especially if it was in coordination with Germany's move to Bur. Even if there is no help from Germany, it allows a disproportionate amount of influence to be wielded over an otherwise powerful France. Taken in combination with Austria's strong opening and Russia's miscue, I would say that its a very promising opening for both Italy. Italy may have been planning on a Lepanto (convoy into Turkey), but with the poor French opening, he may need to reassess and grab a piece of France before England and Germany take it all for themselves.

AUSTRIA - Its always a good opening when Russia stays out of Galicia. When you can also ensure that Italy does not stab, plus guarantee yourself two builds, that's a great opening. The Balkan centers are always a source of contention, and securing them early is a great pickup and turns Austria into a powerful player in the east.

TURKEY - Another unsurprising opening. Considering Turkey's limited options in 1901, the best course of action is usually to take Bul, which might as well be a Turkish home center, and keep Russia out of the BLA. Your attention should be directed at two priorities coming up: preventing the Lepanto and ensuring a friendly Russia. If Russia and Austria are getting along, and Italy is not an ally, that's bad news for Turkey.

RUSSIA - Not a great opening, but certainly not terrible. You got away with what would normally be a mistake, but you've essentially got two guaranteed builds, which is a great start for any Russia. With England and Germany opening anti-France, and no Austrian army in Gal, you've got the luxury of choosing your own adventure and potentially getting big quickly.

Great write-up 2WL. Always enjoy reading your commentary.

Time for our 1901 midterm grades. For the purposes of this game, we’re assuming no grade inflation – a C is average.

ENGLAND: B+ You’ve got a guaranteed build in Norway, and there are lots of pretty options available for that fleet in the Channel. The English Channel is perhaps the most important zone on the board for England, and now you’ve got it. Whatever you said to get France to stay out, nicely done. Like 2WL discusses above, this grade might be better or worse depending on your relationship with Germany.

FRANCE: D- Okay, things are not completely lost. I have seen people bounce back from worse. But, it’s pretty bad. You’ve got some decisions to make about covering centers and territories. Think very carefully about your tactics, and, more than that, think about Germany and England and Italy’s tactics. What would you do, in England’s place? It’s all game theory at this point, trying to figure out how you will respond, how the others will respond, etc etc. What will things look like in spring of 1902? Your main efforts, however, should be diplomatic. How are you going to convince at least one member of the EGI attacking you to back off? There are some specific options you should ask your TA about; it’s going to depend on the position and kind of press you’re getting from each.

GERMANY: A- Like England with you, this grade really depends on your relationship with England. Who will be in Belgium? I give Germany the slightly better grade because he can support to Belgium without risking his other two builds, while England has to choose between guaranteeing at least a bounce and getting Norway. If the GE is strong, though, it doesn’t really matter. I am excited already to see EoGs and find out if one player is the mastermind here, or if it’s a group effort, or what.

ITALY: B- A pretty solid start for the Italian. You’ve got France in a tough spot. It would have been a little better to see Austria move to Budapest rather than Trieste. What you really want as Italy is to have options that remain open into 1902: Commit east or go west (or north!)? Side with Austria or Turkey? It certainly looks like all options are available now. Decisions in 1902 are going to heavily depend on how the alliances are shaping on either side of you, and where you want to intervene. Even though Italy doesn’t look or feel surrounded the way that Germany and Austria do, it’s still a center power; you’ve got to be talking to everyone now. You’ve got, at best, one more season to get a strong grip on the alliances on both sides of the board so you can make an informed decision.

RUSSIA: C- My initial grade here was a D, but you got lucky, which happens (see France’s situation for the opposite). Sweden and (practically) Rumania are guaranteed builds, despite the bounce. But: My general impression of your situation depends on the possibility that your Moscow-Sev-BLA bounce is not an error of orders but of diplomacy, that you expected the Black Sea to be open. If it’s an error of orders, where was that Moscow army supposed to go? If you sent the wrong order, you may have missed a big chance: Opening north would have (we now see) been able to bounce Norway, a potential interest if you’re concerned about a rapidly growing EG. France’s possible demise is not good for you in the long run, especially if it turns out that England and Germany work well together making it happen, but in the short term at least they aren’t opening toward you. And, you’re not (against, looking at the board) obviously enemies with any of your immediate neighbors.

AUSTRIA: A This went about as well as possible. Two virtually guaranteed builds, and look at the little arrows on the board: almost all of them point away from Austria territory. The possibility for an active alliance with, or a vicious and successful offensive against, any of your neighbors remains open. You’ve even got the option (with Italy moving out of Venice and thus your need to protect Trieste relieved) to decide what your builds will be, and where. The east almost always breaks down into a 3v1 or 2v1 situation, with one power being killed and eaten by the others. It looks, though by no means is guaranteed, that you will be in the stronger part of that first regional division.

TURKEY: C This is how I open almost most games I play as Turkey. It doesn’t make an enemy of anyone (assuming Russia expected to bounce) although it does mean you won’t be making moves on Russia in 1901 and are therefore slightly limited in offensive options. It’s time to be a-courtin’ Russia or Austria or Italy (ideally, two of the three friendly or neutral) to make sure that you aren’t the odd man out in the east.

And one other thing to note, whether you feel like you're doing really well or really bad: This is only the start. None of these openings matter without keeping up good press and smart play.

You're all doing very well, just ready up, man up ..... move on

Lurking... I want to criticise the prof's comments more than the player's move, but i can't see the behind the scenes so it is easier to give out about the profs... i'll just stay quiet

starification bump

Lecture 2: Spring 1901 Moves

I’m going to start by answering some questions. ck answered goldfinger’s question pretty thoroughly, but I’d like to point out one subtler province: St. Petersburg. In the opening, Russia has 1 basic strategic choice: to split his forces evenly between north and south, or to send both the armies south (we’re assuming for the moment that he’s not going to move to Silesia and attack Germany in Spring 1901, because that usually doesn’t work out very well for Russia). The best part about playing Russia is being able to meddle in two theaters right away, but the most difficult is that, most often, early success depends very much on being able to convince one or more neighbors not to tae advantage of a temporary weakness. If Russia chooses to move to St. Petersburg, he may need help from Austria or Turkey to gain rum in the fall. However, if he chooses to move Moscow south in the spring, he leaves himself vulnerable to a combined English-German attack in the north. The other players, of course, also have opinions on St. Petersburg. When I play Austria or Turkey, I always try to convince Russia to go to St. Petersburg, as it means fewer armies near my home centers. The move to St. Petersburg also tends to benefit France and Germany by weakening England, who has to support a move to Norway in the fall to be assured of a build. As England, I often tell Russia that I would prefer to take Norway by fleet, but that if he moves to St. Petersburg, I’ll take it with an army, threatening St. Petersburg. As Germany, I often make moving to St. Petersburg the requirement for gaining Sweden in the fall, as it ensures that Russia and Turkey cannot run over Austria too quickly and that England and Russia do not work closely together in the north.

Basvanospheuden asks about unconventional openings. My feeling on these openings depends on the specific opening. Some unconventional openings are sound when backed up with the right diplomacy; others almost always fail. For example, the Sealion, in which France and England conspire to take North Sea in Fall 1902 and convoy armies into England in Spring 1903, is devastatingly effective if France can get into the Channel in the spring. Likewise, the Key Lepanto and the Orient Express, in which Italy pretends to stab Austria while really moving an army through Austria into Turkey, also tend to be effective. However, openings like war-sil, which I mentioned earlier, almost always result in Russia being eliminated by Austria and Turkey while fighting a pointless war against Germany. By far the worst though, is probably tri-adr, bud-tri, vie-tyr, which I actually played once. I got Venice, but Russia and Turkey took everything else. So in summary, I think it depends on the specific “unconventional” opening. Of course, there might also be some gray area in what constitutes an unconventional opening. Does mar-bur, par-pic, bre-mao count? I don’t think it does, but hamster picked me out in a game without ever having played me because I used that opening.

Now, let’s take a look at the spring moves.

First, the west. The most obvious observation is that France is in trouble. Most likely, England, Germany, and Italy coordinated the moves against France, in which case, they can also be expected to coordinate their moves in the fall. The problem is exacerbated by the very weak French opening. In general, as France, it is better to send the fleet to either Mid-Atlantic or the Channel instead of Picardy or Gascony. The fleet is much more useful in water, and an army is much more useful in Gascony (for defense) or Picardy (for taking Belgium). The problem with taking Belgium with a fleet is that, if France is working with England against Germany, then the fleet in Belgium can’t support armies into Ruhr or Burgundy, slowing the offensive into Germany. On the other hand, if France is working against Germany, a fleet in Belgium threatens North Sea, but if that’s the goal, the Channel is generally superior, as it also threatens London and Wales, while an army in Belgium can protect Burgundy from a German stab. In short, even without being jumped by all his neighbors, France’s opening was weak.

There are a few areas of interest for the fall in the west. France has some choices to make about whether to defend his home centers or to try and grab neutrals. Likewise, Germany, Italy, and England must decide whether to let France back into his home centers or to go for them. This is a bit of a guessing game, as, for example, Italy wants to either let France back into Marseilles at the expense of Spain or to take Marseilles, while France wants to end up with both Spain and Marseilles, either by bouncing or bluffing Italy into staying out. Germany also needs to decide what to do with Burgundy and Belgium. He could be completely altruistic and support Italy to Marseilles and England to Belgium, giving all three in the triple two builds each, he could take Belgium for himself with support, or he could support England to Belgium while trying to sneak into Gascony of Paris with his army. England has to decide whether to trust Germany and take Belgium, to shoot for Brest, to shoot for Mid-Atlantic Ocean, or to try a convoy into Picardy (which I guess Germany could support, but if he’s going to support England anyways, he might as well just support a convoy into Belgium). A viable diplomatic tactic at this stage for France would be to convince one of his attackers that he’s simply not sitting on enough centers to make a three-way split worthwhile.

In addition to the action in and around France, neither England nor Germany are focused on Scandinavia, with England moving south and Germany leaving Sweden open. This benefits Russia, of course, but in general, England does better in games where Germany bounces Russia out of Sweden, and Germany does slightly better when he lets Russia in. (I found this in a zine, with stats to back it up, a long time ago, but I don’t have time to look for it right now. Bonus points to anybody who can find it). Unfortunately, Russia wasted a tempo by bouncing in Sevastapol instead of moving to St. Petersburg, which would have given him just as strong as a position in the south and a much stronger position in the north. It looks to me like Russia thought he would take the Black Sea, as otherwise mos-sev is a very poor move. If he had taken the Black Sea, Turkey would be in a bit of trouble, as he’d likely lose Bulgaria to Austria or Russia in 1902. With both Austria and Russia staying out of Galicia, it’s very likely that they are allied against Turkey, especially when adding in Russia’s likely attempt to stab Turkey. Italy may be playing a Lepanto as well, or, if he thinks it will be more productive to commit more units to France, he may move apu-ven, possibly bouncing with Austria, while taking Tunis with the fleet. Austria will almost certainly grab Greece with support for two builds, while Russia will probably support himself to Rumania. (There are some other interesting options here, but I’ll leave those to the reader’s imagination). Turkey needs to use press this turn to ensure that Italy does not Lepanto, and, if possible, to turn Russia and Austria against each other.

Alright, since the other professors covered pretty much everything possibly relating to what these opening moves say position wise I'm going to switch up my commentary a bit.

Lets start with France. At the moment you are in a bad position. There is currently what I assume to be a three way alliance against you. Italy, Germany, and England have all probably colluded. So what does that mean to you? What you need to make sure you don't do, is stop communicating or give up. There are two completely different styles you need to develop as a player.

1. How to play when you are in a good position. This involved how to control a dominate position in an alliance, how to steadily work towards 18 centers, etc. The other professors and I will cover this as it becomes relevant.

2. This is what is important to France right now. How to play when you are in a bad position. So the first question you need to ask yourself is why are your neighbors attacking you. In this case the answer is really really simple. They are attacking you for a few reasons. The first is because they don't want you to attack them, and forcing a 3 way alliance against you is going to take away your ability to attack anyone and force you to be defensive. The main reason though, is that they want your supply centers.

Once you figure out why you are being attacked, you need to figure out what to do about it. So right now you have three people who are all manipulative, and deceitful in an alliance together. In order for them to trust each other they all must have agreed on a fairly equal split of your centers. Since it would be stupid for England to agree to an alliance where he doesn't gain anything, same with Germany and Italy.

So hopefully you see where I'm going with this, what you want to do is prevent one of them from getting what they want. Unbalance the alliance, and you take away the reason for the 3 way cooperation. So if you can find a way to ensure that most of your centers would wind up belonging to one player, and cut the other two out of any gains, you are going to go a long way towards helping yourself out of this mess.

What else can you do? Well you can talk to Austria and turkey. It is not in the best interest of the eastern powers to see you eliminated quickly because that means that the western powers will be attacking them before they have the chance to gain centers. The last thing either side of the board should want, is to see a country on the other side being destroyed quickly.

The other very important thing to do in this situation is to talk to everyone attacking you. You need to be in constant communication so you can figure out where a potential alliance might exist. Just because someone betrayed you once doesn't mean they can't make a good future ally, or that you cannot use what they tell you to figure out how they are going to move next turn.

I'll stop there for now. If any of this doesn't make sense to you please talk to your TA about it. Your TA is here because they understand the game extremely well, so take advantage of that skill and learn from it. If you have any questions about my comments please pm them to me and if I decide they won't influence the game overly, I will answer them here.

Let me also add that the TAs are here for your benefit. They were selected to be a TA because they have more experience and knowledge than the players. Their advice is valuable and it is in every player's best interest to maintain constant correspondence with their respective TA and, above all else, to listen to their advice. The TAs aren't doing it for their health. They want you to get better.

I'll comment on this turn later tonight or tomorrow.

F 1901

As is usually the case in the fall turn, alliances start to reveal themselves for the first time and we start to get an idea how the board will shape up going forward. This is also the turn, unfortunately, where deception is rewarded and powers can easily succumb to guile with promises of builds and alliances that fail to come to fruition. Luckily, for our learning purposes, we have all that and more. This is a great turn to discuss with several important lessons to point out.

I'll leave the rankings and grades to other professors, but I'm going to bracket our players in terms of the strength of their first year and how well I believe their first year moves will set them up for success.

THE GOOD

RUSSIA - Despite the mistake last turn, you've turned lemons into lemonade, albeit mostly out of dumb luck than anything else. Two builds for Russia is great in any game, but the fact that you don't appear to have any apparent enemies is a win unto itself. You do, though, have the threat of an E/G looming in the north, but that second build will pay big dividends in protecting Sweden as well as discouraging any thoughts of English and German expansion in Scandinavia. This is also a good time to bring up the benefits of long term planning, especially with Turkey. Had you and Turkey better coordinated, you could have easily kept Austria to one build while having armies in both Galicia and Rumania. Not a big gripe, but its food for thought for future games.

GERMANY - Much like Russia, you've escaped 1901 without any real threats to your expansion. You appear to have a solid ally in England and you've got France on the ropes. Two builds right now is a big win. 1902 is an important year for Germany. There are three separate claims on Scandinavia, you've got Russian builds to contend with, and you also have to devote more than just one unit on any potential French invasion. Yes, you've got the English army to help in Bel, but with Italy also chomping at the bit for a piece of the French pie, how many centers can you realistically afford to give away?


THE LESS GOOD BUT NOT BAD

ENGLAND - Any game where England can put his army on the continent is a good start. Two builds is also a bonus for England. However, there is a significant danger in attempting to fight a two-front war. Many Englands that take two centers in 1901 often end up losing one or both, especially since that two builds necessitates that you can't defend both in 1902. That second Russian build is also worrisome. I'm sure I don't have to point this out to you, but a well planned E/G alliance will usually keep Russia out of Sweden as a first priority, for obvious reasons, especially if they both plan on attacking France. This will be a tough turn for you, but if you can establish support on both fronts, you stand a good chance of staying around for a long time.

ITALY - Its hard for Italy to have a really spectacular opening. In 9/10 games, you'll end up with only Tunis while you watch your neighbors get fat on 2 or 3 builds. But that's the nature of Italy - its a slow developing country that takes skill to build into a big power. I really like the try for Mar, and its just dumb luck that France elected to support himself back to Mars rather than cover Paris. Now, though, you've got a choice. Do you pursue a weakened France? Or do you devote extra units to support a compromised Austria, with a R/T looming in the east?

TURKEY - Not an amazing turn, but a solidly played fall 1901. You kept Austria to one build, which is a win in itself. Convincing Austria that you would support them to Rum was great diplomacy on your part, but you can't always count on Austria being that gullible. I don't understand the move to Smy at all, but you can get away with it because Austria isn't in Gre. You've got breakout potential if the dominoes fall in your favor in 1902 and 1903.

THE BAD

FRANCE - All things considered, not a terrible turn. Heck, you even managed a build. Unfortunately, its going to take a lot of diplomacy and a few favorable turns if you want to turn your game around after your disastrous spring. You will be very lucky not to lose a home center in 1902. France is a very good defensive power, especially in the early game, but when you're faced with a triple entente in E/G/I, you better be messaging the rest of the board like crazy, begging for help.

THE UGLY

AUSTRIA - I probably could have just lumped you in with the "bad" turns, but then my "good, bad, and ugly" paradigm would be flawed. Lets look at the obvious - Gre should be yours. In no scenario could you have possibly taken Rum this turn. It was clear that Russia would support Ukr - Rum this turn, so the most you could possibly do is bounce Russia, which means you wouldn't get the build anyway. Not to mention that Austria needs all the builds he can get in 1901. I also take issue with A Tri - Vie. The move served no purpose, and if you take Gre (as you should), Tri - Alb is your backup and support as you try to break into AEG. As it stands, the move did you no good, since there was no threat of Russia taking Gal. Unfortunately, you failed to read the board well and that has cost you a strong opening position.

An interesting year in the books. Here are my grades for the autumn 1901 moves, with my grade for 1901 as a whole after that.

ENGLAND: A-; for 1901, B+: Can’t disagree with a two build England with a fleet in the channel and an army in Belgium. The German took Denmark with an army, and Russia is apparently moving south. Even France’s surprising slight recovery shouldn’t harm England, as Brest is occupied and thus cannot (although I don’t know if it would have) host a fleet build. Your builds will depend very strongly on whether you intend to continue your invasion of France, which Russia’s builds might determine. This is a good example of how events on literally the opposite end of the board can affect everyone; Turkey choosing not to bounce Russia in Rumania means a second Russian build and potential trouble for England. Where Russia wants to start going next is important, but, with a Germany willing to help out, you might be okay. Who in the EG will not need the other one first?

FRANCE: B+; for 1901, D+: Your grade for 1901 as a whole is not that good, but autumn went about as well as you could have hoped, I think. If that was just guesswork, it was inspired guesswork, and it gives you all sorts of diplomatic opportunities with all of your neighbors. Normally a one-build France is a really bad opening, but after that spring you are doing better than I expected. The build here is straightforward to my eye, but I will be interested to see what you go with. You are by no means out of the fire, so work very very (very very) hard on getting one of your western neighbors to back off. You’ve potentially got a lot (in terms of negotiation and discussion and such) to work with and, frankly, little to lose, so have fun.

GERMANY: C; for 1901, B-: It looks like Germany is the one willing to make sacrifices to see France go out fast, supporting allies into French and neutral SCs. I am not sure about that in general, and specifically in this case, it didn’t work. France outfoxed IG in Marseilles and will be getting a build, making any further German gains (without English help) very difficult. Still, for 1901, two builds, an apparently friendly Italy and England, and a Russia more interested in southern affairs is not too bad. The real question is, can you convince your allies that it’s as important to keep helping you in 1902 as it was in 1901?

ITALY: C-; for 1901, C-: Concern about Austria proved to be unfounded, but prudence is hard to criticize. More disconcerting is that now your armies are, like ill-fitting underwear, bunched up at the top with no comfortable way to fix it. If things had gone better for Austria, you’d be in something like a difficult spot, but fortunately for you, they did not. As before, you got through 1901 with most of your options in place, but engaging in some of them is going to be difficult. Nothing is really terrible here, by any means, but options for further growth are not obvious.

RUSSIA: B+; for 1901, B-: Hey! That worked out for you. They say it’s better to be lucky than good, and here you go for evidence. You could really have Austria in a bind if things had gone better in spring, but, two builds is a fine start. The Turkish fleet in the Black Sea and move to Smyrna is a little worrying, but, if Turkey were hostile, you might have found out a little more forcefully.

AUSTRIA: F; For 1901, D: Oh, poor Austria. Such a strong start, utterly derailed. I get the thinking – why wouldn’t Turkey prefer a first year of two builds, mauling Russia, instead of watching you get the two builds? Well, here’s why! In the long run, it wasn’t a great plan anyway, for you – retreating Russia could have been tough to dislodge from Galicia without Turkish help, while Turkey would doubtlessly have been aiming for Sevastopol, so all you’d be doing is strengthening what’s really a natural enemy.

TURKEY: C+; for 1901, C+: The autumn 1901 grade is an A for diplomacy and a D for tactics. When EoGs come around, I will be curious to see if Turkey proposed the plan, or Austria did, to support Bulgaria to Rumania. But I am confused; why the move to Smyrna? If you’re anti-Russian, you missed your chance, and an army in Con and a fleet in Smyrna is much more useful than vice versa, if you’re headed for Austria. Plus, misorders happen in this game (both in general and, as we have seen, in this game specifically); Con to Bulgaria would have guaranteed two builds should Austria have, say, accidentally ordered Albania to Ionian Sea. Turkey is a useful comparison with Italy – one build, neighbor in a tough spot – but where Italy has lost much of the obvious potential for 1902 gains, Turkey has retained them.

Cross-posting! Looking at 2WL's lecture, it looks like we seem to disagree on Germany and England, and maybe slightly on Russia.