EoG by Russia "Triple vs Triple"

Game: Henry Kissinger's Apex (from the discussion: "So you think you can Diplomacy")

GAME SUMMARY

Classic, WTA, full-press, anon, 2478 , PW-protected, 36h phases, Top 50 category-based GR invitational

FRANCE (Drawn 1903), 7 SCs, ghug, Atlantic Opening - Picardy variant
AUSTRIA (Drawn 1903), 7 SCs, WarLegend, Balkan Gambit - Galician variant
TURKEY (Drawn), 6 SCs, gantz, Balkan Concentration
ENGLAND (Drawn), 5 SCs, Tasnica, Northern Opening - Yorkshire variant
GERMANY (Drawn), 5 SCs, Octavious, Blitzkrieg Opening - Danish variant
RUSSIA (Drawn), 4 SCs, redhouse1938, Northern Octopus - Lapland variant
Italy (CD 1903, defeated), 0 SCs, dangermouse, Lepanto - Tyrolian variant

This game was dominated by a rather absent minded Italian who later CD'ed. A pity. It's dangermouse's only resign and he's a former moderator, so I'm sure he had a reason. He was killed and the game was drawn in 1903 to prevent it from GR archiving, but we could take Italy's playing points all the same.

Pre-game

Anyways, this was a difficult game. I had no appetite whatsoever playing either England or Russia this game, and I drew Russia. I believe it started late at night where I lived and I was going to sleep knowing quite a bit of press would circulate before I'd enter. The main consequence of this, I believe, was that a western triple was in the making, giving me two northern enemies for the price of one! I asked England to not go full-throttle on me, let his army dangle in Wales whilst sending fleets north to acquire Norway, in exchange for me not sending Moscow up. To Germany, I offered to open Lapland and to DMZ the boarder area between me and him in exchange for Sweden.

Now, I felt something was holding back England and Germany to get me more concessions. It became clear that France and England had made a genuine agreement to DMZ the Channel, which obviously meant I was in some kind of trouble. Germany would open to Denmark despite the fact that I thought that in terms of symmetry, he was then being more aggressive toward me than I was to him, although I was confident the DMZ would be respected, which he ultimately did. Curious, very curious all of that.

I decided that I had to act upon whatever I read between the lines of England's and Germany's press and that it would involve breaking my agreement with England. I was sure that the only concession I'd gotten from him, that he would "see what he could do for me" in terms of holding back at least one unit in his attempt at Norway (the main options were the Edinburgh variant of the Splits opening or the Welsh variant to the Northern Opening) was not genuine. England would somehow not look to see what he did for me and I decided to answer what I perceived as his insincerity by unreliability, moving Mos-StP all the same, while respecting the StP-Fin agreement with Germany, even though I knew he wouldn't appreciate me stationing an army in StP.

In the south, I decided to adapt my diplomacy to what was happening north. I believe both Austria and Turkey extended a hand of friendship to me from the beginning, but were intent on some level of aggression toward each other, and awaiting the "thing I felt" in the north to come to final agreements, I decided to bounce both in Galicia and the Black Sea. That could be perceived in the west ambiguously, either as mutual hostilities or agreed bounces, and I felt the ambiguity I'd felt from them had to matched by some ambiguity in my own play. Why, I do not know.

1901 - The Western Triple

England does in fact move all his units north, something I'd felt he'd do, and something he certainly hadn't precluded he'd do but definitely suggested he would try to avoid. A bitter disagreement ensued between me and England that were partly fuelled by the relatively fast phases of the game. England said I had been unreliable, so I simply presented my version of the events, that I believed his promise to look for alternatives to moving north hadn't been sincere and that he had, by the time he'd promised it, settled on moving north full-throttle, if not yet fully conscious of the decision and its gravity. I admitted guilt, apologized, but said that his moves simply made war unavoidable as his units were all geared north. I told him I'd do it again and didn't regret my decision.

This dispute escalated. England took a very legal attitude toward the problem and when reading his message I was almost looking behind me if there was some kind of Diplomacy equivalent of an International Tribunal sitting behind me that was ready to speak a verdict on my behavior. I'd written I wouldn't go to StP, had gone there all the same, how could we ever do anything together again? I went for a personal approach. I tried to soothe England, told him that I'd read between the lines that he'd be coming my way and acted upon it. That I'd apologized and that the matter had to be settled. I decided to use the conflict on Norway and his strong feelings on it by strongly suggesting I would actually move there. I escalated the conflict to a point where he'd feel forced to issue a support move order from NwS to get an army into Norway, while I would in fact move the army in StP to go to Finland, sending F Fin into Bot. Germany, at this time, had made it clear that he'd deny me Sweden. He cited the presence of the army north. The relationship with Germany was more balanced. I'd never promised him I wouldn't station an army in StP, only promised DMZs, and he never promised me Sweden. I accepted his decision not to grant it to me, but found it a cause of war and invaded him.

I was now sure of war with England and Germany, fuelled by a deadly combination of an emerging Western Triple and my refusal to accept that Western Triple as a fact of life. I believe in this negative spiral, whether it were my vehement protests that caused the strength of the triple, or whether the strength of the triple caused the vehemency of my protests was obfuscated. My diplomacy in the south had been determined; I had to assemble an Eastern Triple to be able to deflect the pressures put onto me, hoping to turtle until a conflict between Germany and England allowed me some northern expansion.

I took some first steps. Galicia would be DMZ'ed. It was clear that a lot of good business could be done with Austria. Same for Turkey.

After the game, Austria would comment that perhaps, my reliance on the Eastern Triple as way to survive was perhaps partly the reason why, in 1903, the Eastern Triple would backfire and attack me. Though I don't believe it was because a similar mixture of conflicting interests and emotions played a role there (we'd agreed by that point that we'd draw anyways, and I believe the stab was partly serious, partly performed knowing the game was ending anyways).

1902 - The Eastern Triple

This was hilarious. England was furious to find my army in Finland, claiming it should have been trying to take Norway. I was getting tired of England. I'd never promised him I'd go to Norway with my army, only citing that I'd participate in the battle of Norway, and explained that he'd simply failed to take sufficient distance from the game and tried to rationally define the best course of action in the west. England persisted the debate, I thought I'd perceived two reasons for that. 1) He genuinely thought I'd been an unreliable partner and 2) he wanted to gain some kind of psychological overweight. I decided to shed all diplomatic barriers short of name-calling and all-capsing and explain to him that I'd had enough. If I was so unreliable, he'd just have to mute me because there was no more point in talking, if I wasn't, then he should stop going that way with our diplomacy.

England got the message and to his credit, immediately acted upon it. He did however still define his best interest as a sustained war with me, and this wouldn't change until the end of the game in 1903. We'd stopped talking.

With Germany, things went very differently. We were inconclusively debating different options when in 1902 he saw that his refusal to grant me Sweden had led to the A01 configuration of an army in Silesia and units in Finland and the Gulf of Bothnia. Obviously, he was under siege. His reaction was "Or you can do that." I thought that was absolutely brilliant. A very dry and funny response, I knew I was going to like this guy and that war was not as much a fact of life with him as it was with England. I believe my own response to his decision not to grant me Sweden was the text "Then we have a BIT of a SITUATION." It was a planned joke, but a genuine joke all the same. I'd hoped he liked it and I think he saw the humour of it, while at the same time knowing that there was an element of truth in that statement and weighing the consequences seriously. Germany was a lot of fun to talk to and I thought he enjoyed the conversation too. But that's just my perception, perhaps they all hated the shit out of me.

At this point of the game, huge efforts are undertaken to assemble the Eastern Triple. Turkey joins in this game immediately. Turkey generally is the most silent player save Italy, although his communications were certainly very clear, had a bit of light-hearted humour in them and sounded - and were - in perfect accord with what he'd do. Turkey and Austria were both extremely reliable, and this was the element I'd try to exploit the most. The Eastern Triple would very much be put in the legal framework that England would have liked; clear agreements on who did what.

It's interesting to note at this point that Turkey saw Austria as a growing threat to his nation and I perceived Turkey as a source of stability for my own nation. Swaying Austria to join the Triple was one of the most exciting diplomatic endeavors I have so far undertaken at this site. Austria was a threat to me, and was at that point still cooperating with Italy, making it a threat to Turkey too. Austria played the discussion absolutely brilliantly. He sort of took the base position that he wanted to ally with me, which encouraged me to pursue on the chosen diplomatic path, but was not at all ready to work with Turkey. He vocalized very precisely and elegantly his serious concerns, while always leaving the door open a little bit for the idea of changing his allegiance to Turkey.

There were several lines of argument I pursued in trying to convince Austria and Turkey to commit to the Eastern Triple. The first was Italy's strategic and diplomatic choices. He didn't speak much and had dispersed his units all over the place (see maps). I told him I thought Italy had to be punished for his complacency (you gotta come up with some story right?) and the fact he'd exposed himself so gently to Austria at this level of play should be rewarded by a sharp knife in his back. Take Tyrolia, then Venice, and all his units are horribly outflanked to defend yourself. That was the carrot, between the lines I tried to suggest the stick, and that was that Turkey and me would stay together in case he'd attack either of us, and that we'd coordinate very carefully to do it. I don't think I explicitly said it, but I hoped he'd take the hint that Turkey and myself, who were both relatively weak nations, would stand together in case of an attack. I believe at this point of the game, the fact that Turkey would - in the event Austria attacked me - be faced with an enormous Austria at his boarders, be sufficiently convincing for him to choose my side in such an event. The contrary situation was certainly true. Either Austria got the hint, or didn't get the hint but was convinced by the carrot.

Austria managed to squeeze a lot of concessions out of me in this process, whether intentionally or not. If his skepticism was partly meant to get me to make lots of promises, I really respect that; that is some good diploming... I promised to restrict builds to StP, and to Mos if StP was unavailable, and to engage primarily in the building of fleets there (obviously England was my main target). I told him I'd insist that Turkey build fleets in Smyrna, far away from where they threatened him, all of it in exchange for a pledge by Austria to restrict his fleet to one unit. These were very favorable circumstances to Austria and when it appeared we were all sincere about wanting this, we finally converged to a functioning agreement, that condemned Italy. with France advancing on Italy from the west, he chickens out.

1903 - Decline

Things look a bit grey for me. On the one side, my efforts to construct an Eastern Triple are highly succesful (too succesful even, Turkey and Austria greatly profit from their collaboration to a point where they finish the game by attacking me, which was a bit of a joke at the same time, but they certainly would have been able to make profits from my nation). I regret at this point not to have placed more faith in Turkey, as he continues to live up to all promises regarding builds and moves we make together. I should not have insisted on bounces in the south to regulate my boarders. Perhaps, if I wouldn't have, he would have attacked me earlier (he wasn't in the worst position to do so), but I don't think he would have for the reasons cited above. The S03 move to Arm was part of an agreed bounce, an agreement I could not fulfill due to the pressure Germany started putting on me and that I hadn't expected.

The big black hole for me during this game is Germany (Octavious) and his comment in the EoG thread that he fecked up his game is, well, completely true because he did. Lol. He was a fun guy, but I don't believe in his strategy. In Triple alliances, the middle man is often cut out at some point. The Eastern Triple was more equilibrated, because our middle man, Austria, was also the strongest nation. In the west, the situation was inversed; Germany was weaker than England and France and as England later told me he didn't even plan to attack Germany immediately after he'd gotten what he wanted from me, feeling confident that he'd be able to overwhelm Germany at any stage in the game and preferring to wait it out.

I outline a long term plan to Germany to cooperate against England, a war of attrition, really. Germany's main fear is to be overwhelmed by the Eastern Triple, but I try to explain that if he stays with his western friends, he runs a greater risk of that happening. Again, two strains of argument underly my efforts to sway Germany in joining me. The first is England's naval capacity (3) and my limited naval accessibility (StP), compared to his (Kie, Hol, Den, Ber). In other words, I told Germany that although the fleets were meant only to subdue me, they were meant to finally conquer him. The second strain of argument was that in choosing me, he'd have a partner who had little choice but to make him good offers all the time, as I was under such huge stress. The opposite was obviously true for England. I told him I'd sway Austria to build a fleet, which I managed to do (by the same pattern outlined above). He'd told me that if I managed to talk Austria into building a fleet, things would certainly be easier for him to change pace, but he still attacked me.

At the same time I tried to get France to stab England. I explained as best as I could that Turkey and Austria would simply stick together after they'd conquered Italy and attack him. (They did stay together, and I'm pretty sure if Italy hadn't CD'ed, France would have suffered dearly from his choice to attack Italy rather than England, which was much more exposed.) France didn't have the flexibility to take such a decision. He was as monomaniacal about attacking Italy as England was about attacking me. That yielded a balance of forces between them, but I believe that balance would finally have yielded a far superior position to England, who could also blitz Germany at any point before or after attacking France and not to France, despite his good start.

With the Eastern Triple remaining intact during spring, but Germany still attacking me (he never promised he wouldn't, it was clear that he took me seriously and wouldn't stab me in my back, but was weighing his options and hadn't decided how to proceed yet) made me furious. I calmed down and issued my first warning to Germany. I told him that I would enhance the unbalance between his forces and England's by, whenever I had two equivalent tactical options one encompassing primarily a northern and the other primarily a western defense, I'd defend west. In other words, the spoils of this war would go to England.

That should've deterred Germany sufficiently. Perhaps he liked England better as a person, or found him more trustworthy, but strategically the fact that he persisted his attack after A) all of my promises and B) the genuine threat that England would be the one taking my centers and not him, was a blunder, especially as he followed through on it.

The game ended with Austria and Turkey jointly attacking me, the Eastern Triple I'd forged myself had worked too well and finally turned on me, primarily due to Italy's failure to set up any kind of defense whatsoever, allowing rampant A/T growth, secondarily due to my own diplomatic shortcomings.

My final order, that was never processed as we'd already drawn due to Italy's final defeat and CD in Autumn 1903, was the destruction of the fleet in England. In case we'd play on, I'd probably have gone down due to all my neighbors now attacking me, and I wanted to make certain that Germany, who was the only country I believed to be wrong in joining the attack, would be the next nation to fall.

THE END

Comments to individual players

ENGLAND (Tasnica)
Brilliant play. Your alliance with France and Germany stayed intact all game and allowed you to fully concentrate on me. You were dominant in your alliance. A true pleasure playing with you as always, even though the discussion got bitter at some point and we stopped talking, resuming the chit chat later into the post-draw, I think because we played several games together and are aware that it's not you and me who are discussing, but that we're playing a role and respect each other's play.

FRANCE (ghug)
A pleasure playing with you, you're a quality player for sure. You made profits and kept England away from you. I genuinely believed you should have sent your fleets north and if Italy had put up some defenses, that choice could have turned out dangerous, as A/T arguably wouldn't A) split up and B) yield many (if any) of their spoils of war to you even if they did. You seemed a bit annoyed by my messages every now and then.

GERMANY (Octavious)
Like I said, I really enjoyed my conversations with you. What the feck were you thinking though? :-)

ITALY (dangermouse)
What happened? You overstretched during the game, and Austria stabbed you for it. If that was the reason you left, it's the worst possible one.

TURKEY (gantz)
A true pleasure playing you as well. You were fun to play with and I think you made the right choices all the time, even if you didn't say so much, you sent messages that were very to the point so I could construct a very strong alliance with you.

AUSTRIA (WarLegend)
Your diplomacy, tactics and general strategic approach to the game were all of the highest possible quality.

*My final order was the destruction of F StP NC. Sorry for that. There's some other small ortographic errors that are, well, unforgivable :-(

Oh, totally forgot about this thread, expect something from me tonight.

So, the game starts and I get Germany. Not a bad little nation, in the grand scheme of things, but it needs a bit of luck to get it moving in the right direction. Anyway, I begin in the traditional fashion with a friendly greeting to everyone and an attempt to try and get a few hints as to who is likely to be willing to take early risks and who is of the more cautious variety.

Everyone, it seems, is bloody cautious. Whether this is a consequence of the relatively high stakes nature of the game, or simply the natural style of this group of players, it soon becomes apparent that neither France nor England have the stomach for an early war against the other. The more distant lands are playing their cards very close to their chests, and Italy is communicating in acronyms. It looks like it’s going to be a slow game, and I hate Germany in slow games.

The best early strategy I can settle on is a vague plan with England to hit Russia hard in the north, whilst selling the concept of a Western triple to France, and then with Russia disabled sweeping quickly down into the blue lands. As plans go it was about as reliable as Greek public transport, but there was very little else on offer and a very real danger of a Franco-English alliance if I tried to be too forceful with either of them.

1901

Things get moving and everyone bar Italy behaves as cautiously as they sounded. The usually bounces are observed in the east and the west is on its best behaviour. Italy is marching north in a highly aggressive and annoying fashion, so it’s safe for me to conclude he’s up to something and in a close alliance with someone. Communication from Russia indicates that that someone is him, and the occupation of Boh and Sil by Italy and Russia in the fall all but confirms this. At this stage it appears as if I’m under attack from Russia and Italy, am at risk from a possible alliance that could emerge at any time between England and France, and Austria and Turkey have yet to fire a shot in anger at anyone. It is, in short, a horlicks.

1902 and onwards

France starts making the traditional “lets fake a war to disguise the Triple” speech, with a suggested mock fight between myself and him. I am now quite convinced that doom is near and desperate times demand desperate actions. Italy has now ceased talking to me completely, Russia is battling away, and French tanks are moving in my direction. I am forced to dedicate units to defending against France (be it fake or otherwise) and dedicate my few free units into helping England make progress against Russia.

Around this stage it suddenly becomes apparent that Italy hasn’t been part of some master plan. Indeed, it seems as if he never had any plan of any sort. The word “bugger” springs to mind, and a number of assumptions collapse. Still, what’s done is done.

From then on I didn’t have many options. Russia was offering to help me fight England, but with an apparently solid eastern triple at my back, and a powerful Russia to look forward to, this looked like a short cut to an early grave. The only real option was to continue as England’s compliant ally. Hopefully if progress against Russia could be made A and T would pounce on their new weak link and give me a bit of breathing room. At the same time I would play the part to England of the sort of fool ally that is both extremely useful and could be stabbed at a later date.

As the game came to a close this plan was showing some promise. Russia was on the verge of collapse, and England seemed to be in favour of keeping me alive and onside whilst he turned his attention to France. Mid term survival now seemed genuinely likely, and I could relax and dedicate my time to trying to work out how to dig my way out of the long term difficulties.

In short, I lurched from one crisis to another to another throughout the game :p.

Notes on players: Everyone was bloody good, bar Italy.

Unexpectedly got some time early, so here goes.

Pre Game:

I got Austria, and was pretty disappointed, considering I was playing Austria in two other games at the time. Austria just has so much more to do to even think about surviving than any other country (bar maybe Italy). Anyway, I immediately sent message to Germany and England, asking them to help me with Russia. For Germany I asked him to tell Russia out of Sweden if he moves into Gal, and asked England to threaten to move North if he moved into Gal. I hoped this would push Russia toward working with me instead of Turkey, since he'd have 2 western powers both pretty much demanding it of him. Also messaged Italy, saying the usual A/I speech about us having to stick together, got the Lepanto opening, etc... but I was really hoping to have an alliance with Russia.

1901:

Everything went according to plan except two things, Italy's move to Tyr, and Russia.
Ended up bouncing in Gal with Russia, who was maybe slightly insane (no offense :P) and move North. At first glance, this was good for me, but the deeper you go... well it was obvious this wasn't going to end well. Also the move to Finland... Whyyyyy (personal pet peeve :P). Anyway, Russia realizes he's in hot water, getting E/G against him by moving North, and immediately proposed an Eastern triple, with me, Russia, and Turkey.

I was skeptical to say the least, in my experience the Eastern triple was a glorified juggernaut, after getting Austria to take out Italy. But I had some good back and forth with Russia, so I was willing to keep an open mind. I tried my hardest to convince Russia to do a A/I/R, since he wouldn't expand anywhere with a R/A/T, but he was insistant, we made a buncha concessions, etc etc. By the end of 01, Russia was in Sil and italy in boh.

1902:

After the builds, the West looked a little too chummy. Oh great, a western triple. Not this again. Messaged all 3 of the western people, trying to break it up, but wasn't to confident about it (though I had a great relationship with England). At this point, with a Triple around the corner, I felt I had legitimately no choice but to go along with the Eastern Triple, or be swept up by the west. Its not like I had anything to complain about either, R/T were in no position to attack me, at all. And with Italy in Boh... well, I decided to go for it.

In the fall I have to admit I was looking at Germany a little oddly, why would he order support holds? With the info I had, it just looked silly but from his PoV I suppose it makes sense. Turkey was sending me signs that he only wanted to work with Russia because of the western triple, and I started working to make the ET temporary, and planned the Russian stab with Turkey.

Anyway, Italy NMR'd, but I was guaranteed Venice either way. I built a fleet to not worry Russia, because there was still a WT, and also because I just got stabbed as Austria for not having enough fleets, in another game. Heh.

Anyway, the rest is history. after that, Italy was guaranteed dead as long as the A/T held up, and I finally thought I got the WT broken. We pretty much agreed to draw at that point, so I didn't really mind stabbing Russia, and he knew it was coming because he was offering some really desperate moves. :P

Over-all, I would have preferred to work with Russia against Turkey, and its really unfortunate that Italy rage quit once he got stabbed (seemingly). I think that could have been a good game, and the rocky WT would probably have been broken somehow, but if not i think T and I could have held it together.

Oh yah, also can we start another game? I think thats the most enjoyable game i've played ever.

@WarLegend, why do you keep saying that you were guaranteed Venice either way there? He could have support-held it.

Anyway, I'll probably get mine up in the next few days.

How? He was in boh and apu

The only thing he could have done is move Boh>Tyr and Apu>Ven.

However, I only did Tyr S Tri>Ven because i saw he was going to NMR.

Otherwise I would have done Tri S Tyr>Ven, which was unavoidable. The only difference is one opened up Trieste to build.

Whoops, my mistake, I thought he had an army in Ven as well.

Great EoGs. Keep 'em coming.

@WarLegend, I'm not sure whether I'll be joining another game. I'm really sorry, but I already felt that I'd made the maximum number of concessions regarding time (in the sense that I wanted a much higher paced game) and with the three "lost years" I'm sure this next game will extend way longer than I want it to (see Octavious comments re: high level + careful play).

ghug, Tas, gantz? Don't forget this beautiful thread!

England EoG

Pre-Game

England! I seem to draw the western powers a lot (I have still yet to play a full-length press game as Turkey), so at least I know what I'm dealing with. My past experiences as England give me two high-priority goals: don't lose control of the North Sea, and neutralize northern ports through conquest or alliance as swiftly as possible. Ideally, Brest, StP, and Kiel will never produce fleets. And if they _do_ produce fleets, those fleets need to be rendered harmless (at least to me).

Spring 1901

Austria immediately reaches out to me. I have found that Austria makes an amazing mid-game ally for England, if both can stay alive that long, and after talking with him for a bit I conclude that I want to keep this guy around. He asks me to put some pressure on Russia not to attack him, and I agree. I then actually follow through on said agreement and ask Russia not to attack him. My hope is that I can get Russia and Turkey fighting. If Russia is focused on the south, I will have flexibility in who I attack first without losing Austria for the midgame.

I then make contact with the French, and after some discussion we agree to DMZ the Channel. France seems amiable enough, and the last time I blitzkrieged France things did not turn out well for me, so my offer is genuine. Meanwhile, Germany and I start talking, and he is surprisingly agreeable to a Western Triple opening, which is quite fine with me. This pretty much guarantees that I will focus my initial efforts on Norway, and either continue against Russia from there or stab one of the other western powers. I am fairly certain that I can win over Germany against France, though French intentions are harder to decipher.

Russia finally gets back to me, and tells me that he will be opening south. He requests that I open to the Channel, which I can't really do since I already promised France that I wouldn't. I tell him his much, but he requests that I break the DMZ anyway. I tell him that I'll consider it, but don't want to make any promises that I'm not sure I can keep. I do, of course, consider it, but ultimately conclude that Russia is the nation I can most afford to disappoint.

Moves reveal only a handful of surprises. Both Eng and Bur are DMZed, and France moves to Picardy as planned. Russia, however, lies to me and opens to StP. He also moves to Finland, curiously enough. Italy moves to Tyrolia, but sends Rome-Apulia, so it is unclear if he is after Austria.

Fall 1901

Russia messages me informing that he has decided to get involved in Norway, and also tells me that if I take Norway with a fleet we will be at war. The "I'm going to lie to you, then threaten you" routine doesn't exactly endear me to him, but I try offering the olive branch again anyway. He then essentially blames the situation on my choice of opening (Edi-Nwg, Lon-Nth, Lvp-Yor), which while certainly not pro-Russian is not all that hostile in the grand scheme of things. I don't think that I've ever seen a Russia react so strongly to Lvp-Yor, especially when I made no commitments to my moves.

Meanwhile, Italy has Germany worried, which makes him even more pro-France. I try to talk him into bouncing Belgium, but Germany isn't really keen on the idea. With the situation with Russia rapidly deteriorating, I have little choice but to leave Belgium to France. The Russians are just throwing out thinly-veiled threats about what will happen if I don't move as they desire, when I don't consider them to be in a position to make such threats. I owe them no loyalty, either, so I do not hesitate in supporting a convoy into Norway.

Moves see the Russians get Rumania, the Germans get Sweden (but not Denmark), the Russians move their army to Finland (and not touch Norway), France get Belgium, and Italy move to Bohemia of all places. Definitely an odd start, and one which definitely calls for a Western Triple.

This, of course, requires the proper builds. Russia is obviously going to build in StP, and my diplomacy with him isn't going anywhere, so that leaves France and Germany. I speak with them extensively, and manage to convince them to have the only fleet build be in Marseilles. This allows me to focus on Russia in 1902, and I conclude that if he is so intent on conflict with me I had best just turn everyone against him and take him out.

Spring 1902

Austria is concerned about a WT, and France is concerned about an anti-WT alliance. I reassure Austria that we'll be fighting each other soon enough, and reassure France that the east is too divided to effectively resist. Italy pretty much stops talking.

Meanwhile, Russia finally decides to play nice (which would have been nicer _before_ he built a north coast fleet), and sends me a new proposal to work together against Germany. This proposal leaves me holding most of the risk (he says I can afford it, which is true, but he needs to make me an offer that is more attractive than simply fighting him). I consider it anyway, but it is a busy weekend and I end up not having the time for more negotiation, and end up following an earlier plan with Germany to attack Finland.

This works, but Sweden is lost. France and Germany, apparently afraid of WT backlash, pretty much sit and turtle. Austria supports himself into Tyrolia and Turkey into Aegean, which suggests that Italy is in trouble.

Fall 1902

My main concern this season is preventing a French stab, which is quite plausible given his fleet positioning. This means diplomacy and securing myself a build. Fortunately, Germany's paranoia over Italy and France in the spring gives me an opportunity: the only way to kick the Russians out of Scandinavia is with my units!

I gleefully make the proposal to Germany, and he accepts (his relations with France are quickly deteriorating). I share my concerns about France with Austria, hoping this will be sufficient to get him fighting someone that is not Germany, and also try to turn Turkey against Russia.

The Russians continue to talk, but don't really offer me anything appealing. The only conclusion we reach is that I'll need an army in England if France stabs me. I plan on taking Sweden to get said army, but of course I don't tell the Russians that.

For moves, I get Sweden, both Austria and France attack Italy, and Italy NMRs. Lovely!

Also, I'm the only western power that gets any builds.

Spring 1903

The plan now is simple. Kill Russia, and then stab one of the western powers while courting Austria and/or Turkey. Russia is furious about me taking Sweden and stops talking to me, so that makes things even simpler.

The two big issues this season are that France and Germany are arguing over Belgium, and that everyone wants to end the game because of Italy's NMR. Obviously, I'm not a fan of the latter, as I have a fairly solid position that I feel is more thanks to me than to Italy, while the former is definitely exploitable. I choose to let France and Germany argue for a while, while I continue against Russia.

Alas, Russia thwarts my moves to an extent, and StP is impossible this year. Meanwhile, Italy is rapidly dismembered (he fills retreat orders, though).

Fall 1903

Alas, it becomes clear by about halfway through the season that Italy will CD and the game will be drawn. Consequently, I end up settling with relatively low-key diplomacy and moves near the end.

Had the turn been more meaningful, with a draw being less mutually agreed or Italy returning, I would not have support held Belgium. Instead, I would have stabbed France by moving to the Channel. My relations with both Austria and Germany were strong, and Turkey wasn't bad either (Turkey attacked Russia at the end). Russia would have fallen, and Germany never would have had an excuse to build fleets.

In 1904, my plan was to bounce France (who would have gotten no builds) out of MAO (it turns out that, with his 1903 moves, I actually could have gotten MAO with a single fleet!). From there, with German help, France would have fallen, and I could either stab or draw with Germany as the situation saw fit. Italy just had to ruin it all!

Tas,
Thanks for a well written EoG. I - being Russia - didn't respond as strongly to your Northern Opening just because of your northern opening;
it was the ensemble of
1) A vague promise to me to search for alternatives, that I judged not to be genuine and it turned out that at least the result was the same as it had been if you weren't genuine
2) Your strong ties to France re: DMZ Eng
3) Germany's fitting into your and France's rather hostile diplomacy toward me.

The three things just screamed "WT" to me and that was the reason I was trying different responses (anger, making different offers, etc.).

I agree that just a Northern Opening in itself would have provoked a Russian response that was not as strong, but it didn't occur in a vacuum.

That being said, your EoG and your play was excellent, you'll get no argument there.

France EOG:

S1901:
I generally like to play France, so I was excited when the country draw came out, and I got along with all of my neighbors right off the bat, except for Italy, who didn't talk much and demanded DMZs that favored him. I decided to play a waiting game in '01, expecting to take just the Iberian builds and probably bounce someone out of Belgium in the fall.

F1901:
Russia's northward moves were slightly worrying, but they meant that everyone wanted me to take Belgium, so I didn't mind. I suggested a Western Triple to Germany, but he wasn't too into the idea at first, which seems odd given that he had been negotiating with England in the Spring. When the moves went through, England and Germany were both asking for a WT and telling me that they wouldn't be able to help me against each other, so I had to either try to take one out on my own and risk Russia getting huge, or allying with both of them and moving on England.

S1902:
I built the fleet as England requested, but Italy and Austria were very unhappy about it, and Turkey hadn't committed to helping the WT yet, so I decided to wait a turn to do anything, in the hope that I would catch Italy going the wrong way and that the East would show more signs of conflict, and knowing that I wouldn't have a better position come fall if I were to move toward Italy in the Spring. It was also this turn that I decided to disregard Russia's calls for help against England, because something about his messages was rubbing me the wrong way, and he had created a situation that I wasn't too fond of by attacking both of my Western neighbors.

F1902:
I'm disappointed to see an Eastern Triple coming out of the Spring moves, and less than pleased with Austria for trying so hard to talk me out of attacking Italy before doing it himself. Germany and I are starting to have more strained relations due to my not wanting the WT to be obvious and his unwillingness to do anything at all with his units, whether it be feigning a fight with mine or moving on someone in the East. I tried very hard to sell a story to Russia and Austria about having not wanted to move on Italy, but now wanting to get in on some of the spoils because a German offensive wasn't going to be fruitful without English help. I still don't know if they bought it.

S1903:
Italy's leaving completely ruined the game, and I was very unhappy. I convinced T to stab Russia, and Russia started throwing a fit on global about how much Italy was ruining the game in the hopes of saving his own skin. I assure myself a build for the year, but Germany moves to Ruhr instead of forcing me out of Belgium (so that he could then vacate it and I could rebuild the unit elsewhere) like we had planned, so I'm rather worried.

F1903:
We plan to draw once Italy's gone, so all that really has to happen now is waiting for the phase to progress. England informs me that Germany had been asking him to leave NTH, which sets off alarm bells for me, and then midway through the phase, Germany messages me to tell me that this is the last message he can send me and that he's decided he wants Belgium and will be forcing himself in, so if I don't want that I have to figure that out with England. I'm rather annoyed at him, seeing as he could have asked me for it and then talked to me about it, so I go to England for help, and we have a discussion that makes me decide that I like him more and that I want to stab Germany in a year or two.

Given Tas's EoG, I was gonna get screwed over pretty hard in the next few turns, so I guess I should be glad we drew when we did, but I'm still kind of annoyed by how bad this game was. I've never had anyone CD in a high-quality game before, and it really sucks.

Good game, all.