You doing great kid!

@THM Looks like typical SoW prof. commentary to me. :-) Some profs have been more sarcastic than that (although usually later in game, not exactly a lot to be sarcastic about with the fairly normal openings we see on this board, I imagine), but that's a stylistic thing, not a content thing.

Audience for this thing is broad though, so IMO add as much sophistication on top as you like. Obviously aim for the players' level first, though.

Bump...Fall just went through

So, in my role as official heckler:

Germany, I think you should read this:

http://diplom.org/Zine/F2000M/Goff/swedensituation.html

My feelings on that bounce are aligned with this article.

1) If you're going to fight Russia, why not let him in to Sweden and then build a fleet and take it off him. He's probably not going to be able to stop you taking it in 02, especially if you can trade for a favourable southern build for letting him in.

2) I tend to think that Germany bouncing Russia in Sweden is great! But only if you are *not* Germany or Russia.

3) If you're going to fight Russia out of the gate, I think taking your natural two builds is a better foundation for that fight than going east immediately.

If you go east immediately, you end up looking too tasty to England and France. Diplomacy is to some extent about efficiency - you want to make it *less* efficient for England and France to team up on you. Here, you're making it more efficient instead.

I think that the point of 1901 is to find (at least one) ally. I don't know what your Diplomacy looks like here (hell, maybe you're all doing a secret WT, but I give that maybe a 1% chance), but it's time to look around to find out who you CAN ally with. What elements of you press so far can you use to your advantage?

----

England: I love love love the bounce in Hol. It restricts Germany from building a fleet in Kiel, and commits you clearly with an ally (or two!) for the upcoming year. I wonder if you were one of the many people asking Germany to bounce Russia? I bet you were.

AUTUMN 1901

Now we're talking! The game progresses and we get a better sense of relationships.

Some things to be thinking about after the first year, regardless of which power you are:

1. WHAT IS MY IDEAL MIX OF UNITS? You do not have control over the composition of your starting units, but starting now with the first build phase you can shape how many armies vs. how many fleets. Think about the short term (which may include best defense if you are under fire), but also beyond. The way things have developed after the first year, are you seeing yourself as a land power, a sea power, or both?

2. WHERE IS MY NEXT BUILD COMING FROM? AND THE NEXT? AND THE NEXT? It is sometimes easy to over-focus on the immediate tactical situation. Remember to keep in mind the bigger picture. Sure, things may be going great with your newfound ally as you pummel the odd man out. When that odd man out is dead, where are you headed next? What do your prospects look like? These considerations may affect your next moves, which may include not killing off the odd man out.

3. KEEP TALKING. Someone may be upset with you right now. The way the board has developed in 1901, some people have been misled, if not outright lied to. Whether you are the liar or the lie-ee (?), keep talking! Do not cease communications because you are upset or because the other person is an untrustworthy bastard. If you lied, explain why to your victim -- either the truth or whatever fiction you want to spin. Did you get a bad feeling from press? Did the victim's proposal not really make sense? Did another power tip you off? If you were lied to, don't be a whiny bitch. Even if you hate the person who lied to you and you are just waiting for the first viable opportunity to screw him back, keep calm and get busy diploming. Things aren't going to get better for you if you're so unpleasant that nobody wants to talk to you (that's not to say guilt-tripping the liar can't be a viable approach).

4. WHOM DO I TRUST? Nobody, of course. But you have to start somewhere in this game, and the first year of play should give you some road maps. For the powers that you trust a little more, now perhaps you can build on that to your mutual benefit. For example, if you both honored a DMZ, maybe the next step is you both move your units away from the DMZ territory. For the powers you trust less, how can you protect yourself without spending too many resources?

5. A repeat from earlier: THINK ABOUT THE OTHER GUY. Whether you are negotiating from a position of power or weakness, think about what you are proposing from the other guy's perspective. It is easy to fall into the trap of only proposing what is good for you and shooting down what is bad from you. You need to get the other person to agree and mean it, so tailor your proposals to what makes sense from his perspective. He should do what you suggest because he realizes that what you are suggesting is in fact the best course for him. It's not all about you.

Okay, on to some specific about the current board.

FRANCE: Strong 1901. You get your two builds with momentum next year from a guaranteed third build off of Spa. The moves suggest EF vs. G. Think about your ideal mix of units for 1902 and beyond. A Par seems likely to help the offensive against Germany, but if you build a fleet in Bre/Mar, does it alienate England or Italy? If you instead build two armies, does that hamper you in 1903? France frequently gets to 5-6 centers, then stalls. The real challenge will be figuring out from where your next two builds come after Spa.

ENGLAND. A good 1901. Getting one build rather than two is not a problem. More importantly, you look to be on the better end of the western 2v1. You will need to manage your relationship with France to make sure you do not fall behind. Russia gets one build, likely A War. You will need to figure out how to handle StP and who gets Swe.

GERMANY. A rough first year. Without seeing the press, I don't fault you for bouncing Russia in Swe or for getting bounced yourself in Hol. Sil is the move that has me scratching my head. Bouncing in Swe may irritate Russia, but is not necessarily a call for RG war. On the other hand, one lone army heading to War (and presumably breaching a DMZ agreement) is a slap in Russia's face. It almost forces him to build A War in response, which leaves you with 1v1 and no progress. If you are going to break trust with another player, do it because it gives you game-changing momentum and do it with sufficient force to cripple or kill him. Now you appear surrounded on all sides by hostile forces. It is time for some quick tap-dancing and earnest negotiations. You should be sending press to all of them frequently. Do not expect mercy out of the goodness of their hearts. Try to come up with a creative solution that makes more sense for them to ease up on you and focus elsewhere.

RUSSIA. A good first year. In the west, you got bounced in Swe, but you look to have ample help against Germany. This will be an important turn for negotiation with England. Think about what you would like to see happen in the west -- is it best for you if Germany collapses quickly? If Germany and one of EF band against the other? If Italy takes Mun? Play out each scenario in your head to see what outcome is best for Russia, then try to steer the other players toward that path. The south looks like RA vs. T, with the Italian army in Tyl a complicating factor. You have the jump on Turkey in Arm, but will you be able to capitalize? Turkey is a hard nut to crack, and Austria will have many armies with possibly no immediate objective. Even if you form a good plan, Italy might disrupt it. Your press with Italy is critical this turn.

TURKEY. A rough 1901, but fortunately Turkey was built for defense. If RA are against you, you may be able to hang onto your home centers in the short term, but in the longer term their numbers will win out. You need to come up with a diplomatic solution -- either to flip one of them, or to involve Italy on your side. You have a difficult decision here for your one build. Turkey's first build frequently is F Smy, but with a Russian army in Arm that may require more thought.

AUSTRIA. All around decent -- two builds, a fleet in Rum, and Gal empty are good; a green army in Tyl is bad. AI communications still seem out of whack, perhaps as an extension of the imbalance created when you vacated Tri and he stayed in Ven. The good news is that with your two army builds, Italy can't do much damage against you by himself, even if he builds A Ven. Nevertheless, getting Italy out of Tyl should be a goal. If Italy does back off, where do you see him getting his next build? Think about the best German fate for Austrian interests, and how to help that fate happen. RA have the numbers against T, but not the right mix of units. You are blocked from building a fleet, and Russia is distracted by Sil (and possibly StP). Where are your next two builds coming from?

ITALY. Tyl is another head scratcher. Your army increases the pressure on Mun, but it seems unlikely that you will be the one who will end up with Mun (or if you do, that you will keep it) with only one unit in play. Similarly, you threaten Austria's home centers but you should have anticipated he would get two builds (since you didn't coordinate with Turkey in Greece) so it is not a real threat. Now you are a bit stuck because you probably need a fleet to expand, but you have an unsupported army in Tyl and Ven vacant after you just kicked sand in Austria's face (I am assuming here that you did not move to Tyl with Austria's blessing). Where is your next build coming from, and how are you going to get there? If EF(R) quickly eliminate Germany, do you expect France to next head your way or north against England? If France builds F Mar now, what are you going to do about it? You are not in immediate peril, but you also do not look to have promising prospects lined up. This is an important round for you to plot your course for 1902 and beyond. There are a number of powers who likely are looking for a friend.

Great commentary by ATC and THM, but I have a little bit to add.

Had I written commentary for Spring 1901, there were, to me, two big points to raise:

1. A Vienna and A Venice holding. This was absurd on Austria's part. If Italy was planning to hold in Venice, you should have arranged the bounce in Trieste in order to guarantee your safety. There was no cost and a real chance at catastrophe if Italy attacked. Similarly, once you knew that Austria was holding in Vienna, Italy, you should have at least gone to Tyrolia if not straight for Trieste depending on what you were hearing from Russia. With Russia opening so clearly against Turkey, you need to figure out whether you are aiming for a I/R or an I/A. If the former, it would have been good to sneak into an Austrian center this year to force Russia to choose you over Austria. If the latter, it's not clear why you are going to Tyrolia now. It would be better to have gone to take advantage of France's weakness in the south, especially with the Burgundy bounce. Holding in Venice was the worst possible choice, and that is borne out with the results of the fall.

Similarly, I really don't like the German bounce in Burgundy in Spring 1901. That's a great move if you have a 3 on 1 against France, but otherwise you are just forfeiting your leverage on Holland and Belgium (which you got punished for) for unclear gains. Had you been in Ruhr this turn you could have actually had that leverage and a good shot at finding an ally. Also, I agree with what ATC said about the bounce in Sweden and the move to Silesia. Both are weak.

One last thing, at the risk of giving too direct of advice: I don't agree with THM that Warsaw is the obvious build for Russia. Almost certainly a stronger build for Russia is army Moscow. This defends Warsaw just as well without escalating, which is an important skill in diplomacy. When you are being attacked (especially when the attack is going to peter out soon like this German one), you want to try to defend in a way such that there is an exit from the fight for your adversary. The risk of building in Warsaw is that Germany may feel that you are just going to follow to Silesia anyway so there is little for him to gain by backing off. It also wouldn't be completely shocking to see Russia go fleet Sev here (that certainly was the plan if Sweden was captured) as sticking a fleet in Rumania basically commits him against Turkey (and Armenia escalates that more).

Yeah, I agree about the Russian build. I even came to that conclusion as I cycled through the countries, but didn't adjust what I had written earlier on.

BUMP, back to page one. and I suppose only a few hours till next phase

AFTER SPRING 1902

We get some more clarity on how the board is developing. If Tyl ever was a point of contention, it appears Austria and Italy have worked things out. Turkey appears to have made no friends, facing 3v1 in the east. Similarly, Germany appears to be facing 3v1 in the west.

FRANCE is following up a strong 1901 with a strong 1902. In addition to the essentially guaranteed build from Spa, France is knocking on the doors of Bel and Mun. If England and Russia respectively collaborate with France, Germany should lose both. Interesting movement in Iberia, as France continues to avoid posing a threat to England or Italy. France's moves suggest he will take Spa with an army, so as not to threaten Italy with a fleet in Spa(sc). The French fleet likely will camp out in MAO for autumn with the flexibility of heading either way in 1903. Surely things will come to a head next year, as France should be considering fleet builds with his 1902 gains. That could spell trouble for whoever his next target is after Germany.

ENGLAND appears to have worked things out with Russia. While Nwy-StP is still a possibility, it makes little sense to first help Russia into Swe if that is England's plan. England may look to maintain a favorable situation by encouraging Russia to keep StP vacant. Another possibility is a rotation, Nwy-Swe with English support of Swe-Den to remove the direct threat to StP. In any event, England's fleet position puts substantial pressure on Germany.

GERMANY is in serious trouble, with a real risk of being reduced to Kie and Ber by end of year. Diplomacy appears not to be working, as Germany attempted again to deny Swe to Russia. Russia likely was Germany's best hope for an ally, and the lack of cooperation in S02 suggests a poor prognosis for Germany. Germany's best play now may be to appeal to English fear of an unbeatable France, but France's aforementioned moves suggest careful moderation of that fear.

ITALY appears to have shifted to Lepanto mode. That is a lot of effort for a promise of Smy. Italy's best hope here is to band with Russia or Austria against the other after Turkey is eliminated, all the while crossing his fingers that France does not venture into the Med.

AUSTRIA is in strong position after S02. Any dustup with Italy is settled. Austria's western border is secure, with potential to move west at will. He is at peace with Russia to the north, and the Russian fleet in Rum offers no threat to the interior. With no Turkish fleets to threaten a cut of Aeg, Austria looks poised to pick up Bul in A02. The question then will be how he readies himself for his next target after Turkey.

TURKEY appears besieged on all sides. While the loss of Bul is likely, with a few correct guesses Turkey may be able to hang in there long enough to get a reprieve, such as a Russia/Austria stab or a French attack on Italy. Even if nobody is drinking Turkey's kool aid at the moment, he should keep up his press with all players and maintain as good relations as possible.

RUSSIA is in solid shape, with some vulnerability. The north is potentially vulnerable to England, but Russia appears to be working on that relationship. Austria also has an army advantage which could be problematic for Russia. Russia should be developing mid-game strategy -- if Turkey is eliminated, what is the final division of the Turkish territory? When does Russia expect to be attacked, and what can he do to preempt it?

Some game concepts not directed at any particular power:

1. ORDER VS. CHAOS. Different players have different play styles. I think most players like to have some semblance of structure to the game, alliances that last for at least a few turns so there can be some reliability established. Other players prefer chaos, where nobody trusts each other for more than a turn, and they thrive on that mutual suspicion. These two play styles are directly at odds, and a player may do well to identify others with inconsistent play styles and seek to eliminate them regardless of which powers they draw.

2. ONE ALLY, ONE ENEMY. I like order. Ideally, I like to have one clear ally and one clear enemy at a time. One enemy at a time, or fighting one front at a time, is probably the more important component. Ideally, you fight on one front of your choosing where you have the advantage and no one is attacking you. If you look at France, England, and Austria in this game, they each have one front with no one attacking them. All of France, England, Italy, and Austria's orders succeeded last turn. None of Austria's moves were even opposed.

3. RESOLUTION OF EAST VS WEST. Frequently, the early game features two theaters, EFG and RAT with Italy participating in one. Even if things are going well in your theater, pay attention to how things are going in the other theater. The key is that you want your theater to resolve first, so that you are freed up to start heading toward the other theater before the participants over there head over to yours. If it looks like your theater is progressing more slowly, you might want to consider changing the dynamic to speed things up so you don't get flanked by the victors of the other theater.

Bump

phase end

Oh, to be a fly on the wall with Austrian/Italian press. That Austrian "misorder" is gonna be pretty controversial. :-)

Could one of the professors comment on Austria's orders of Vienna support Trieste, Trieste support Vienna?

Professor Hanged Penn here. Sorry for the delay, as I was offline yesterday and perhaps Hellenic Teller was too.

AFTER AUTUMN 1902

ENGLAND looks very strong now, with two builds of momentum coming up. Unless they fuel a surprise stab of France, those builds likely signal bad news for Russia. Most importantly, France looks to be heading south. This feels like an EF western juggernaut.

FRANCE. I take MAO-Spa(sc) as an anti-Italian move. Least offensive to Italy would be Gas-Spa, less offensive would be MAO-Spa(nc). Instead, France has two builds and one surely will be F Mar to give him two fleets ready to roll in the Med. Italy gambled and lost in Smy, resulting in no builds. A fleet rush by France may mean Italy needs to pull everything back for home defense. The danger here for France is how many centers he expects to pick up in the next two years versus how many centers he expects England to pick up. France's ability to blitz Italy is tempered by his need to keep some home defense against England's anticipated growth.

GERMANY is not long for this game, I suspect. The exception would be if he can be useful in an immediate stab by France on England. With two English builds coming, that seems unlikely. Germany was unable to persuade Russia to make it RG vs. EF, and now is succumbing to the inevitable result of 3v1.

RUSSIA is in trouble, despite the build. Con-Sev was damaging not only in the loss of Sev, but also in that it left Mos vulnerable. If Russia builds in Mos to address Sev, then StP remains at risk to England. If he builds in StP and tries to slide War-Mos, War is at risk to a desperate Germany. The one unit in Ank is unsupported; Russia is unlikely to end a year with two Turkish territories. Russia is juggling a lot, and the question will be if he can pull it all together before he faces new pressure.

TURKEY made a nice move with Con-Sev. Smy-Ank would have been even better, resulting in a build! The key in the short to medium turn will be the relationship with Austria. With Italy and Russia likely facing pressure from the west soon, Turkey has an opportunity at new life if he can persuade Austria to be partner up. Alternately, Austria stands the most to gain in the southeast with no one attacking him.

AUSTRIA is doing well with slow, steady growth and good relations with Russia and Italy. The mutual support hold orders of Vienna and Trieste were unnecessary. I take them as a subtle psychological move to signal defensive strength. If France or Italy is entertaining any thoughts of a land attack on Austria, it is a reminder that they will need at least three units to break through. Right now, it doesn't look like France or Italy will be able to muster three units, individually or combined, against Vie/Tri anytime soon. I also think the double support hold shows some distrust between AI. If Austria and Italy were strongly allied, a push-out of their mutual front against the west would have been stronger (Ven-Pie, Tri-Tyl, Vie-Boh).

Austria has a lot of flexibility here in where to go. A spot in the endgame is looking promising, and Austria should be thinking about what scenario is most likely to result in an EF breakup. Alternately, if EF do not break up, is Austria looking at a three way draw or four way draw, and if the latter with which partner?

ITALY is facing time pressure. Can Italy grab a build off of Smy in time to defend against a likely French attack? With Austrian help, the answer likely is yes. Unfortunately, even a successful Smy conquest will leave a stray Italian unit unsupported in the east while the bulk of Italian units will need to be focused westward. that is a scenario for eventual loss of Smy to Austria or Russia. The time for convincing France to head north may have already passed, but Italy should continue trying to dissuade France from entering the Med. If Italy can't, then options become increasingly limited as it will be all hands on deck to protect the boot.

As thorfi pointed out, AI working together should have enabled Italy to take Smy this turn. Italy tried to take Smy with a convoyed army, while Austria supported a fleet attack. Which of them is at fault and what is the explanation? We'll have to wait for EOGs.

Hey everyone! Great to see how lively this game has been and the great commentary and questions in the thread. A student or two has asked about "EOGs"

EOG stands for End Of Game, also known as After Action Reports (AARs) on some other sites. Basically an EOG is a summary of the game with an emphasis on learning, both by oneself and others, and revealing things that were hidden. An EOG allows you to say "Yeah, I lied there", or "Why didn't you believe me when I said X? Did you actually not believe me or just want an excuse", or "why didn't this move work?", or "here was my plan and here's what went how I wanted it and here's what went wrong and how I responded".

As a bit of a project I've compiled some EOGs, it's not all of them but there are quite a few. It can be found at tinyurl.com/webDipEOG, and you can add more by using tinyurl.com/webDipEOGadd. As noted in the opening preamble, for the School of War we expect students to contribute an EOG report, and TAs are encouraged to do so as well if they would like. It's an important part of learning the game and understanding how others feel and think about Diplomacy, as well as a nice sportsmanship exercise.

Some EOG etiquette:
List your power at the top. Talk as chronologically as possible.

Look for things you could have improved on, things others could have improved on.

Put a strong emphasis on revealing things, lies that were believed, truths that were not believed, so that people can learn in ways that are impossible to just by looking at the game. Admit weaknesses and ask for constructive advice and constructively help others with theirs.

Do your best to put away squabbles. If you and someone disagreed about something, maybe you can list it, but this should not be a continuation of any Diploming or arguments. At best, say "[Power] and I disagreed about [Topic], would you be willing to discuss it further or someone give us their input? I thought X personally".

If you have any questions please don't hesitate to contact me,
Valis2501

I also have an anonymous contribution from a TA:

"I was thinking that it might be good to have folks talk about how they do press, what they look for in other player's press, and any pointers they have besides "talk to everyone every turn" For example, i always look for detailed, calm press that tells me a player can be relied upon to be steady (they may stab me, but it will be for a good reason.) Also, I try to match my press to the level of others. Also, I usually present a game plan that is of genuine advantage to my diplomatic targets so as to be plausible. This last one shapes who i choose to try to persuade. If I don't have a solid case, then that's a lot harder..."

I also have heard from a high profile member who has commented in this thread before that "if the press fills up more than the text box I don't read it". The veracity might be questionable but it's undoubted some prefer more concise press compared to novellas.

Diplomacy play, and especially press, can vary incredibly site to site, game to game, player to player.

So the question to the teaching staff:
How much time do you spend modifying your press to others? none, a little, some, a lot? When you're playing with/against those in the medium-high range of skill, what general trends do you see?

I know with possibly great certainty that many of my (numerous) failures are greatly contributed to by me just sticking with a certain tone/press regardless of reception by my (now former) ally and it getting me in trouble via clash of personalities. Something I need to work on IMO.

If I Recall Correctly Tru Ninja did a correlation experiment with Messages Per Game and Rating (don't remember if it was points or GR or both) and there was a pretty darn good correlation of talking more getting better results.

If you're the playing power, record your thoughts for EOGs in Notes along with what turn they were in so you can go back later. :-) Or some other method, but that one is quite convenient.

"if the press fills up more than the text box I don't read it"

I have probably never successfully allied with whoever this is.

On that, though - the biggest repeat comment I have when looking at other player's press is that I think you should expect press to be skim-read, which means it's important to keep one idea per paragraph.

There's a big difference between:

"That went well! I can't believe France supported himself to Belgium when it was obvious it was going to be cut. For the next turn, I am thinking that I'll support you to Burgundy, unless you're planning to tap Italy's unit in Tyrolia? What have you heard from Italy about that unit?"

And:

"That went well! I can't believe France supported himself to Belgium when it was obvious it was going to be cut.

For the next turn, I am thinking that I'll support you to Burgundy, unless you're planning to tap Italy's unit in Tyrolia?

What have you heard from Italy about that unit?"

All that's changed is whitespace, but I think it's much clearer to your ally where/what the information in the press is.

Formatting the message in this way also means it's less likely (and therefore less plausible) for an ally to "forget" to address one of the questions. If my message is particularly long, then I'll write a short summary of the questions at the end, too.

"there was a pretty darn good correlation of talking more getting better results."

Yes, because players who are defeated don't continue to send press.

correlationnotcausationbutstillgoodtonote.jpeg

Both in sending press and receiving press, I believe quality is better than quantity, but quality AND quantity are best. I agree with ATC, someone who only reads (and contributes) press that fits in the text box window is probably not going to be my long term ally.

The quantity of my press varies depending on how much I think I have to say to them. If I am truly, deeply allied with someone, then it is not uncommon that we discuss several possible permutations of what our opponents might do against us. We might propose, modify, reject, etc. multiple options of move sets, tweaking here and there. Strategically, the move proposals treat all our units as close to one owner, used for maximum effect. The less hedging and fewer units held in reserve between us as safeguards, the better.

I agree in breaking up concepts by paragraph for better readability. In addition to the substantive merit of what is being said, I probably tend to think that someone who can communicate effectively is more likely a logical thinker. To me, that is attractive. I prefer to ally with strong players with whom I can bounce ideas.

I don't alter my tone much, player to player. Sometimes I will alter my press style (and my whole diplomatic approach) from game to game. However, in the end it is difficult to escape who you are. I find that I tend to do poorly in games where I seriously deviate from my normal style. I try to present as a reasonable, creative partner who will be a beneficial ally game wise but who also is enjoyable to chat with. It is not uncommon for my press to go into non-diplomacy subjects.

Sometimes, game to game, I alter the style of my actual text. For example, using spellings like colour and favour when I normally would omit the O. I switch up how I abbreviate territories (e.g. Nwy vs Nor vs. NWY vs. NOR), or how I abbreviate orders. I will drop false time references such as when I wake up, have a meal, or go to bed, to project a false time zone. These tricks are not designed for in-game benefit. They are more to mask who I am in a semi-anonymous game, or at least to delay the identification a little longer. Do they have any effect? I have no idea. They're just tricks. It can get complicated when I'm playing multiple full press games at the same time with different text styles, trying to remember which is which.

Omit the U, obviously.

You don't omit the O in colur? Or favur?

N, I dn't.

Bmp fr blds.

E/F juggernaut is go for launch, I think.

Prof question: Should the rest of the board be panicked about this yet? And if so, what should they be doing about it, if anything?

Does E/F have an official name?

https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Diplomacy/Alliances

My favorite is the last one listed

Entente Cordiale just doesnt have a good ring to it.

We should rename it The Cottoncandy