Yes this game is fun. There was once I wanted to beat my head on a rock (I might have I dont quite remember that day too well... just smudgy memories) but otherwise this has been a blast

Happy to announce that uclabb will be joining Dyager and myself as a guest prof for this game. He may not be able to post every season (maybe once a year?) but I look forward to reading his commentary. So should you.

So since I haven’t posted anything about the game yet, there are a couple things I want to go over from earlier turns that I thought were important. Also, perhaps I’m wrong, but my understanding was that this game was considered a little more intermediate than the main SoW game (also, TAs aren’t around to give more advice), so I’m going to get into a little more detail than I might for a regular SoW game.

The Key Lepanto

Obviously, the Key hasn’t quite worked out as planned- let’s talk about why. The first thing to talk about is the whole point of a Key- why do some people play it? Essentially, the idea is that the normal Lepanto is slow, and it is also in some sense awkward as Austria usually gets his builds well before Italy does. Essentially, a Key Lepanto takes on some awkwardness in 1901 in order to hopefully avoid some awkwardness later on. The primary awkward point is Spring 1902, when Italy usually has a fleet in Ionian Sea and Naples and an army in Tunis to Turkey’s fleet in Smyrna. Italy can either move to Eastern Med (the usual choice) and risk a bounce or accept Austria’s support to Aegean Sea, which leaves Austria extremely vulnerable in the fall. The fundamental point of a key is to avoid this situation by having Italy skip ahead in Fall 1901 to Aegean Sea, taking away any guesswork and setting up Bulgaria to fall in Spring 1902. In order to do this, Italy has to forgo Tunis in 1901, and so Austria in return loans Italy one of his centers and, in particular, tries to get Italy into Serbia so that Italy himself can be the one getting supported into Bulgaria, meaning that everyone’s priorities are in line. Going into Spring 1902, everything was going smoothly (in fact, crazily well, as Turkey was still not in Black Sea and so Bulgaria was guaranteed).

In Spring 1902, everything went hay wire. I’m not completely sure what Austria was thinking, but I *think* (hope?) that the order of Greece supports Bulgaria to Serbia was a misorder and instead was supposed to be Greece supports Serbia to Bulgaria. It’s also hard to tell Austria’s actual intentions with the move to Adriatic Sea, but in any objective sense that was a stab. It’s just not a strong move, as the only way for the stab to be clean was if Italy did indeed make it into Bulgaria, and Austria (predictably) needed to move Budapest to Rumania in order to insure that was the case. The stab does show a problem with Austria and Italy’s version of the Key, of course, which is that the Austria fleet was in no man’s land, whereas in a usual Lepanto that fleet is active and useful. That’s why the optimal move this turn if Italy wanted to pick up Tunis, at least in my opinion, was for Italy’s fleet in Naples to go to Tyrhennian and the Austrian fleet to go to Ionian Sea. Austria and Italy could have then ended 1902 each with 5 centers and with fleets in both Aegean Sea and Eastern Med, meaning Turkey would have fallen quickly. The fundamental problem the last few turns has been a) the Key lost all progress when Italy pulled back to take Tunis and b) Austria’s fleet has not only been useless, but a hindrance to progress. For example, the optimal move last turn (spring 1903) was to take the wide open convoy from Greece to Syria and move Albania to Greece to get that fleet involved while having an army into Turkey. Now, any convoy is a guessing game and it’s hard to say if there is time for such things anyway with France and Germany turning the corner.

The other thing worth mentioning about a Key is that it is extremely vulnerable in 1901 to getting blown up, and Russia and Turkey had every ability to do so. The key to breaking up alliances is to create imbalance and Austria is extremely vulnerable in 1901. Russia and Turkey really threw away this opportunity. First, it was a real failure of diplomacy by Russia to think that he needed to support himself into Rumania in the fall. Here’s why: Turkey is looking at either a key or an early stab of Austria. In either case, Turkey has his eyes clearly pointed west. This means that Rumania is only potentially under threat from Austria and, in particular, only if Italy and Austria are running a key. If they are running a key, this means that Serbia is moving in such a way to try to ensure that Serbia is empty for Italy. This almost certainly implies the move that happened (Albania supports Serbia to Greece) with a small chance of Budapest supports Serbia to Rumania (although that would be very risky by A/I). Either way, Galicia to Vienna, Sevastopol to Rumania nets an extra center over the move that was ordered, namely Sevastopol supports Galicia to Rumania.

Turkey similarly got bamboozled in Fall 1901. It’s hard to imagine what Turkey was hearing to make Ankara -> Con -> Bulg -> Greece seem like the best move set. Moving all of one’s units in a line is almost never a good decision, as a single bounce makes the whole turn ineffective. This is especially the case here as the lead unit was moving to Greece, a spot that was virtually guaranteed to be contested. A move to Black Sea is clearly stronger, and would have made Bulgaria safe in Spring 1902, ie Turkey wouldn’t have needed to count on Austria to misorder. This wasn’t even close to happening, but the move if Russia and Turkey wanted to blow up the Key Lepanto was the moves I suggested above for Russia plus Bulgaria to Serbia. This would have guaranteed that Austria ended the turn with no builds, and that the Key would go kaput.

The last thing to mention is that Turkey’s strange moves in Fall 1901 would have led me as Austria to believe that Italy had outright lied to Turkey before that move, which would have further emboldened me to ask Italy for permission to move to Ionian Sea as I suggested above.

I'm working on other parts of the game now, but I figured it is better to post in manageable chunks rather than a single massive obi-like treatise.

The Fall of England

Why has England been unsuccessful this game, and how could it have been avoided? Obviously the best way to not die is say the right things in the beginning of the game in order to get others to work with you- often when Russia gets Galicia in Spring 1901 Germany will bounce Russia out of Sweden to make sure Russia doesn’t get too explosive a start. France’s unorthodox opening could have been a source of friction between Franc e and Germany as well. But I’m going to go ahead and start talking about England at the end of 1901 (before builds). What had happened? Germany had moved 100% against England, not only letting Russia into Sweden but also hitting North Sea. France had moved to Spain North Coast (!) which made it clear that he had no intention of moving south. Russia obviously was coming full force for you, moving to Finland to make room for a shiny new build in St. Petersburg. The situation was dire.

So what does England have to offer? Honestly, not much. The one possible out that England has is that France might be able to be pulled against Germany early, but that seems a little bit unlikely. Failing that, the trick when facing a three way alliance is to realize that there aren’t enough centers to go around. That was certainly the case here. Once Russia got Norway, he almost certainly wouldn’t be getting any more, and all of a sudden it is in Russia’s interest to see F/G make slow progress (in particular, Germany becomes more enemy than friend). Similarly, if France gets a head of steam going against you with all of his units headed north west, Germany will surely know that he is next once you are gone. Thus, the goal should be something like this: let Russia get Norway and try to turn him into an ally. Keep Germany out of England as long as possible while keeping viable defense against France so that there is sufficient imbalance between France and Germany that Germany now wants to work with you. Obviously keep a working relationship with all powers.

So how can that be implemented? I liked the fleet build in London, but the Spring 1902 moves were catastrophic. Facing fleets in Brest, Kiel, and an army in St. Petersburg, it was a foregone conclusion that a) Norway would fall and b) France was moving to Brest in Spring 1902. Further, most likely the deal between Russia and Germany was that in return for help into Norway Russia would help Germany into North Sea (which, of course, is what happened). The other thing that is important to keep in mind is that mainland England is really easy to traverse with armies and very difficult to move around on with fleets. A single army in England is almost impossible to kill. So the following would have been strong moves: Norwegian Sea convoys Norway to Clyde, London to English Channel, maybe North Sea to Heligoland Bight, but that last move is honestly a little risky for my taste even though it would have worked, as, remember, the goal is to shut Germany out and it would be a shame if he snuck into North Sea.

This would leave France staring at a well-defended English mainland and guaranteed Germany couldn’t take North Sea in the fall. With Italy diving into Piedmont, France could very well have been convinced to move south. Even if not, Russia would have gotten what he was hoping for, and, after you disbanded after the fall moves (most likely Norwegian Sea), Russia could likely be convinced to cooperate with you in North Sea in fear of exactly what has happened in the game- a German stab of Russia. It’s also likely that a late Western Triple could have been formed, as Germany and France have shown an eagerness to move south against the eastern powers. All of a sudden a lot of options would be opened up.

The above thinking is the kind of thing that takes one from being good at diplomacy to very good at diplomacy, so I strongly encourage all of you to carefully think through the logic above, not necessarily the specifics of this situation but the general ideas that apply to all situations where one is facing overwhelming numbers.

Wow. Keep it coming.

Great stuff, Uclabb. As I suspected, your commentary is making the rest of us look bad. Keep it coming!

I will wait to post my thoughts until after retreats. I just got accepted into a PhD program with full funding and I will spend the next several hours doing a happy dance.

F'ing A. Congrats Triumvir!!!!

Congrats Triumvir!

Well done! Where are you going, and what are you going to study?

Oh goodness triumvir! As a PhD myself, I suppose I should reign in my inner cynic and wish you all the best. You will do great. Just keep beating your head against the wall and seek out the most supportive faculty and work in their stuff if you can.
Congrats!!!!

Thanks for the congrats. Feel free to PM if you're interested in details. Let's keep this thread clear for commentary stuff. Sorry for causing the distraction.

I don't have time right now for a full write up, but the take away from this turn is that Germany gets an A. He convinced France not only to support him to London but also more importantly got France moving south and out of Belgium. Before this turn, it seemed very possible that F/G would be breaking this turn or the next (this is likely what Russia was hoping for and expecting). Now, the F/G is solidified, which likely will affect the east in profound ways, although I don't want to say exactly what I am thinking as I don't want to unduly affect the game.

I already said this above in my post about the Key Lepanto, but it bears repeating: The (main) problem with the A/I alliance this whole time has been that the Austrian fleet hasn't had anything useful to go. Whenever you have units that are useless, find a use for them! Just this past turn, better options for A/I included convoying Greece to Syria and filling into Greece from Albania or simply just having Albania follow into Ionian Sea and keep Tunis in Tunis. The point is that A/I were already well behind F/G as England had already essentially fallen, so all units need to be active to try to catch up. And it is clear that either of those moves would have left A/I in much better position to deal with F/G.

Speaking of having active units- France! Put simply, you seem to be intentionally weakening yourself with your moves, and that is almost never a good idea. Remember: you got your strong position largely from your aggressive move for Belgium in 1901. Since then, you have consistently made moves focused on seeming less threatening instead of increasing your power and options- Taking Spain (NC) in 1901 instead of Portugal (or at least the South Coast), moving to Paris in Spring 1902, holding in Gascony and Marseilles in Spring 1903, moving to Picardy in Autumn 1903- all of these moves made you weaker, not stronger. There is a misconception among a lot of players that you don't want to be leading the game lest there is a stop the leader alliance. This is nonsense, especially so early in the game. In this game in particular, there has been no turn this game when Germany and Russia didn't already need you. You didn't need to make unnecessary concessions to them (in fact, if you hadn't you likely would have all of England right now). Similarly, it sort of seems like the holds in Marseilles and Gascony worked out as Italy moved even further east and ended up more vulnerable than if you had moved on him in the spring. However, this is due to weak moves by A/I (as I discussed above), not because it was the best move. As you get into higher level games, you can't hope for mistakes from your opponents (except maybe when you are going for a solo and are desperate for any opening) - you need to make your own luck by having active units and effective turns.

Here is a general question for the profs:

How do you strike the balance between diplomacy and powerful moves. I think you've all commented on the drunken staggering of the French army while they sample the fine wines of my country, but some of the moves have been made with diplomacy rather than on the board tactics in mind.

FOr example, the north coast of Spain was a concession to Italy that seemed to have little future consequence if I wasn't planning on heading that way. (I see the value of providing the option if something unexpected comes up, which I didn't at the time.) Similarly, demilitarizing the Germany border was aimed at tipping Germany into my camp rather than England's.

So, sometimes one makes weaker moves to achieve diplomatic goals, and I get the sense that I over do it perhaps. I'd love some general thoughts on how you analyze these tradeoffs.

And many thanks to you all. I'm learning quite a lot!

I agree that sometimes a player should make "weaker" moves in order the promote good relations with other countries. However, regarding the examples that you gave, why couldn't that fleet have gone to POR instead of SPA(nc)? Just as far away from Italian interests and gives you more options in the following year. Regarding the dmz in BUR, again not a bad idea but moving the army to PAR was, in my opinion, not the strongest place to put that unit.

Don't get me wrong. Despite these issues that I may have with your orders, you're in a great position.

My full commentary on the last phase will follow the retreats.

I think most beginning players err on the side of diplomacy over power. Triumvir mentioned it already: powerful moves give you options for the next turn, and that produces tactical opportunities as well as leverage. Germany right now has a ton of options, France has already made all his choices.

Thanks. I was actually wondering about your own thought process in weighing these considerations. Do you only accept a modest reduction in strength or are you willing to go for something considerably weaker? Perhaps it is hard to put the guy feeling into words.

It all depends situationally and it's hard to make any sweeping generalizations. My point is that, in the examples you gave at least, you could have had your cake and eaten it too. You could have made your diplomatic concessions and still made strong moves that gave you multiple options.

I really appreciated uclabb’s write up, particularly his point at the end: active units and effective turns. This is the point we’ve been making a lot during this game. You want to do your very best to make sure that every single unit that you have has some purpose (even if you issue a hold order). If you outnumber an opponent 7 to 5 but he is using all his units and you only half, he has the advantage. You should be making every attempt to get your units into positions of strength (positions that have options, positions that control key points, etc) and then to use those positions to get you to your final goal.

The question has been asked “when should you sacrifice strong moves/positioning for diplomatic gains.” That’s a very hard question to answer since it varies so much on a case-by-case basis. It is true that sometimes you have to leave a strong position (or avoid an important center) in order to create or maintain a good relationship with a neighbor. However, any time you do so you have to ask yourself the question “where else can I put this unit to greatest use?” We have already talked about a few specific examples with France, who first asked the question. As we continue to play, I’ll be watching for more examples of this sort of thing (both good and bad) and will do my best to draw attention to them.

Now, onto the new phase.

Fall 1903 – Entering the Mid-game

Diplomacy games are often broken up into Early-Game, Mid-Game, and Late-Game. There may actually be official criteria for these designations (if there are, I’m not aware of them) but this is how I have always defined them. In the early game, players are just feeling one another out and are looking to form the alliances. Once those alliances have been formed and have become somewhat solid, the mid-game begins and those alliances begin vying for power. I’d say that’s where we are right now. (The Late-Game begins, in my opinion, when one of those alliances or players takes a sizable lead and becomes such a threat that others band together against them. This typically is when the game starts winding to a close – either a draw or a solo.)

In general things seem to be lining up in neat pairs. France and Germany are working together in both England and Italy, Austria and Italy are still working together after their Key opening, and Russia and Turkey also seem to be allies or sorts. (As noted previously by most of the profs, Germany and Russia also have some sort of relationship but I wouldn’t really call them allies at this point. Maybe frenemies would be appropriate?) Sadly, England has found himself on the outside looking in and will soon be eliminated.

FRANCE/GERMANY (13 combined centers): I know you’re ready for it. You expect that I will grill you both on the fickle, on-again, off-again Italian invasion. MUN to TYR back to MUN back to TYR. Movement towards Italy from France and then a delay and now the move to PIE. “What a waste of time and orders,” I’ll say. Well, as uclabb pointed out already, you got lucky. Italy was perhaps emboldened by your retreat last phase and this second attack likely has a better chance to succeed than the first did. I will reiterate what he said: do NOT count on this sort of thing working very often. This is more about the A/I misstep than it is a good decision on your part.

To GERMANY specifically, I’m glad you got all of your units involved, all playing key roles. SKA supports NTH to prevent any nefarious cooperation between E/R. MUN to TYR (again) will help with the Italian invasion. I didn’t escape my notice that neither you nor Russia attacked the other. France should take notice of that, too. Although many of the alliances have been more or less settled, you may still be a wildcard in that department. If you have not already chosen, choose wisely.

To FRANCE, I can’t help but feel like you’re getting screwed out of English real-estate. Germany may well take two of the three English centers (since he has an army on the island) even though you were the first to make landfall. I haven’t gone back through all the moves to look at alternate possibilities but I can’t help but think the army currently in GAS might have been in LVP right now, which would be most excellent for you. I like that you left MAR open (for a presumed fleet build) but that doesn’t mean GAS had to stand still (again). A move from GAS to SPA would have given you the possibility to convoy to NAf. I’ll be specifically watching next year to make sure you make good use of all your units.

AUSTRIA/ITALY (8 combined centers): Your alliance is clearly the smallest and has the unlucky distinction of being the next plausible target for both of the other pairs. France and Germany are heading toward Italy and Russia specifically is a big threat to Austria (especially if he’s still chummy with Germany). If you’re going to turn this around, you’ll need to use all 8 of your units to their full potential. Uclabb had some really helpful stuff to say for you two (particularly the bit about ALB getting involved in the fight). Take that to heart!

RUSSIA/TURKEY (11 combined centers): I’m not quite sure how to give you two advice, partially because I’m not sure if you’re actually an item. Unlike A/I, you two are not really under fire. Turkey, you’re feeling the heat from Italy for now but that will change quickly due to the attack from F/G. Russia seems to have zero enemies in the West (which Turkey should note) so he can focus solely on Austria.

To RUSSIA, I will tell you the same thing we’ve told everyone else. If you’re going to advance in Austria then you’re going to have to find a way to get more of your units involved in that fight. Your push towards Scandinavia gained you two builds and zero attack power (since both of those new units are now sitting in the snow supporting holds). If we are only to count your units involved in the fight, then the R/T vs. A/I count is tied at 8. This is the difficulty of playing Russia and getting involved on both sides of the map. Luckily you have done so without incurring western hostility. Unluckily, your forces are still divided in half.

To TURKEY, you’re about to see some daylight. Italy is going to have to turn around quickly if he’s going to deal with F/G. Any last ditch shot that he could take at your centers should be fairly easily defended. Once he turns all you have to do is follow him west. There’s not much else to say to you, since you’ve been somewhat limited growth-wise these first few years. Get ready – your patience may be rewarded very soon.

In answering Ogion's question, basvan used the key word- leverage. It is easier to negotiate from a position of strength, not one of weakness. It's worth remembering that the gains from intentionally weakening yourself are (hopefully) in your ally's head, while strong moves give you gains that are actually on the board.

Not a whole lot to say about the two builds so I'll keep this short.

France built a fleet in MAR. No kidding. He's clearly moving against Italy. It's exactly what I expected from him.

Germany's build was a little more surprising. He's got an army in TYR, presumably to help France vs. Italy. He's already safely in NTH and is in a great position to take EDI in the Fall. So if he doesn't need the fleet to crack England, that means the fleet is either anti-French or anti-Russian. (There's always the off chance that he's planning to help France flood the Med with western fleets but I really doubt that prompted the build). I would lean towards the latter but I'm a little surprised by it. I'll hold off any more comments until after the Spring turn.

Just a reminder: think about the best way to use ALL your units this season. We'll be watching.

It's worth mentioning that Turkey also essentially had a build this year and chose to have a fleet in Constantinople.

You say that as if you disagree with the choice? Do you?

Welcome Uclabb. I often find the questions you raised in the previous SOW games to be as eye opening as the commentary.

WOW. My head is spinning after the past 3 phases.

GERMANY/FRANCE
Things worked out well enough for you in the south but I am not entirely sure it was necessary to put on the show you did as it potentially could have cost you elsewhere in both time and diplomacy. That said, the two of you are completely in sync with your moves and I would surmise your in game press involves exact details of every move you the two of you intend to make. Often you dont see this level of depth until people team up to stop a solo.

ITALY/AUSTRIA
That 1902 stab by Austria is still haunting your alliance. I think you guys have trust issues whether you realize it or not. And the Key Lepanto is built 100% on trust and coordination which appears to be lacking.
Take your units in 1903 :
Venice sits still instead of covering Pie from the French while all your fleets steam away.
Austria covers Vienna from Budapest instead of from Trieste.
Albania fleet sits in Albania covering Greece (and has the option of supporting Trieste) instead of in the Med where it could potentially be a threat to Italy.

It may be time for you to break up and date other people

GERMANY
You wisely delayed rolling the dice on Scandanavia and snagged London which gives you a fleet which I suspect will be anti-Russia. This will give you 4 units to his 3, which means it will no longer be a guessing game. It also can cover Berlin if Russia gets antsy.
I will give you one word of advice, France and you are the perfect couple now, but be aware of unsupported units or unsupported SC's. Eventually France may not need you anymore and guess who's SC's he needs for his solo attempt?

FRANCE
This may be controversial but I give you the highest marks for this phase. I had expected Gascony to be dropped in Wales with London in your sites. Instead you supported Germany in which just as good. If I had to guess, it was your idea for Germany to take London in exchange for his help in the south. This also gives you alot of benefits -
1. Germany thinks your the best and will help you in the south
2. It emboldens Germany to battle Russia and pushes his units East
3. It keeps you and Germany even at the moment in SC's. Nothing ruins an alliance quicker than one member getting a little big in the britches.
Uclabb and Triumvir did not like Gascony standing still. I am still reserving judgement because I do see a purpose for Gascony and Picardy to stay where they are. We shall see if I am right.

RUSSIA
Good news! Scandanavia held! Bad News! You didnt get a build and Germany did.
If you havent already you need to get to work in sowing distrust between France and Germany. You see what distrust did to Austria&Italy. As Uclabb said, this is the stage of the game alliances can break down.
You also cannot do this all by yourself. You need a trusted soulmate. Look what love did for France and Germany. I hope last turn you talked to England and offered to support him into North Sea and he refused to take it. I hope you talk to Turkey & Italy and see what goals you have in common. Italy in trouble provides you alot of opportunities because the paradigm in the south just shifted.

TURKEY
DUDE! You were the fucking ugly duckling this whole game. But now you just got a makeover and you are about to be the hot chick. Italy will try and race away from you and you can expect Russia, Austria and even Italy to start looking to take you for out to dinner. Remember, you aint the ugly duckling so whomever you join with, make sure your an equal partner.
I hope your retreat phase reflected some of this groundwork, if not your alliance decision was already inadvertently made whether you realized it or not.

@Triumvir- I will answer your question after this turn, as I do not want to unduly impact the game. I think it is unclear (especially without seeing any press) whether or not the fleet is the best decision.

@Uclabb
Triumvir and I seem to have a differing opinion of the Russia/German relationship. Obviously seeing no diplomatic press makes reading it a little difficult.
I would be curious to see what you thought of the situation in the north?

I'm surprised by Triumvir's surprise. Whether or not it is actually the best path forward for France and Germany, it seems exceedingly clear to me that F/G has to be considered a full on alliance at this point, especially with Germany having at least one and possibly two builds from Russia and France having a great jump on Italy. If I were an eastern power, I would most likely be acting on that assumption, and reevaluating my eastern alliances accordingly. Probably the "natural" resolution of this game right now is a F/G/T three way draw right now, so if I am I/R/A I'm trying to think of a way to unbalance or shift the game away from that. Does that sort of answer the question? I'm still trying to be vague, and will say what I would have done as each power after this turn.

In the previous SOW thread, Jmo encouraged players to ask questions regarding the commentary. If you do not want to ask in the thread for fear of giving something away, send a PM to the professor and we can see if we can answer it in the thread.

So, a question was asked of me :
"could you comment on Turkey's alliance decision being made by the retreat phase"

With the threat to Italy...everything has changed in the southeast. Specifically it gives Turkey a great deal of options of who to work with but they all revolve around
1. Anti Austrian with Russian support
2. Anti Russian with Austrian support
With maybe some Italian support in either option (who can really use an SC next year to stave off the losses he will take to France).

Ideally those discussions should happen in the retreat phase so Turkey knows what units he needs (disband for an army or keep the fleet). Or if he wanted to be real tricky, he could disband the fleet, then have the discussions, not needing to reveal his hand until after his build phase.

In this case, a fleet in Constantanople implies Turkey's intentions in the coming year. However, if he disbanded....we would all be wondering what he is going to build and who he is going to work with.

Now it could also be that Turkey just instinctivly retreated to Constantanople because that was the only retreat option he had and as Uclabb often points out, people dont think of the disband as often as they should (myself included). However that still doesnt change the fact, a fleet in that location only has one direction to go which heavily influences his allegiances.

Once again I will relay my SOW lesson. When phased with two equal moves, choose the one which gives you options.

phased = faced
I need a secretary to proof read my shit