Global Messages
England (me): Thank you for playing everyone. This was a thoroughly challenging match, especially in endgame. Good luck everyone with your other tournament games.
Just as an FYI, I kept a journal of this match that I intend to publish on my blog a couple of weeks from now. If you're interested in seeing that when it's finished, please message me or something with how I should contact you when it's posted.
Here's a link to the diplomacy stuff I've written: https://brotherbored.com/diplomacy/
Austria: It was a very challenging game, and I tip my hat to you Swordman. I kept thinking I had found the right 3-some to carry to the end, and each time I found that you had stolen my partner out from under me!
Italy: Gg guys! Sorry for how bad my press was this entire game, I'm usually not that bad a communicator, but real life messed things up...
Turkey: Thanks for playing, everyone.
France: Sigh, gg
Russia: Ho hum...don't think I had much chance...but gg everyone else
Final Map
England = 16, Turkey = 10, Italy = 7, Austria = 1
Final Score
Here's my haul of the tournament points, according to sum-of-squares scoring:
16^2 / (16^2 + 10^2 + 7^2 + 1^2) = 63.05%
FYI: Turkey took 24.63%, Italy took 12.07%, and Austria took 0.25% (that's right, Austria gets next to nothing).
Well... not bad, not bad! I feel pretty good about my result. That's well over half the points. 63 points might be enough for me to break into the next round of the tournament. The way this tournament works, the preliminary round consists of two simultaneous matches against completely different players. The top 28 players (out of roughly 120) — defined as the 28 players with the highest combined scores from their two matches — will advance to the second round.
If I do well in my other (ongoing) match, I'm pretty confident that I'll have enough total points progress to round 2. It's hard to know for sure, but I think I will get a decent score in my other match (currently in its early stages due to starting later and being repeatedly paused). I hope I make it to round two!
Post-Game Analysis
Whenever I finish a game (not just Diplomacy, but any game or competition I enter), I take some time to review the completed match. I believe that I have become a formidable adversary in many forms of competition because I habitually analyze my finished matches.
Few people reflect on games that they finish, and even fewer evaluate their opponents' decisions. In my opinion, missing out on this learning opportunity is why so many people have a hard time improving at games. If you want to become a great player at any game, I urge you to perform this kind of analysis after you finish each match.
Opponent Evaluation
First, I want to evaluate each player in the match. Every opponent (no matter how experienced or inexperienced) has something to teach me — even if it is just an example of what not to do.
To get the most out of this process, I need to honestly consider what each player did well and where they made mistakes. Many people who play games will rationalize anything an opponent did that harmed their interests or annoyed them as "bad" play. That kind of sloppy, emotional thinking interferes with learning. In Diplomacy specifically, harassing, annoying, and deliberately antagonizing other players can be advantageous; I shouldn't let my personal feelings judge the quality of the players' actions.
I'll review the performances of the players in the order of poorest outcome to best (so starting with France and Russia, then Germany, Austria, Italy and Turkey). Finally, I'll review my own performance!
France
I ended up writing so much about France that I decided to put the content in a separate post, which you can find here.
Russia
The Russian came across to me as a player who mostly used press to send threats and otherwise antagonize the other players. In my experience, antagonistic messages -- especially threats -- are typically ineffective in the early turns of a Diplomacy match. Threats, intimation, demands, ultimata, etc. can be effective when used appropriately, but most players react rather poorly to this style when it is used early in the game. When someone communicates this way with you, you think "Gee, I really can't see myself working with this person until the end of the match. They're this miserable already and nothing has even really happened." In every match of Diplomacy, you have to attack someone, right? Many, perhaps most, players will decide to attack their rival who seems the most annoying or difficult to work with.
The Russian player's antagonistic style also gave me a sense that the Russian valued things other than playing for the best possible outcome (i.e., playing for emotions, laughs, revenge, etc. instead of playing to win). This gave me a sense that the Russian player was rather inexperienced. In my opinion, experienced Diplomacy players tend to resort to threats only when they are cornered, and tend to resort to revenge only when they can no longer make it into the draw. Inexperienced or naive players are sometimes chosen as allies by stronger players due to their apparent weakness (because weak players are easier to backstab later on), but not when those players seem unreliable or thin-skinned.
Very early in the match, Russia got attacked, relentlessly, by every single neighbor (England, Germany, Austria, Turkey). In my opinion, this was probably partly caused by Russia's antagonistic press style. (Strategically speaking, Russia and France were mutually punished as a consequence of their respective natural ally having a terrible early game, so there's more to the story than just Russia's press.)
I think the better diplomatic style for early game is to be as charming as possible. Most players will respond well to a friendly tone, either because they genuinely enjoy the charm or because they perceive a charmer a good potential ally. Before the match started, I resolved to be as charming as possible, and I think that was the right decision. No other player attacked me unprovoked; in fact I was barely attacked at all by anybody.
Germany
The German player played a great early game, but trusted me just a little too much. Germany recognized this problem in our messaging after my backstab. What went wrong for Germany?
I think there were two main problems with how Germany played, one diplomatic and one tactical.
The diplomatic problem: Germany was too eager to please me.
Early in our alliance, I think it was a good strategy for Germany to cooperate with me tightly; if we had not coordinated, we could not have grown as quickly as we did. Germany was also a bigger power than I was, initially. But as I grew in size and the need for us to coordinate so tightly diminished, and as my tactical opportunity to backstab increased, Germany should have taken a stronger stance in our negotiations and made more conservative moves. I might have thought better of backstabbing Germany if I had less to gain from doing so.
Germany's continued agreement to do virtually everything I asked created a huge temptation for me to backstab. I often criticize this style of alliance play as being a "servile ally." A servile ally is too cooperative, which creates a temptation for the other ally to backstab the alliance (because the backstab is so likely to be successful).
The tactical problem: Eventually, I gained such an upper hand (tactically speaking) in a potential war between England and Germany that the German player had little choice but to play the game out as my ally and hope for the best. I have seen this many times in alliances between Germany and England, and I have some thoughts on why this happens and how Germany can avoid it.
I think that England is a good potential neighbor-ally for Germany. The powers share two mutual enemies, don't border each other's home centers, and have expansion paths that progress away from each other. However, Germany needs to stay ahead of England in supply-center count for the alliance to remain stable. This is because England is a corner power and Germany is not. Once France and Russia are down for the count in the North, the only power left on the map that could realistically invade England is Germany — but Germany can still be attacked from the South and East. This means that although England and Germany might appear equally matched if they each control, say, 7 supply centers, most of the time England will have much greater effective power.
Thus, Germany may enter mid-game sandwiched between England and another power (or in the case of our match, an alliance of powers). If England and Germany are equally-sized, then England has a strong ability to prosecute a defensive war against Germany while Germany is in danger of a backdoor attack on Munich and Berlin (precious centers to any Southern powers who want a shot at a solo win). With no realistic way to expand in the North, Germany must move South... opening up the opportunity for an English backstab.
To avoid this problem, Germany needs to have more units than England coming into mid-game. Absolutely, Germany needs 1 more unit than England, but I think 2 is reasonable for Germany to ask for. That will diminish England's ability to both attack Germany and simultaneously defend whatever gains England acquired. The additional units will also allow Germany to put up a defensive rear guard vs. England while expanding into the South/East. A sincere English ally should agree to this plan because Germany can build endless armies without becoming a threat to Great Britain or most of the centers England is likely to conquer as a result of alliance with Germany (e.g., Portugal, Spain, Norway, St. Petersburg).
Austria
Austria should not have trusted Turkey.
I wish I could leave it at that, but I know that other Diplomacy commentators hold with the "anything is possible!" attitude, so I will explain.
An Austrian player should only ally Turkey as a last resort. And, when forced into alliance with Turkey, an Austrian player should be miserly in offering that Turkish ally any trust or assistance. Turkey is by far the most dangerous natural enemy of Austria. Indeed, in my opinion, an Austro-Turkish alliance is an abomination. If you are playing as Austria, any other power is a better ally than Turkey.
Austria faces two critical problems when allied to Turkey:
- You will probably be backstabbed by Turkey. It is easy for Turkey to backstab Austria at almost any juncture, and Turkey needs to conquer all of Austria's home centers (and everything that lies in Austria's natural expansion path) to get a solo win.
- You will never get a solo win if you team up Turkey. It is very difficult for Austria to backstab Turkey because Turkey is the corner-iest of all corner powers. I have played many matches where Austria conquers almost all the Russian and Italian home centers while Turkey has been confined to just the 3 Turkish home centers, and still it is difficult for Austria to surround Turkey with enough units to dig out Turkey's natural defensive position. Once Turkey controls 7 or so supply centers, it can become impossible for Turkey to be safely eliminated by Austria.
Skilled Turkish players know all this, which is why Turkish players will say damn near anything to dupe Austria into alliance. For Turkey, tricking Austria into alliance is a great strategy for achieving a solo win (which came fairly close to happening in our match). Hence, Turkey is not to be trusted.
Italy
All things considered, I think Italy played a decent match. Italy managed to help crush two natural enemies (France and Austria) and make it into the draw. It can be difficult to get a solo win as Italy, and many players simply play for the draw outright when they are assigned to play as Italy. A 3-way draw with Turkey and England (ignoring Austria's 1 supply center) is, in my opinion, a reasonable way to get a good draw as Italy
Italy's share of the draw was not very big, and I think this can be explained, in part, by Italy's passivity. On most turns, Italy sent very minimal press, and seemed to mostly do what other players wanted. My impression is that Italy did little to manipulate the events that unfolded. It's hard for me to keep the entire match in my mind at this moment, but I think Italy did not even do much to solicit the help Italy received in fighting France and Austria. At times, I felt like Italy was just "along for the ride" with me and Turkey (because we, in effect, maintained Italy as a buffer state between us so as to prevent each other from getting a solo win).
The lesson I take away from Italy's play is the value of staying engaged in the match. With more initiative (e.g., asking other players to do things) and more frequent press, I bet Italy could have secured a bigger share of the draw.
Turkey
Early in the match, I assessed Turkey as an experienced player. I think my instinct was proven accurate. From beginning to end, the Turkish player played a strong game.
When I assessed Turkey as an experienced player, I considered this a boon to me as England, because Turkey is far-and-away the most natural ally to England. I think Turkey and I both profited from having a strong player as our natural ally.
For a couple of turns, I was seriously concerned that Turkey was a solo win threat. Turkey created this situation by forging an alliance with Austria and then manipulating Austria into lowering all defenses on the same turn that Turkey attacked. This was a mirror version of the backstab strategy I employed with my ally Germany. I think I would have attempted the same strategy if I had been in Turkey's place.
I was able to turn around Turkey's strong position in endgame (and even converted the threat of a Turkish solo win into my advantage), but that was not easy. I had to think deeply about the board and work hard with my press to change the momentum of the match. Although the disparity in our final scores is quite big, I think Turkey and I played the match at about the same caliber of play.
My share of the draw was bigger because I created a strategic advantage for myself that Turkey did not. Before attacking Germany, I waited until France and Russia (my other two natural enemies) were wiped out. Turkey waited until Russia was eliminated to attack Austria, but Turkey's other natural enemy, Italy, was moderately strong. Italy's strength was a long-term barrier to Turkey's ability to solo win. Italy's strength also minimized Turkey's share of the draw because Italy and Turkey occupy the same side of the stalemate line.
I did not have high hopes for my solo win run, in part because I predicted (correctly) that the Turkish player was experienced enough to do everything necessary to block me. In a press game, an alliance is as strong as its strongest player (because the strongest player can give tactical advice to all the other players). I don't actually know the extent that Turkey contributed to the formation of the stalemate line, but my intuition tells me that Turkey made sure to shut down any chance of my getting a solo win. Turkey's tactical choices were, as far as I can tell, flawless. Turkey also made good guesses against me.
I considered, and still consider, the Turkish player to be a formidable opponent. The Turkish player reinforced my opinion that an early alliance with Austria can be a great strategy for Turkey.
England (that's me!)
I think I played a pretty good game, as reflected in my results. I complimented myself plenty as the match unfolded (it's not just narcissism; maintaining your morale by complimenting and encouraging yourself is a time-honored tactic for athletes and other competitors), so there is no need to do that here.
But what could I have done better?
I could have conquered Berlin. Without a doubt, I could have reached 17 supply centers if I had gambled on taking Berlin. I had several opportunities and wasted them all.
My first missed opportunity was Autumn 1906. As I wrote my my Winter 1906 entry, I could have simultaneously captured Munich from Austria and also convoyed an army into Livonia. This error was not a misjudgment (such as trusting the wrong player or making a wrong guess) but rather an oversight (it didn't occur to me that I might want to convoy to Livonia). What I should have done differently is that I should have pondered what my ideal moves would be if I were to simply assume Austria's reliability (the way I did when I backstabbed Germany). If I had done that mental exercise, I would have realized that I had an opportunity to convoy an army to Livonia. I am confident that I can apply this lesson because I employed this method of thinking correctly when I was working with Germany.
In future games, I need to do a better job of evaluating whether I expect a player to keep all their promises and what the outcome might be if they do. Looking back at this journal entry, though, I see that I wrote a rant about how I was running out of time to think through my turns properly. Reading this now, that sounds like making excuses, which is counter-productive to learning. If it is true that I was running short on the time needed to think through my moves, then maybe what I need to improve is not so much the quality of my thinking but rather the speed of it. There's always something I can do to improve!
As for my missed opportunities to conquer Berlin during endgame (I think I had at least 2 chances), it is difficult to evaluate whether or not I truly made an error. I thought really hard about attacking Berlin (at the risk of losing Munich) and decided against it. Just because, in hindsight, an attack would have worked, that doesn't mean I made the wrong decision. I should not let the resulting fallacy infect my learning process.
Nevertheless, I think I did make an error in judgment. With sum-of-squares scoring, each supply center is worth more than the previous one. If I recall correctly, I estimated that my conquest of Berlin would have been worth about 8 of the 100 points available. If I had been pushed out of Munich and blocked from taking Berlin, I would have ended with a smaller draw. But my final score would have been reduced by far less than a whopping 8 points. Therefore, even if I thought that my chance of successfully conquering Berlin was less than 50/50, a proper risk/reward calculation would have most likely counselled in favor of risking Munich in order to gain Berlin.
I think I made this mistake because I am not used to playing with sum-of-squares scoring (until this tournament, I played only draw-size scoring matches for years). Before the match even started, I made a note in my introduction to this journal that I needed to alter my play-style to account for how sum-of-squares scoring works. Although I believe that I considered the implications of sum-of-squares scoring at many junctures (I wrote, and complained, about sum-of-square scoring in many entries), this is a clear instance of my failure to fully embrace the sum-of-squares frame of mind.
With sum-of-square scoring, each supply center conquered is worth more than the previous one. Risking one center to conquer an additional center is very often a risk worth taking. Perhaps I would have decided against risking Munich even if I had considered what I am saying now. But my failure to even consider this analysis is something I can correct in the future.
I should have forged a better relationship with Austria. Austria chose near-suicidal moves during the Autumn 1904 turn (discussed here on the following Winter turn) because Austria moved almost all units away from Turkey on the same turn that Turkey attacked. I expected Turkey to attack Austria, but I also expected Austria to be able to fight back. Turkey's effective backstab vs. Austria threw a wrench on my solo-win strategy (Austria got blown away, which allowed Italy and Turkey to become consolidated), and for a while I was worried that Turkey would be the ultimate victor.
It is easy, far too easy, to blame others when things don't go your way. Certainly, that is how I felt at during the Winter 1904 turn. I was upset with Austria, and wanted to blame Austria's mistake for my misfortune. Austria's moves were something Austria chose, so it's not my fault right? It's just back luck, right?
No!
Diplomacy is not a game of chance, and neither is life in general. True, some things happen which are entirely outside of your control. But what another Diplomacy player chooses to do is not one of those things. Whenever I have control or influence over something that does not go my way, I strive to take at least 50% of the responsibility for my misfortune. I don't really know that I am 50% responsible, but acting as though I am forces me to think through what I could have done differently to get my desired result. Firsthand experience teaches you nothing if you don't take responsibility for your results.
What could I have done differently? I could have done a better job pulling Austria into my orbit. I needed say something to Austria that would gain Austria's trust. If Austria had come to perceive me as a helpful, sincere, natural ally, Austria might have accepted tactical advice and coaching from me. The Turkish player must have said something, some magic words, to gain the Austrian's trust, and Turkey is natural enemy of Austria! Surely, I, playing as Austria's natural ally England, could have accomplished the same.
Looking over my journal entries, I secretly criticized Austria for not messaging me much... but Austria could have said the same thing about me.
Although I don't know what I might have said differently to Austria, that's my own fault. I didn't put in sufficient effort to get to know Austria. I wrote off Austria as inexperienced or inattentive, and I paid a price for that. My ability to solo win was greatly damaged by my lack of friendship with Austria, my natural ally.
Some things that I don't regret:
- Backstabbing Germany. Although it is true that I was fighting an uphill battle to get a solo win (since I backstabbed Germany without first getting control of Moscow or Tunis, which I said in my journal was a flaw in my ambition), I think the opportunity to backstab Germany was just too good to pass up. There are a lot of ways the game might have played out after I attacked Germany, and a solo win for me was at least possible.
- By the way, Germany and I did follow up with each other after the match. Turns out, we have a lot in common! (Who would have guessed...)
- Trying for a solo win. I don't think different endgame tactics would have helped me reach 18 supply centers. I could have reached 17, but not 18. Turkey, Austria, and Italy did what they needed to do to stop me. But I had no way of knowing, in advance, what the outcome would be. Just because my rivals made no serious mistakes, had no falling out, etc., doesn't mean I made the wrong choice to try.
Assorted Metrics
Total Game Time = 50 Days
This match started on February 18, 2019, and finished on April 8, 2019. That total span of time is 50 days. There were a few days' worth of pauses during the match, but it's hard to account for that time difference since the players are capable of messaging each other (and I am capable of making notes) during the pauses. All in all, I'll estimate that this match lasted a little over 6 weeks of real time. In my experience, that's a relatively short match. Most games I play last 8-10 weeks.
Total Editing Time = 19 Days
Editing and preparing for publication all the notes I kept in real-time took me a little over 2 weeks to complete. I started that process when the match ended, took a week-long vacation in the middle, and finished publishing today. I estimate that as a 19-day process.
Total Word Count = 137,872 Words*
*I am not counting any of my post-game commentary in this figure (this post, or the one about France) because I wrote all these post-game articles at a leisurely pace after the match was finished.
The word count from the in-game messages, my commentary on those messages, and my notes on my planning totals up to around 138,000 words, which is a staggering number. Of course, a portion of the words are actually messages from the other players that I did not write. This is a rough estimate, but I think that my non-messaging notes (at the beginning and end of each entry) make up about one fourth of the total content. I further estimate that of the remaining three fourths, about half is the actual messaging and about half is my commentary. I also estimate that about half of the messages were messages that I wrote. Therefore, this is my estimate of what percentage of the word count was actually produced by me:
(1/4) + (3/4)/2 + (3/4)/4 = 81.25%
Before running that calculation, my estimate was about 75%, which is a little lower. So I think I'll say that I estimate that I personally wrote between 103,000 and 112,000 words for this project. The match lasted 50 days, I think I wrote 2,000-2,200 words per day. I'm really proud of myself for pulling this off while also working a full-time job and competing in another tournament match at the same time.
Here are some bar charts I made:
I don't have a clear idea of how to interpret this data, but these charts were easy to make so I figured I might as well include them. They're interesting to look at. You can observe that I wrote a lot more in the beginning and when I backstabbed Germany compared to the last couple of years.
Thank You for Reading!
This project has been quite a journey for me. You made it all the way to the end, so in a way you've been on this journey together with me. I hope you enjoyed yourself, and most importantly I hope you learned a lot.
If you like my writing (but are done thinking about Diplomacy), try reading one of my posts on philosophy:
I was Austria and found this both interesting and humbling a read. Don’t beat yourself up for not saying the right things to draw me into your orbit. I had decided rather early on that you were the main puppet master in the game and I would not be overly verbose with you. I had also decided early on that E/G was a thing, and with France and Russia getting blown out quickly, I/A/T needed to be a counter thing. I made two serious errors in that and you nailed one. The first was in dealing with Italy, who kept going back and forth in alliances. He started out attacking me weakly, then changed his mind and went west. And once talked into the I/A/T and was about to reap rewards in Iberia, he (from my perspective) inexplicably wheeled about again to come after me. Your journal documents how well you had him in your confidence at a time when I thought he was at war with you. Well done. The one you nailed was that I made it far to easy for Turkey to stab me. My press to you conveyed my thoughts — without Turkey I am dead slowly anyway, so trust I must. The stab was inevitable once E/G stopped being a thing and he could stab without fear of future consequences from an unstoppable north.
— I made it too easy for Turkey to get a big stab.
Hey Creigh!
I was the Italian player Temasek22. And to be fair, I’m pretty sure I did not attack you at all before taking Iberia. And I came after you on Turkey’s lead.
And regarding going back and forth in alliances… my real life friend who dominated School of War using the same approach as Italy coached me, so there it is.
Hey Swordsman/YBB!
Excellent journal and analysis, and more importantly, good game! I saw you as a puppet master since the German stab, but knowing you don’t have the perfect chance and I am somewhat a buffer between the two strongest nations, I played along. I furiously tried grabbing dots at the end, but ending up with 7 SCs (as Italy) in a game with tough opponents is good enough for me.
Temasek22
Wow, what an amazing writeup!! The only thing that I could even imagine being better than this one is a journal of a game where all the players are high-level experts 😛
Amos, you might be interested to learn that I did exactly that! Click here to learn about Media Wars! My Media Wars journal was a very similar project, except that I was in a match where all my rivals were high-level players. The main difference in the project is that I kept a video journal instead of a written one.
Just finished this fascinating series. What a great read! While I’ve gone through quite a few postgame retrospectives, very few were drafted while the game was actually in progress, let alone accompanied by the game’s press! Needless to say, it was both entertaining and insightful, with plenty of personality from the various players involved. We’ve even got a bit of bonus commentary from the other players in the comments!
Speaking of game press, this series really reminded me of Tru Ninja’s “Full Disclosure” game. Given how immersed you are in Diplomacy, you’ve quite likely already come across it, but if not it was a Full Press game hosted by Tru Ninja where the entirety of the game’s messages were compiled and published after the game ended. Unlike this series, there’s no commentary, but the inclusion of every player’s press makes for a very interesting read.
Thank you for the praise! I agree, I think it is a special work. Certainly it was when I first wrote it. I think the goal I was trying to accomplish here was replicated, even surpassed, with Media Wars. I hope you take a look!
I agree, Media Wars was an excellent series! I watched it after reading through this one. Well, one perspective at least. I may well have to go back and add some of the other perspectives to my playlist!