Muon2 Diplomacy Game B

[NOVA Green]

Liverpool, Munich and Rome are now all guaranteed to be lost to the French by the Fall of 1908, and Naples likely the following Spring, and the Western Med is only a Year beyond....

The Bonaparte gambit appears to have failed....

In this case the Bonaparte retreat, which is nothing akin to Mao's "Long March" during 1934-35.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonaparte%27s_Retreat_(Pee_Wee_King_song)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napoleon

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_March

[muon2]

Fall 1908 orders are due by 11:59 pm EST, Saturday Dec 22. The time and day reflect my holiday location.

To be clear, you mean Saturday, Dec 21, right?

Yes I do. See what time zones can do to you - I had noticed that 11:59 pm CST was on Dec 22 in EST. I changed the time zone but the other date stuck, oops.

[GeorgiaModerate]

The Bonaparte gambit appears to have failed....

If in the end I share Napoleon's fate, consider this an early request for Aruba as the place of exile.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Hello all, muon let me know via PM that I was the only one to reject the truce. I don't know if this is true based on what I've seen in the thread (which is that I was the only one to respond to it), but if it is, I'd like to reiterate I'm good if everyone else is.

[GeorgiaModerate]

Hello all, muon let me know via PM that I was the only one to reject the truce. I don't know if this is true based on what I've seen in the thread (which is that I was the only one to respond to it), but if it is, I'd like to reiterate I'm good if everyone else is.

I'm still for it.

[Gustaf]

So, I didn't have any specific desire for secrecy in my response so I can repeat it here.

Basically, I don't mind going on but I did accept the truce with the simple logic that while it's not inconceivable for me to get back into the game as I'm currently the weakest player and thus more likely to be someone's ally that fact also means that I don't think it's likely I'll win.

[NOVA Green]

So is the game over..... or???

[GeorgiaModerate]

I think we have to assume that the game is over, having ended "not with a bang but a whimper".  That being the case, I wanted to share a few of my thoughts during the game in case you guys were interested.  First, a little background: I was introduced to Diplomacy in college back in the mid-1970s, and played it quite a bit in a gaming group I was in during the years at my first job.  But I moved away for a job change in the early 80s and never found another good group.  I've played a face-to-face game maybe three times in the last 35 years.

However, around the year 2000 I discovered the online Diplomacy community and jumped into playing on the online judges, both regular games and no-press games.  If you're not familiar with no-press, it's the same as normal except there is NO communication allowed except to the game master.  There are some limited communication possibilities based on signalling via conventions in writing orders (similar to signals in bridge or pinochle bidding).  No-press obviously loses most of the alliance building and negotiation/persuasion aspects of Diplomacy, but it was a lot easier to find than regular games and a lot less of a time commitment.  On the plus side, no-press is a good way to learn about tactics and stalemate lines.  So I played that quite a bit (and got pretty good at it) but eventually had other interests take precedence, and stopped playing 10 or 12 years ago. 

So muon's first game was my first in a long time.  Being kind of rusty, I was happy to draw Turkey in the first game and France in this one, since I think they're among the easier powers to play due to their strong positions (although I probably enjoy Germany the most, it's obviously more difficult to play).  I started the game with no preconceived notions of who to ally with, but opened communication with my neighbors to see who seemed to offer the most potential for working together.  As I'm sure you're all aware, Italy wrote long novels and was a lot of fun to talk to.  England was also quite communicative and friendly, while Germany was much less so.  That shaped my initial strategy: nonaggression with Italy, and an alliance with England against Germany.  This all went very well at first.  However...

The non-presence of Turkey threw things out of balance in the East.  This was a worrisome development; what I feared most was a strong AI alliance.  Instead, the AR that actually developed was good for me at first, in that it kept Italy weak (and therefore inclined to be friendly and helpful to me).  But I didn't expect AR to remain solidly together; it looked to me like there were multiple opportunities for one or the other to stab the other for a big advantage, essentially controlling the entire East.

To digress a bit: I'm not fond of stabbing just for its own sake, but I definitely think it's warranted if it will advance your chances of winning.  My goal in playing the game is to win if possible; although there can be satisfaction in a well-crafted draw, I consider that a second-best outcome.  I recall a poll in an online group that went something like this: if you played three games, would you rather have one solo win and two losses, or three 3-way draws?  For me the answer is unquestionably the first one.  (IIRC, the overall poll results were about evenly balanced among each of those options and those who had no preference.)  I mention this as background to the effect that if I ever see even a possible chance to solo, I'll go for it.

And that's what happened as this game developed.  The EF alliance against Germany went swimmingly, while the FI alliance succeeded in blocking up the Mediterranean against Austria.  I would up occupying both Munich and Tunis, with their owners' (no doubt grudging) consent and had an army in Silesia.  With this position straddling the main stalemate line, I figured I had maybe a 40% chance of pulling off a solo; in a no-press game, where the defenders' ability to coordinate is limited, the chances would probably have been 80% or higher.  But even 40% was enough for me to go for it, especially as the downside seemed no worse than a 3- or 4-way draw, which was the likely outcome if we just kept slogging it out. 

Of course, there was always a chance that I could get eliminated if the defenders stopped my solo attempt, but this seemed unlikely and a risk worth taking.  You have to be willing to play to win, and not just not to lose.  If you'll forgive a baseball analogy: I once watched an Atlanta Braves game where the Braves trailed by a run in the bottom of the ninth, with one out and a man on third base.  The next batter hit a fly ball to center field, which was caught for the second out.  The runner on third tagged up to try and make it home, but the center fielder threw perfect strike to home.  Runner out, game over, Braves lost.  After the game, the legendary Braves manager Bobby Cox was asked why they sent the runner from third.  He replied, "They had to make a perfect throw to beat us there, and they did.  Sometimes that happens.  I don't regret it; if we don't get caught occasionally, we're not trying it enough."  That philosophy has always stuck with me and helped shape the way I play games.  I'll go for the win rather than playing it safe, and if that causes me to lose, well, that's the breaks.

So with a possibility of improving my good position into a winning one, the question became how to go about it.  The situation in the north was going well, but was reaching a point where England was about to make some gains in Russia.  I was always worried about a stab from England, as my push eastward had left me rather exposed to him.  If he built a couple more units, either they could be used to attack me, or he'd have more defenders at home, or he'd send armies over the top to Russia -- which would ultimately be available to help push back my advance.  All of these would hamper my chances to solo.

In the south, things were more or less stuck.  Although I could have pushed a fleet or two further east into the Med with Italy's support, this didn't seem like it would help much (the RA armies on the coast were essentially impregnable) and would have left me even more exposed to England.  Only if AR were to split apart would it be possible to make some progress -- and they sure didn't seem likely to split as long as the western alliances stayed intact.

After considering everything, I decided the best plan was to stab Italy in conjunction with Austria as the start of a "bootstrap" try at a solo: i.e. use the units gained from that stab to attack England, use gains from that attack to build more units, etc.  If this type of attack can cascade quickly enough, the momentum can be unstoppable to defend against.  So I talked to Austria and proposed that we take out Italy and then attack our respective alliance partners, Russia and England.  I thought there was some chance Austria might do so, which would give me a great chance to solo, but even if he didn't I'd still have a chance with the bootstrap attack.

A word to Nova: I love the way you play, and truly did regret stabbing you.  But against a united AR on one side, and a secure and expansionist France on the other, there was never going to be any other outcome for Italy.  It's a testament to your skill that you stayed alive and an influence as long as you did.

Well, the rest is history.  I got Germany on side to act as a Janissary for a while, but it wasn't enough.  AER got together, Gustaf outguessed me a couple times, and the solo effort fizzled out.  It's possible I could have pushed on a bit longer, especially after taking the North Sea, which created the possibility of convoying an army to England.  But by that point, things had changed for me personally.  As I mentioned earlier, in early November I took a bad fall and broke a vertebra.  This caused me extreme pain for a few weeks, which (thankfully) has lessened considerably.  As a result, I lost a lot of my focus on the game and the patience to keep slogging; when it became clear that the solo was unlikely to happen, I was ready to just pack it in, and proposed the draw.

Anyway, thanks to everyone for playing, and for your patience/endurance if you've managed to read this far.   And of course, many thanks also to muon2 for creating and running the game.

Cheers,
GM

[NOVA Green]

I think we have to assume that the game is over, having ended "not with a bang but a whimper".  That being the case, I wanted to share a few of my thoughts during the game in case you guys were interested.  First, a little background: I was introduced to Diplomacy in college back in the mid-1970s, and played it quite a bit in a gaming group I was in during the years at my first job.  But I moved away for a job change in the early 80s and never found another good group.  I've played a face-to-face game maybe three times in the last 35 years.

However, around the year 2000 I discovered the online Diplomacy community and jumped into playing on the online judges, both regular games and no-press games.  If you're not familiar with no-press, it's the same as normal except there is NO communication allowed except to the game master.  There are some limited communication possibilities based on signalling via conventions in writing orders (similar to signals in bridge or pinochle bidding).  No-press obviously loses most of the alliance building and negotiation/persuasion aspects of Diplomacy, but it was a lot easier to find than regular games and a lot less of a time commitment.  On the plus side, no-press is a good way to learn about tactics and stalemate lines.  So I played that quite a bit (and got pretty good at it) but eventually had other interests take precedence, and stopped playing 10 or 12 years ago. 

So muon's first game was my first in a long time.  Being kind of rusty, I was happy to draw Turkey in the first game and France in this one, since I think they're among the easier powers to play due to their strong positions (although I probably enjoy Germany the most, it's obviously more difficult to play).  I started the game with no preconceived notions of who to ally with, but opened communication with my neighbors to see who seemed to offer the most potential for working together.  As I'm sure you're all aware, Italy wrote long novels and was a lot of fun to talk to.  England was also quite communicative and friendly, while Germany was much less so.  That shaped my initial strategy: nonaggression with Italy, and an alliance with England against Germany.  This all went very well at first.  However...

The non-presence of Turkey threw things out of balance in the East.  This was a worrisome development; what I feared most was a strong AI alliance.  Instead, the AR that actually developed was good for me at first, in that it kept Italy weak (and therefore inclined to be friendly and helpful to me).  But I didn't expect AR to remain solidly together; it looked to me like there were multiple opportunities for one or the other to stab the other for a big advantage, essentially controlling the entire East.

To digress a bit: I'm not fond of stabbing just for its own sake, but I definitely think it's warranted if it will advance your chances of winning.  My goal in playing the game is to win if possible; although there can be satisfaction in a well-crafted draw, I consider that a second-best outcome.  I recall a poll in an online group that went something like this: if you played three games, would you rather have one solo win and two losses, or three 3-way draws?  For me the answer is unquestionably the first one.  (IIRC, the overall poll results were about evenly balanced among each of those options and those who had no preference.)  I mention this as background to the effect that if I ever see even a possible chance to solo, I'll go for it.

And that's what happened as this game developed.  The EF alliance against Germany went swimmingly, while the FI alliance succeeded in blocking up the Mediterranean against Austria.  I would up occupying both Munich and Tunis, with their owners' (no doubt grudging) consent and had an army in Silesia.  With this position straddling the main stalemate line, I figured I had maybe a 40% chance of pulling off a solo; in a no-press game, where the defenders' ability to coordinate is limited, the chances would probably have been 80% or higher.  But even 40% was enough for me to go for it, especially as the downside seemed no worse than a 3- or 4-way draw, which was the likely outcome if we just kept slogging it out. 

Of course, there was always a chance that I could get eliminated if the defenders stopped my solo attempt, but this seemed unlikely and a risk worth taking.  You have to be willing to play to win, and not just not to lose.  If you'll forgive a baseball analogy: I once watched an Atlanta Braves game where the Braves trailed by a run in the bottom of the ninth, with one out and a man on third base.  The next batter hit a fly ball to center field, which was caught for the second out.  The runner on third tagged up to try and make it home, but the center fielder threw perfect strike to home.  Runner out, game over, Braves lost.  After the game, the legendary Braves manager Bobby Cox was asked why they sent the runner from third.  He replied, "They had to make a perfect throw to beat us there, and they did.  Sometimes that happens.  I don't regret it; if we don't get caught occasionally, we're not trying it enough."  That philosophy has always stuck with me and helped shape the way I play games.  I'll go for the win rather than playing it safe, and if that causes me to lose, well, that's the breaks.

So with a possibility of improving my good position into a winning one, the question became how to go about it.  The situation in the north was going well, but was reaching a point where England was about to make some gains in Russia.  I was always worried about a stab from England, as my push eastward had left me rather exposed to him.  If he built a couple more units, either they could be used to attack me, or he'd have more defenders at home, or he'd send armies over the top to Russia -- which would ultimately be available to help push back my advance.  All of these would hamper my chances to solo.

In the south, things were more or less stuck.  Although I could have pushed a fleet or two further east into the Med with Italy's support, this didn't seem like it would help much (the RA armies on the coast were essentially impregnable) and would have left me even more exposed to England.  Only if AR were to split apart would it be possible to make some progress -- and they sure didn't seem likely to split as long as the western alliances stayed intact.

After considering everything, I decided the best plan was to stab Italy in conjunction with Austria as the start of a "bootstrap" try at a solo: i.e. use the units gained from that stab to attack England, use gains from that attack to build more units, etc.  If this type of attack can cascade quickly enough, the momentum can be unstoppable to defend against.  So I talked to Austria and proposed that we take out Italy and then attack our respective alliance partners, Russia and England.  I thought there was some chance Austria might do so, which would give me a great chance to solo, but even if he didn't I'd still have a chance with the bootstrap attack.

A word to Nova: I love the way you play, and truly did regret stabbing you.  But against a united AR on one side, and a secure and expansionist France on the other, there was never going to be any other outcome for Italy.  It's a testament to your skill that you stayed alive and an influence as long as you did.

Well, the rest is history.  I got Germany on side to act as a Janissary for a while, but it wasn't enough.  AER got together, Gustaf outguessed me a couple times, and the solo effort fizzled out.  It's possible I could have pushed on a bit longer, especially after taking the North Sea, which created the possibility of convoying an army to England.  But by that point, things had changed for me personally.  As I mentioned earlier, in early November I took a bad fall and broke a vertebra.  This caused me extreme pain for a few weeks, which (thankfully) has lessened considerably.  As a result, I lost a lot of my focus on the game and the patience to keep slogging; when it became clear that the solo was unlikely to happen, I was ready to just pack it in, and proposed the draw.

Anyway, thanks to everyone for playing, and for your patience/endurance if you've managed to read this far.   And of course, many thanks also to muon2 for creating and running the game.

Cheers,
GM

And you say I write long novels...

Appreciate your extremely detailed exposition of your thoughts and strategy throughout the game. Although I was in frequent contact with all of the various players throughout most of my tenure in the game (Albeit with a few periods of radio silence with Russia and Austria), and of course the initial elusive Ottoman Government, certainly you were the player with the most frequent responses and communications on various items....

I was already concerned about your intentions towards Italy, even prior to the "stab", and believe I had warned England of my suspicions, including my sense that betrayal was coming and you were preparing something against them as well....

There were a few key moments where things could have gone a bit better, for example my attempt to parlay conflict between Austria and Russia, with a new Government in Turkey that was hanging on by a thread, and the sequence of moves that I suggested was a 50-50 gamble, which ended up working out no so well....

Another key one might have been taking your gamble on Tyrolia....

There was another opportunity, which I believe Austria was genuine about, which would actually have involved switching sides and allowing Austrian fleets into the region, in exchange for them helping me make a move against France...

All in all, despite the fact that I got knocked out earlier than anticipated, overall I think all of the players did an extremely good job, and it was a pretty good game (Other than a bit unbalanced because essentially Turkey didn't do anything until we got a replacement player and then it was a bit too late).

Would be happy to play again with all of you, and Oregon Blue Dog might well enjoy a chance to get a decent start from the beginning, rather than jumping in as a pinch hitter, where basically it was almost like drawing straws about *if* and *how long* with an extremely small chance of survival at that time....

My thoughts are that we have a pretty decent bunch of core players, so if anyone wants to start a petition for a new game, and we can find a GM / "Host" (Thanks Muon2 for running the past two games!!!!), would definitely look forward to participating.

Sorry about your injury.... I didn't realize that at the time, so hoping your recovery is progressing well....

I started playing table-top Diplomacy some (30) Years ago, although it had probably been (20) years since I last played, so was stoked when the first Muon2 game started on Atlas (of all places)!!!!

See you the next go around....

[TJ in Oregon]

It was a fun game and thanks to Muon and everyone else who also played.

From the Austrian perspective this is how things went:

At the start of the game I tried to establish lines of communication with all my neighbors in particularly and passed notes with everyone except for Turkey (who responded to no one as has already been said). As Austria, my main priorities at the outset are to make peace with all my neighbors so as to avoid an early elimination and increase the odds that no more than one neighbor attacks me. Italy and Russia seemed interested in partnership, whereas Turkey declined to respond. This is fine from my perspective since Russia and Italy are the more immediately scary neighbors anyways in 1901.

It turned out that Russia and Italy were both friendly and that Turkey was a basket case. So this made the immediate moves straightforward enough. The next question would become where to turn as Turkey's days were numbered. The calculus on this was also clear and simple: Italy kept making very demanding requests for concessions to them for continued partnership, while Russia was happy to split up the spoils in Turkey and move on elsewhere. So it became clear I had to stab Italy. There really was no clear path for us to continue working together. Unfortunately, I was not well-prepared to do this and my strategy in dealing with Italy was incredibly vanilla and came as expected at basically every level.

When poor Oregon Blue Dog took over Turkish control, he made a serious attempt to work with me, but it wasn't to my advantage to turn on Russia when Russia had already promised me Constantinople . And even there, it would have put a dangerous potential ally of Italy on my rearguard. Altogether it wasn't an offer I could seriously consider. Turkey could hardly end war with Russia to help me against Italy. And there was no real plausibility of mending things with Italy with Turkey already eliminated and Italy having no interested in heading west.

I screwed up a bunch in the next phase of the game wherein I was fighting the slow war with Italy and made the mistake of letting France in. Italy then made the unexpected move of trying to throw the game to France to try and get me to lay off. It was tempting to reconsider my strategy, but it wouldn't have worked either. So I was left waiting for France to make his solo gambit. Italy reached out to me as a last ditch effort but there was little he could offer me to substantially change things at that point. Though I could see France's strategy clearly, it was still in my interest to take Venice when he moved to remove Italy, so I went along with it.

The next phase of the game started. At this point, France and I were both allegedly setting up to stab our allies to break up the slow AR vs EF endgame. This was an offer I had seriously considered since I could very likely win a war with Russia and saw the possibility of getting to 14 centers. However, France had pinned me to where I had very little chance of getting more than that. So I needed to play along enough to get France and England fighting, but not enough to actually start a war with Russia that would result in a French solo. So Russia and I orchestrated moves to make it look like we were at war. But there's a limit to how many turns one can do this and have it look remotely convincing. Still it bought enough time for England to see the threat of a French solo and reverse course, so it served its purpose. Now for the first time in years, Russia and I were collectively making gains against France and Germany (acting as a French puppet).

This is about the point where the game fizzled out. The likely next step would have been to see how long the three of us (AER) could keep working together before someone stabbed. I was in the exceedingly odd position of having a decently powerful Austrian navy, so likely I could have pushed it back to the stalemate line, maybe even making a play at Iberia if Russia/England had a falling out in the North.

It was something of an usual game in that it felt for large portions of the game that there was a kind of 5-on-2 alliance structure with Russia and I against the world. With France and England as long allies and Italy and Germany as their Janissaries, and Turkey marginally aligned with Italy and against Russia to the extent they were involved. Given that array of alliances, I was happy that Russia and I could play our way into a solid half of the board. I felt as though I could have played a lot better, especially early with how I dealt with France and Italy. Still, I doubt it would have transpired remarkably differently given the play of Turkey and of the western powers. I still have trouble seeing how a partnership with Italy could have been mutually productive given Italy's constant demand for centers and desire to pit Russia and I against each other. I could definitely have been less vanilla in my tactical decisions though. France and Italy had me outguessed at every single turn. It's interesting how sometimes in this game you are able to see your opponents' every move and sometimes you can't seem to do anything right.

I was Austria once again, which isn't obviously the favorite country in this game, but one I rather do like playing, especially early on. The thing I like about Austria is how involved you need to be with everyone right from the start. The thing I don't like about Austria, which became more and more of an issue throughout this game, is just how one-dimensional the endgame really is. It's so incredibly hard to solo as Austria without stabbing both Italy and Russia at some point, perhaps moreso (wkith stabbing neighbors) than any other country except Turkey (which is by far my least favorite to play as; yes you're really powerful but it's also boring).This game was unique in that the length and changes in alliance structure made it actually possible that I could be making a play into France and Iberia with the mighty prowess of the Austrian navy. So many sentences that are weird to see.

[GeorgiaModerate]

This game was unique in that the length and changes in alliance structure made it actually possible that I could be making a play into France and Iberia with the mighty prowess of the Austrian navy. So many sentences that are weird to see.

It's not impossible.  I recall an online game from years ago where Austria (not me, alas) used a solid AR alliance as a springboard to a solo.  Austria wound up with 18 without taking anything east of Serbia/Greece!  IIRC, in the end he had something like Austria + Italy + France + Ser/Gre/Tun/Por/Spa/Mun/Bel/Hol and an English center.