Spring 1909 – thinking differently about the endgame

To go back to the previous entry, click here.

Developments: the west looks pretty good for me

• Both England and France are struggling to hang on, and it looks like they’re preparing for a few final desperation moves before they bite the dust. Probably they both understand that if I am not backstabbed or do not attempt a solo win before they are eliminated, they are done for. At this point, the goals of both France and England must be to try to defend as long as possible and hope for one of those two things to happen. France has a better chance of lasting a bit longer because France has Portugal. Portugal, being bordered only by 2 spaces, can be defended longer than any other single center.

Strategic thoughts: endgame analysis

• So at this point, even though I previously contemplated all these 3-way draws where Turkey gets eliminated, realistically speaking Turkey is not at all close to being eliminated. Right now, it is quite difficult for Italy and Austria to make a successful attack against Turkey, because the only way they will be able Austria push Turkey back is with Italy moving Bulgaria to Aegean sea with some help from both Greece and Ionian Sea. Furthermore, Austria and Italy really need to have an Austrian army in Bulgaria because only then will Austria stand a chance of taking Rumania. Probably, for that alliance to make progress against Russia and Turkey, they need to do exactly what I am saying: Italy must move Bulgaria to Aegean Sea successfully with help from Greece and Ionian Sea, and Austria must back-fill Bulgaria with an army. This would involve Italy donating a center to Austria. After Austria “blinked” and guarded against an Italian backstab that didn’t happen, will they have the trust and coordination needed to do this?
  • If Turkey cannot be eliminated, and there’s some kind of falling out between Austria and Italy this year, Turkey could very well make progress against them and get a build. If that happens, Turkey might never be eliminated. The game might lead to a 4-way draw, or even Turkey and Russia could be the other drawing players with me – I’m not kidding. It really looks that difficult to eliminate Turkey, because Austria and Italy have put themselves in a position where the coordination needed to progress is just too difficult (and Turkey has defended well and properly), and Russia has shown no sign whatsoever of wanting to attack Turkey, so with all those things true, Turkey may last until the end of the game.
• I’m going to describe the scenario that I think is required for me to achieve a solo win (in strategic terms), and what I’m going to do to keep it possible:
  • Russia must never backstab me or harass me by taking a supply center (specifically, Denmark) in order to keep me from going for a solo. Russia can’t eliminate me at this point, and a solo win is not currently realistic, so I think the only reason Russia would harass me and try to take Denmark is to keep me from getting too strong and going for a solo. Therefore, I must do nothing that spooks Russia. If possible, I should guard Denmark.
  • I must eliminate England within 2 years, and accordingly build 3 more units in the next 2 years. I still have to get my extra build from last year, plus also I should be able to get 2 builds from taking the last 2 English home centers. Therefore, I must concentrate my forces on pinning England on Great Britain (I can’t let him penetrate my lines) and getting into a position that lets me take another of his centers this year if possible. If I bring him down to 1 center this year, I am almost certain to take the final one the following year.
  • Russia must fail to get any builds off of Austria. There’s not too much I can do about this, since I already declared that one of my strategic goals is to not spook Russia. I think I should rule out menacing Russia to defend Austria, and instead gamble that 1) Austria plays well against Russia and doesn’t allow Russia to get a build; Austria has been doing that all game so why would that change? And 2) that Italy continues to ally Austria, even though Austria showed a lack of faith in guarding Trieste; in other words, that Austria’s anxiety does not become a self-fulfilling prophecy as I suggested earlier. If Italy attacks Austria, Russia will probably pick up a build somehow.
  • Turkey must somehow makes progress against Italy. This seems to me to be the most unlikely to happen, but I still think this is important if I’m to have a chance at a solo win. Italy has concentrated most of his forces west (4 units) and only sent a minor force east (2 units). Now that France is smashed, Italy will probably mop up Portugal and Marseilles, get 2 builds, and accordingly send his 2 new units east and have an even split of his forces. That will allow Italy to keep 4 units to wall me off from the southwest and protect against a backstab where I try to take his gains against France.  But if Turkey takes Bulgaria back or gets into Ionian Sea before Italy is actually able to conquer all the French centers, that could disrupt Italy’s game against France. Italy might have to send a unit backwards to guard against Turkey, and maybe France could linger on in Portugal for a while. If that happens, I could creep closer to Mid-Atlantic Ocean and 1) not seem too menacing; perhaps I am coming there to help Italy finish off France; and 2) have enough forces to overpower Italy when the time comes, because Italy did not concentrate enough forces and France will be non-cooperative.
    • Another scenario where Turkey could make progress against Italy to my benefit is if Austria starts getting attacked by all 3 neighbors, and Turkey simultaneously attacks Austria and Italy (that happens all the time; when I am Turkey I usually attack Italy when Italy attacks Austria). This scenario could permit me to go for a solo win even if France has already been eliminated, because if I show zero hostility to Italy, Italy might recall some of his western forces to fight against Turkey.
• Now even with these solo-win ideas in mind, I still do not consider it that likely that I will be able to achieve a solo win. Russia is too powerful and I don’t have any of the critical stretch-goal centers. So right now here’s what I DEFINITELY don’t want to do: attempt a solo win before anybody has even been eliminated, thus likely ensuring a horribly unfavorable 5-7 way draw.
  • That would be throwing away all my good work and good fortune this game. I want to at least  get England and France eliminated.
  • If I never opt for a solo-win attempt, then I really want the game to wind down to a 3-way draw. However, if the players are too anxious that I will attempt a solo win, they will stop fighting each other. Italy and Turkey for example, usually make peace when a western power becomes dominant; they just stop fighting because it’s impossible for either one of them to make meaningful progress against the other due to their powerful defensive positions, and they just start support-holding each others’ fleets or whatever and fighting in the south comes to an end.
• As I think more and more about the strategic situation, I keep coming back to the idea that Russia and Turkey are likely to stand or fall together.
  • Russia has never shown even the slightest inclination to attack Turkey, and I don’t know what situation would permit Russia to decide to backstab Turkey. Previously I had just sort of assumed that Russia would come after Turkey to reduce the draw size  if Italy took out Austria , but perhaps Turkey would gain a build or two during the collapse of Austria and look like an unappealing target because such an attack might appear, to Italy or Russia or both, to lead to a solo win for me (or perhaps each other). Turkey would look like a foolish target if Turkey had 4-5 units that could hold out for many years, meanwhile risking some kind of solo-win attack by me (Germany) upon Russia and Italy.
  • I really want to reduce the game down to a 3-way draw if a solo win isn’t possible for me, so I wonder if I should reconsider my earlier opinion that I should try to play to a 3-way draw with Italy and Russia. Maybe if I really want a 3-way draw, Austria has to be the 3rd partner, because Austria and Italy would be wayyyy more likely snuff out Turkey if Russia were eliminated (than Russia and Italy would be to eliminate Turkey if Austria were eliminated).
    • There’s not much here I can do about this, even if I want it: if Italy starts attacking Austria, I’m not sure what I can do to help without appearing like I am going for a solo win (if I ever start attacking Italy, it will almost certainly look like I am going for a solo win). If Italy doesn’t attack Austria, then all I can do here is just not attack Austria myself and not help Russia attack Austria.
  • If Turkey starts making progress and gets builds, I will probably have to resign myself to the idea that Turkey will not be eliminated, and instead change my strategy to be one where I figure out how to use Turkey’s late-game strength to lead to a solo win for myself (e.g., bait Turkey and Italy into fighting, then attempt a solo).

Orders: how to plan out a large moveset

In Diplomacy, once you have a large number of units, the complexity of your turns increases a LOT relatively to the early game. Since each new unit can make many possible moves each turn and also opens up more reasonable possibilities for the units you have, the decisions are much more difficult in the late game (where you have a lot of units) than early game. Furthermore, the board here is over 9 years into the game, and has reached a gamestate that is not common to see (compared to the early game states, where the same situations and positions appear in a big percentage of games).

In my experience teaching players how to play Diplomacy, I have found that game states similar to the one I am in right now – where I have a large number of units, a strong position, and a developed alliance structure – give the most trouble for new players. Even if you have played many games of Diplomacy before, the particular strategic and tactical situation that arises during a late-game situation is likely to be one that you have never encountered before. For instance, I cannot recall any gunboat game where I played Germany, allied Russia against both England and France, and succeed (and I tend to remember the details of almost every game I’ve ever played).

So let me explain my method for working out my moveset for a complex situation:

1. Make strategic choices – decide who will be attacked, ignored, etc.
2. Prioritize the strategic choices – decide which areas of the board require maximum chances for success, and which ones can afford to have less resources used. E.g., if there is an attack that absolutely needs to succeed, then I would use every possible unit to maximize those chances, then decide what to do with remaining units.
3. Build the moveset one or two units at a time. Once key units’ moves are accounted for, it becomes easier to decide what to do with the remaining units.

Now let’s work through that here.

Strategic priorities:

1. I must attack England and try to finish him off. London and Liverpool might be the last builds I get this game, certainly they will be easier than any others, and I want to get an elimination squared away.
2. I should not antagonize Russia. I think I will need Russia’s continued cooperation, at least for this year and maybe the next, if I am to eliminate England. Although in my previous analysis I talked about the benefits of attacking Russia together with Austria, I think I must rule that out while England is still alive and kicking. Furthermore, Russia has shown great loyalty to me, and I should not throw that away unless I am certain my attacks will destroy him (the usual rule is: don’t backstab your ally unless your attack will hit him so hard he will never successfully fight back).
3. I should help Italy finish off France if I can. There’s not much I can actually do, since Italy can probably take Marseilles on his own and there’s no chance of him taking Portugal, but it’s something I want to keep in mind. So maybe what I mean here is that I should act like I’m willing to help Italy finish off France as an excuse to get my units on Italy’s border, in case I can take advantage of Italy later. Or, if not, Italy is a natural ally to Germany, and in this game in particular Italy is no strategic or tactical threat to me, so it’s not a problem for me if Italy increases in power slightly.
4. I might want to be in position to either help or hurt Austria, such as I deem prudent from how the situation unfolds.

Build the moveset:

To maximize my attack on England and ensure that he gets eliminated, I have to keep England trapped on Great Britain until he is finished off. That means I can’t vacate North Sea and have to do my best to keep England out of English Channel. His fleets are very poor for defense while they are stuck on Great Britain, as they can’t cut through any of the middle connections. My one army, with only a little help, can probably finish England off. My concern here is that England must not get into the sea, because that would force me to cover a huge number of centers with my other units to prevent England from staying alive with a nuisance unit. Therefore:

• The fleet at Brest move to English Channel.
• The fleet at North Sea support move to English Channel from Brest.
  • Assuming that Russia does not poke North Sea (he hasn’t done that yet – why would he do it now when England is close to being eliminated?), these fleet moves will trap England on Great Britain, or at least keep him out of English Channel. I highly doubt France will use his Mid-Atlantic Ocean fleet to assist England, so I will simply assume that will not happen. If England does not make a supported move into English Channel, then my fleet will move in and England will be surrounded. If England does make a supported move, then we will bounce, which is okay too.

Now I have to decide what to do with my Edinburgh army. It seems like there are only 2 sensible choices: move to Liverpool or move to Yorkshire. Now logically, if my assumptions about Russia and France are correct, it is impossible for England to both keep my fleet out of English Channel and block my Edinburgh army from moving. This is a great situation for me to be in, and a great example of how a great power can snowball in Diplomacy; there’s no moveset England can make that stops me from advancing against him because I have too many units and he has too few.

Intuitively, I want to move my army to Liverpool since if that succeeds, England will likely have no way to dislodge that army the following turn and I’ll capture another center, so let’s look at that scenario:

• If England bounces my fleet in English Channel, then I’ve moved my army into Liverpool and England has no ability to dislodge my army afterward. I capture Liverpool in the Autumn, England loses a unit, and I surround and take London the following year.
• If England bounces me in Liverpool, then I’ve moved into English Channel. In the Autumn, I could make a supported attack on London (with either fleet, or maybe with convoys depending on how I set up other moves) and also move again into Liverpool. With merely 2 units, England cannot defend against both attacks, so I capture one of his centers and finish off the other the following year.
  • The most offensive counter-play I can think up for England here (the best attack I imagine England  could do if he correctly anticipated all my moves) is probably to move his London fleet to Yorkshire and bounce me out of Liverpool. If that happens, on the Autumn turn England can threaten to move a fleet to Liverpool or Edinburgh, or to London with either fleet, or to make a support move into London. But even if this does happen, I will still be able to take a center from England: if on the Autumn turn I move Edinburgh to Liverpool again and make a supported attack on London with my fleets, England can only either 1) make a supported move into London, but lose Liverpool and I keep Edinburgh 2) move to Edinburgh and let me into Liverpool, so England loses Liverpool and London while gaining only Edinburgh 3) bounce me in Liverpool, which means Edinburgh stays covered by my army and I take London.

Let’s look at the Yorkshire move scenario:

• If England bounces me in English Channel, then I will be forced to make a guess in the Autumn: either make a supported attack on London with Yorkshire and North Sea, or lunge for Liverpool with Yorkshire.
• If England lets me into English Channel, then it’s all good here: England can’t possibly have moved into position to threaten Edinburgh, and can’t defend London from my supported attack of 2 fleets while also preventing my army from walking into Liverpool.

The Liverpool move is, in my assessment, extremely strong and clearly the best move for that army. Therefore:

• The army at Edinburgh move to Liverpool.

So now I have the moves against England squared away, and I believe that I will take 1 point from England at the end of the year (if, as I have assumed, Russia and France do not interfere).

Next, I want to bring the units at my home centers into better positions without antagonizing Russia. Most importantly, I need to get that fleet out. If I’m not antagonizing Russia, that means I’m going to rule out Baltic Sea and Denmark. So that leaves Heligoland Bight and Holland. At first I thought Holland was the obvious choice, since that puts my fleet as far westward as it can go, but then I made the following analysis:

• Heligoland Bight is not as far away from the West as it appears, as a fleet in Holland and Heligoland Bight are both two moves away from English Channel. Although it is easier to creep a fleet through Holland and Belgium into English Channel, it isn’t unreasonable to imagine that I could move North Sea into English Channel and backfill with Heligoland Bight.

Okay so it’s not that much worse but what makes this move better?

First, my fleet guards Denmark and Kiel without antagonizing Russia. If Russia were to move into Denmark or Baltic Sea (which I rate as unlikely, but it is still possible) I would have some ability to defend myself. I haven’t talked about this very much in my journal here, but I guess now is a good time to explain:

(Aside: “Hostile” and “Servile” allies)

I think the relationship between a player and his ally must balance the extremes of a “hostile” and a “servile” posture (referring to both attitude and positioning).

• A “hostile” posture is one where the player is in position to attack even though the player communicates an intent to ally (for example, last year Italy moved his army into Venice, which made it possible for him to attack Trieste – this posture was “hostile” towards his ally Austria and Austria felt antagonized and responded).
• A “servile” posture is one where the player deliberately makes himself vulnerable to attacks by his ally. Usually, this is to communicate trust and to encourage that player not to attack, i.e., that other player will prioritize attacking hostile players over servile players (for example, early in this game England deliberately exposed himself to France and threw all his weight to the northeast – I commented extensively on this).

In my opinion, a player is incentivized to attack both hostile and servile allies. A hostile ally is hardly an ally at all (“with friends like this, who needs enemies?”) because your ally’s hostile posture forces you to choose between leaving units behind to guard against your ally or assuming a servile posture by moving them forward and leaving yourself unguarded. A servile ally is, simply put, far too tempting a target for a backstab. Not every player will attack a servile ally, but many will (for example, in this game France did not care at all that England tried to ally him and instead interpreted England’s servile behavior as a great opportunity to smash England). My philosophy on this is part of why earlier in this game I had so much anxiety that Austria was going to lunge for Berlin or Munich when his army was parked in Silesia and kept an army behind for defense turn after turn – if I were to show trust to Austria and pull my armies forward for fighting other powers, that probably would have INCREASED the chances that Austria would attack me, because then I would have no ability to block him or retaliate.

(End Aside)

So applying these ideas to my current situation, although I don’t want to antagonize Russia, I don’t want to leave myself defenseless against Russia just to prove that I’m loyal to him or something, because that might have the ironic effect of incentivizing Russia to attack me. If I keep my units near our boundary area, I show that I understand that I can and will defend myself if attacked, but that I have no intention to attack. I balance the extremes of a hostile and servile posture.

Second, there are tactical benefits to having my fleet in Heligoland Bight instead of Holland: I could double-convoy an army I moved to Kiel (more on that later) if I decide I would rather fight England with armies rather than move my fleets away from Russia. In addition, I have the option of making a supported move into Denmark on the Autumn turn if I need to defend against Russia or set up for an attack the following year (e.g., it might be a strong play if I support my fleet into Denmark and build another fleet in Berlin, so that I can take Baltic Sea next year, or I might want to support my army into Denmark so that I can be sure to both guard Denmark from Russia on the Autumn turn but also guarantee that the move isn’t bounced, so that I am free to build another fleet in Kiel). Therefore:

• The fleet at Kiel move to Heligoland Bight.

Next, it’s pretty easy for me to analyze what I should do in the west against France. There is basically nothing at all which is a threat to me, so even a token force can protect all my gains and probably aid Italy. France has no armies, and there is not even a unit in Marseilles right now. So there is no unit that could come up at me through Burgundy, nothing that threatens Paris, and Brest can be guarded with a single unit (and even then, I doubt France would attempt to take Brest). So here’s what I have:

• The army at Picardy move to Brest.
  • If England bounces me out of English Channel, this move will fail, but I don’t really care. I don’t have a better priority for this army – I don’t want to move it backwards, can’t convoy it against anybody until I get into English Channel anyways, and have no need to move it south as Marseilles will surely go to Italy and an attempt to get it might spook the other players that I am attempting a solo win.
  • If I do get into English Channel, then this army can quietly guard Brest against a random/desperate French attack. If Italy ever gets into Mid-Atlantic Ocean, then maybe my army will just stay in Brest indefinitely.
• The army at Paris move to Gascony.
  • There’s no reason for my army to stay in Paris. Between Gascony and Burgundy, Gascony seems like the better move here, because it’s not possible for any unit to get into Burgundy this turn (other than my own), so I can always go back and guard Burgundy on the Autumn turn. Gascony is KEY to any battle over the French lands, as that territory borders all 3 French home centers (it’s the only one to do this) plus also Spain. It’s also extremely difficult to dislodge a unit in Gascony from the south, so I am thinking that I may as well get into Gascony now while I have a decent chance (I doubt Italy or France will attempt to move to Gascony, but if they do then I’ll be glad I bounced them).
  • I may just park in Gascony indefinitely and support Italy’s invasion of France (helping him take the last 2 centers, or just to support-hold Italy to communicate alliance). If the game winds down to a draw, that’s all that will ever happen. But if I sense that there’s a chance to strike for a solo win, I bet I’ll be glad I have control of Gascony because it may afford me the ability to takes Marseilles or break into Mid-Atlantic Ocean.
  • Control of Gascony offers me an excellent defense if Italy gets any funny ideas about pushing further north.

Also note that I am deciding against moving Munich to Burgundy. Simply put, I can’t see much benefit in shoving 3 armies west right now, especially when there’s literally no possibility of any other player getting a unit into Burgundy. I’d much rather leave my army in Munich for a defense (my army in Munich does not merely guard Munich itself against an Austrian attack; the army also guards Kiel and Berlin). And if I keep my army in Munich, I still have the option of plugging in the hole in Burgundy next turn should that seem prudent. Furthermore, if I move my armies to both Gascony and Burgundy, it might seem like I am going to take Marseilles for myself instead of letting Italy retake it – such an attempt would surely spook the other players that I plan on a solo win, so even the possibility that I would subsequently attempt to take Marseilles could be enough to spook them.

For the last two armies, I thought for a little bit of moving Berlin to Silesia supported by Munich, since that might give me the ability to affect Austria’s destiny (attacking or defending) without directly expressing hostility to Russia…but I thought better of it because the move probably just looks too confusing. It’s just too ambiguous – Russia might interpret it as some kind of hostility, since it puts my army next to his home center and doesn’t really harass Austria (why not move into Tyrolia if I’m trying to attack Austria?), and Austria might interpret what I’m doing as some attack which causes him to make desperation moves and lose supply centers, which I don’t want right now.

• The army at Berlin move to Kiel.
  • I decided instead to move my army to Kiel as I hinted earlier – from Kiel, my army can defend all my vulnerable positions (or positions that could potentially become vulnerable after these Spring moves), namely: Denmark, Berlin, Kiel and Munich. From Kiel, I can support Munich, make a supported move into Berlin, or make a supported move into Denmark – this makes me capable of guarding against an Austrian encroachment or a Russian attack (short of an all-out attack, which I would still have a decent defense against). If none of my centers need guarding, then I can consider convoying that army against England, moving to Denmark anyways, or moving back into Berlin or Munich just to get out of the way.
• The army at Munich hold.
  • I earlier ruled out a move into Burgundy as unnecessary (Burgundy is in no danger) and potentially distressing to other players (why do I need to threaten Marseilles?), and I previously said that I don’t want to attack Austria this turn because I want Austria to have a chance to stabilize himself (and even if I eventually want Russia to take Austria out, I want that to happen after I finish off England). I also want to just stay in Munich so that I can guard it against Austria, and be in position to defend against encroachments that might happen on this Spring move. So that means all I would be willing to do is make a support-hold or a support-move order to try to assists another player or communicate something.
    • As far as support-hold goes, I would be supporting Austria. That’s no good – I do not want Russia to see me communicating some goodwill towards Austria – that’s too contrary to Russia’s interests.
    • As for support-moves, the only ones available to me are to support potential moves against Austria, which I also don’t want to do. I don’t want Austria to think I am coming after him, or for anyone to expect help from me against Austria presently.
    • In this situation, I really wish there was some unit I could just support-hold for no reason to show friendship, like if Italy had an army in Tyrolia I could support-hold for no tactical purpose but just to show I am friendly to him.
  • Since I can’t think of anything that communicates something I want other players to understand about me, I’m just going to hold. I think my hold order, combined with all my other moves, will communicate to the other players that I do not want to be involved in the center of the map right now – that I am focusing on finishing off England and France and will decide what to do after that. Here’s why I think this is strategically favorable for me to communicate: if the other players perceive that I have not yet made up my mind about whether to attack Russia or Austria after England goes down, perhaps both Russia and Austria will try to curry my favor by leaving me alone, and try to make the other look weak by attacking each other. Perhaps Italy and Turkey will try to influence my decision somehow. Any of this is good for me if I’m to keep alive the hope of a solo win; playing the weaker powers off of each other is a great way to keep momentum towards a solo win, as each one tries to show that they should be included in the draw by attacking the other.
    • And yes I really do think all this stuff I just said can be affected by a simple hold order from an army in my home center. I’m not saying that it will happen, just that it could happen.

And so, here we have it:

Order Preview. Looks Good!

To continue to the next entry, click here.