Germany Takes It On the Chin

My stab succeeded. Now I need to reassess the situation diplomatically.

That was quite a turn. Let's review what has transpired:

First, my backstab on Germany was completely successful. Germany moved everything as I predicted, and all my moves succeeded. This sets me up to conquer 3 German supply centers this turn. I explained all this in my last entry when I decided to backstab.
Next, Italy panicked.
- Somehow or other, I sensed Italy's apprehension. I find it difficult to identify the exact reasons as to why (I call this a player's "spider-sense"). Here's my best explanation: Italy telegraphed a lot of inexperience to me before last turn. 1) Italy questioned my London build only after I already built it. That's a symptom of a player who isn't thinking ahead. 2) Italy moved away from Gulf of Lyon on the previous turn, making those gains in Marseilles and Spain indefensible if Germany and I cooperated (something obvious to anybody thinking a turn ahead). If Italy was thinking ahead, Italy would have either decided not to trust me and kept a fleet in Gulf of Lyon, or decided to take me at my word and move away. Instead, Italy first moved away and only afterwards worried about whether I would keep my word.
- In addition to my previous ideas, I am now convinced that Italy is a less-experienced player than myself: Italy moved Venice to Piedmont to defend Marseilles, but if Germany and I had actually attacked Marseilles like turn, Italy's army in Marseilles would have been forced to disband for lack of a retreat location. In other words, Italy's decision to move an army to Piedmont makes no tactical sense; either England attacks Germany and Marseilles is completely defensible, or England and Germany attack Marseilles and force the army at Marseilles to retreat (and since retreat to Piedmont would be impossible, the army has to disband). It seems like Italy is reasoning out what moves to make based on feelings rather than based on tactical play that anticipates what will be the result of the moves (e.g., "I trust England this turn so I move my fleet out of Gulf of Lyon; I don't trust England this turn so I move units into Gulf of Lyon and Piedmont").
- Because Italy seems inexperienced, I am glad I decided to hold onto Italy as my ally instead of Germany. I think that I have a pretty good chance of tricking or out-playing Italy during endgame in order to get the solo win. Italy's moves and messages indicate to me that Italy is not thinking even one turn ahead. If so, I might be able to crush Italy later on with either a well-timed backstab or well-made guesses.
Austria's moves are interesting; Austria's moves show cooperation with Turkey and disunity with Italy. Another reason I am glad that I decided not to attack Italy is that it looks like Italy is about to be attacked by Austria. I am not completely sure just from the look of the board though, because I can't quite make sense of Austria's moves. It looks like Italy expected Ionian Sea to be vacated?
- If it's true that Austria is about to go to war against Italy, or has already done so, that is an incredibly fortuity for me. If I'm right about this, then Italy may back away from me and throw most of the Italian forces at Austria. That would be exactly the kind of chaos I need so that I can come in and grab Tunis in a year or two. If I solo win this match, it will likely be because some combination of Italy, Austria, and Turkey are fighting around Ionian Sea when it make my reach to get Tunis. If Turkey isn't careful, Italy or Austria might even throw me the game.
I am glad Turkey appears to be working with Austria and may not even backstab Austria in 1904. I want Austria and Turkey working together more than Turkey and Italy. It looks like Italy may end up as the odd-one-out. That’s just great. The more it seems like Austria and Turkey are cooperating vs. Italy, the lower Italy's defenses will be against me when it comes time for a backstab.
- In my previous entry, I said that my strategy was to be vague with Turkey about whether or not I would really attack Germany because I did not actually want Turkey to attack Austria. I wonder if my strategy had any effect, or if Turkey never intended to attack Austria?

What Do I Want To Accomplish This Turn?

Wow, I am still enjoying the feeling of freedom that comes from being able to move my units whatever way I want to. However, I shouldn't let that go to my head: I do need to keep the other players on my side to the extent that I can.

I need to keep Turkey on my side.
- Turkey has the ability to harass me by coordinating with Germany to conquer St. Petersburg. It is possible that Germany might offer to support Turkey's Livonia army to St. Petersburg just to spite me, or that Turkey will support Germany's army to St. Petersburg just to retard my attack against Germany.
- If Turkey and Germany work together to take St. Petersburg, I won't be able to do anything to retaliate in the short term. In the long run, St. Petersburg will inevitably be mine (the center is indefensible from the south). But right now I don't have enough extra units to fight for St. Petersburg. I am unable to think of anything I could immediately offer to Turkey (e.g., support somewhere) to deter Turkey from cooperating with Germany. This puts me in a pickle, for sure.
- I simply have to appeal to Turkey's sense of loyalty and desire to have an alliance with me. I should talk to Turkey about common sense, working together, reaching a draw, etc. I should point out the disturbance it will cause to our friendship if Turkey harasses me over just a single supply center that Turkey could never keep anyways. Maybe my appeal will work, and maybe it won't. If Turkey is hell-bent on taking St. Petersburg from me and Germany is willing to help, I can't really stop it.
I need Italy on my side. Having shown Italy that I can be trusted (or at least, that I can be trusted more readily than Austria and maybe even Turkey), it shouldn't be too hard for me to convince Italy to back down. Furthermore, Italy cannot easily attack me because I control Portugal and Mid-Atlantic Ocean (the best Italian attack tactic would probably be to thread an army through my line into Gascony, but I could block that too). I'm not really afraid of Italy successfully attacking me; what I want is for Italy to retreat away from me over the course of a few turns so that later on I can burst into the Mediterranean for the solo win.
I want Austria on my side. Let me define what I mean by having Austria "on my side" -- I want Austria willing and able to go to war against Italy. As long as that situation exists, I have a decent shot at a solo win. Since Austria messages me so rarely, I'm not really sure what I can do to accomplish this.
Even though I just backstabbed Germany...I want Germany on my side if at all possible. After getting backstabbed, some players swear revenge and do everything they can to make you miserable (Russia tried something like that this game vs. Germany). But some players suck it up and try to limp into a draw with a smaller number of centers. If Germany takes the latter path, it is possible that we could continue to work together in some measure.
- If I get Germany to cooperate with me again, most likely what I'll do is use Germany's cooperation to set up a second backstab. I can't see what my cooperating with Germany would do for me strategically. If I stop my attack on Germany so that I can go fight Italy, that would probably give away my intention to eventually solo win. My rivals would react accordingly and form a stalemate line through Tunis, Munich or both. Conversely, I think that if I respect my border with Italy for several turns, Italy will move away from me. I think that the longer I wait to attack Italy, the more chance there will be of a war in the east. Thus, for the same reasons I decided to backstab Germany in the first place, I think I am better off focusing first on acquiring Munich and later going after Tunis.
- So even if Germany is willing to cooperate with me, I'll most likely use Germany's cooperation as a way to get to Munich faster. I wouldn't necessarily stab Germany immediately, but next turn or the one after, I would stab Germany again. Almost every single German center is in the way of my path to Munich. Germany simply has to be destroyed if I am going to solo win.
- I need Munich and Tunis to solo win, but because I'm not that strong yet (I could end this year with at most 11 units), I can't fight effectively for both centers at the same time.

Tactically, I mostly already planned out what I need to do last turn. I'll talk to the other players and see if anything needs to be adjusted, but I have a pretty good idea already of how ensure that I capture Paris, Sweden and Holland with minimal risk to my control of Belgium and St. Petersburg.

Secret Thoughts re: Global #1

Apparently, Russia's spite knows no temporal limits. I rarely comment on an unfinished game after I am eliminated. I wish webDiplomacy prohibited eliminated players from sending messages before the conclusion of the match.

My message about being delayed is true. I was very busy travelling for my job. When playing a match of online Diplomacy, it is important to tell the other players if you're going to be late in responding to their messages; if you take too long to respond and don't give a reason why, they might start thinking that you're too busy conspiring with other players or that you decided to give up sending messages because you're planning to attack.

Messages with Germany #1

Aw. That’s too bad. Well the desire to meet for a drink remains.

It’s my own fault, I know. I left myself too vulnerable to a stab. I don’t know how I could be so naive.

I wonder if there’s anything I can do to change your mind?

Ah, never mind. You probably did make the right play. You get half the board now, and you wait for I/A/T to turn on one another.

I’m reminded of when I was in 9th grade and a girl broke my heart for the first time, haha. It came as a complete shock to me despite being readily foreseeable. And it hurt terribly despite the big wide future I had ahead of me.

You’ll have to forgive me for making things too easy for you. If you see any utility in backing off from me, though, please let me know. I’m prepared to write up an argument in favor of it if you indicate that you’re receptive at all to the idea. I just hope you’d do me the favor of letting me know if the effort would be pointless.

And setting aside the game, could you help me out and let me know if you actually liked me? I’d hate to think that I come across as a jackass and that you were just tolerating me for as long as you could to set up the stab. I know it’s just a game but I’m letting this get under my skin to an embarrassing degree.

It’s kind of laughable how vulnerable Italy remains to you. You’ve got a damned good shot at a solo.

My friend, everything I said regarding the fun of our alliance was absolutely true. i think you will be delighted to find out more about me and that we will have opportunities to play again in the future. The friendship is genuine, which is why I am sure I have seeemd to credible.

It’s not easy to get stabbed; I know how it is. My decision did not come easy either, and I think that if this were not a tournament, or not sum-of-squares scoring, I would not have done so. I’ll write you more fully after the match, as I kept notes about what I was thinking and can show them to you later.

I have an all-day meeting today and then I have to drive for 4 hours home, so if you would do me a professional courtesy and run out the retreats turn that would be a bug personal favor to me.

Later today, I will write you a long message reviewing all the points you made and give you a satisfactory response. We still have a long game ahead of us and I’ll continue messaging with you until the end of the game, and thereafter as well.

You’re welcome to write me any proposal you can think of, and I’ll take it seriously as always.

Alright so here I am putting my back into this game again. Reviewing the messages, I actually think I covered what I had to say pretty well. Your analysis of the strategic situation is quite canny and, as usually, I find myself agreeing with you.

And as I said, we will still hang out in one way or another after this match. I pal around a lot with other Diplomacy players, including ones I’ve met online.

I’m open to your proposals. What’s your goal going forward? Do you want to try to stick around with as many centers as possible and hope that I force everyone else into a draw that includes you by attempting a solo win later? Or something else?

Secret Thoughts re: Germany #1

Germany's post-stab message to me is thoughtful and introspective. Germany's reaction is about as good as I could possibly hope to see after I stabbed someone; it's still friendly and Germany is still looking for some way that we might reach a deal.

In response, I affirmed that everything I said about wanting to be friends was true (and it is true). There's not much else to do but see if we can work something out or not.

Although initially I am pleased with Germany taking the breakup well, I think that it will be difficult or impossible for me to get much out of Germany.

Because the tournament is using sum-of-squares scoring, Germany will probably not put much effort into the match after taking such a hard hit. Even if Germany does put in effort, Germany will most likely spend that effort talking with the other powers.
It's really hard to see what Germany and I could do to work together. I'm open to ideas but I don't have many at the moment myself.
Once Germany has had a day to internalize the truth that we're not allies anymore, Germany may grow cold and frustrated with me. If I'm not careful, Germany may decide to seek revenge on me.

Messages with Turkey #1

That is certainly one way to pull off a stab!

Indeed my friend, indeed. From the look of the map, it seems that every player other than me was thinking (or hoping) that I might not stab Germany, haha.

Anyways, well-played turn for you as well. It seems like you set Austria against Italy (?), which, if so, is obviously good for you whether you stab Austria or not.

For your knowledge, I don’t particularly care if you attack Italy, Austria, or both. I am going to spend all my effort finishing off Germany (I try not to let players who I have stabbed linger too long, as you may have noticed with France and Russia). Finishing off Germany will likely take me 2-3 years and all of my resources. Consequently, there’s nothing I’m willing or able to do against you. And therefore, I’m not going to bother pretending I can tell you what to do.

I only ask that we come to an understanding about St. Petersburg. I can defend STP from the German army with my Norway fleet, but I recognize that I can’t protect STP if you use Livonia to support Germany’s army into STP.

As I am sure you know from experience, STP will inevitably become mine during endgame, no matter who controls it at the end of 1904. So I would interpret your support of Germany into STP (or moving there yourself with Germany’s support, which seems a little outlandish) as harassing me just for the sake of doing so, which is something I cannot tolerate from an ally. I am sure you would have the same view if you were in my position.

Ideally, for me, I’d like you to agree to allow me to bounce out Germany. I don’t want to lose a center if I can help it, especially to Germany who I just backstabbed.

I kept my army out of STP as I promised you, and indeed convoyed my army completely out of the way. I also did not attack Italy despite my clear opportunity to do so. I hope that’s a decent show of my commitment to our alliance.

I am hoping that our shared understanding of the long-term prospects for our alliance will be enough for you to want to leave me well enough alone. However, if there’s something specific I can do for you this turn to gain your non-interference with STP, please let me know.

It’s been a great game so far working with you and I expect that to continue until the very last turn. Natural allies all the way.

Secret Thoughts re: Turkey #1

I put a decent amount of editing effort into my message to Turkey before I sent it. I knew that I wanted to make a slightly tense point to Turkey about how I don't want Turkey to cooperate with Germany to take St. Petersburg away from me. However, I wanted to make that point in the nicest way possible. One way to get a tough point across to someone without offending that person is to sandwich that point between other statements of a nicer tone.

Let me explain why I view my point about not cooperating with Germany as potentially irritating or "tense" towards Turkey. Turkey hasn't done anything to deserve a hostile or paranoid message about backstabbing me. I didn't like it last turn when Italy said something similar to me about my fleet build in London. Turkey is even more innocent that I was. Turkey hasn't done anything to make me think that Turkey will harass/stab me or cooperate with Germany, and I haven't read anything in my press to make me think otherwise. I simply see that it is possible for Turkey and Germany to cooperate and deprive me of St. Petersburg, and I'm exercising precaution.

So in order to prevent my message from coming across as paranoid or accusative, I re-arranged my points so that I start off saying some nice and complimentary things to Turkey about our ability to work together. Then, after going over the specifics of how and why I don't want Turkey working with Germany to take St. Petersburg from me, I switched back to friendly remarks.

Thus, by putting the paranoid part of the message (which is actually the one I wrote out first) between the friendly parts of the message, I hope to reduce the rudeness of my paranoid expressions. I also think that if Turkey feels good about me and my cooperation, Turkey won't want to risk long-term damage to our relationship to inflict some short-term harassment.

I'm hoping that Turkey understands the rule-of-thumb that betraying the trust of an ally over one single supply center is a frivolous way to use up valuable trust (especially here, where I will absolutely regain St. Petersburg in endgame since it cannot be held from the south). I made sure to reference my good faith in keeping alliance with Turkey thus far; some players feel that they need to respond in kind to loyalty.

By the way, I considered telling Turkey that if Turkey is thinking about supporting Germany's army into St. Petersburg, then I'd rather have Turkey's army there than Germany's. I was thinking that if I said such a remark, I could lure Turkey into confessing a hidden plan to support Germany and/or agreeing to move Livonia to St. Petersburg with my support (which I might or might not actually give). However, I decided against bringing this up. Why? Negotiation! Starting a negotiation by portraying yourself as having a tougher stance than you really have is a classic negotiation technique. Perhaps Turkey will simply agree to not help Germany, and Turkey will never be wise to how I could have been bargained into offering a center to Turkey.

One other thing about my big message to Turkey: I gave Turkey a blank check on who to attack (or not attack) and pointed out the truth that there's nothing I can do to stop Turkey anyways. I'm hoping that by saying I don't care who Turkey attacks, Turkey will decide to work with Austria and against Italy, despite promising me earlier to do the opposite. I don't think I can somehow persuade Turkey to attack Italy, but I think making it clear that I don't care about Turkey keeping that promise might tempt Turkey into attacking Italy instead of (or in addition to) Austria, which could create the situation I need to get a solo win.

Messages with Turkey #2

Sorry for the late reply - too many things going on. You will only receive a short reply this turn.

Germany won't be receiving any help from me, not now, not at a later turn. There is a lot of talk about you being very close to having a reasonable chance at a solo but if Italy and I can quickly eliminate Austria then we ought to be able to stop you.

I will remove Germany from Moscow so you will need to deal with the possible retreat.

As I apologize for this brief message I thank you for your verbose one.

Understood. Your brief message is very efficient. I have no further questions. I think we understand each other on all points.

Haha, I guess I like having my ego stoked about my capacity to get a solo win even though I will have only 10 or 11 SCs after this turn. I take it as a compliment.

Don't worry, my friend. I don't have any centers across the stalemate line (or even a significant position ON the stalemate line), so in my view a solo win attempt is not in the cards for me. You have more than enough opportunity to clean up the Austrian centers while I finish off Germany. I backstabbed Germany so that I have a chance of reaching the draw with the most SCs; if I wanted to have a solo win opportunity, I probably should have waited until Germany and I advanced much further along.

Secret Thoughts re: Turkey #2

Ultimately, Turkey promised to not support Germany's army to St. Petersburg, and even warned me that I definitely need to cover St. Petersburg with Norway (because when Germany's army is dislodged from Moscow, that army will be able to retreat to St. Petersburg if I don't order Norway to move to St. Petersburg first). In my opinion, this is a highly credible promise. What could Turkey possibly gain by lying to me about this? In other words, if Turkey really is going to support Germany to St. Petersburg, Turkey would be better off just telling me in advance so that the strain on our relationship would be reduced. There's no tactical or strategic benefit to Turkey in supporting Germany's army by surprise (at least that I can think of). Because Turkey seems like a serious and experienced player, I think Turkey understands this situation too and therefore will tell me the truth (whether or not the truth is what I want to hear).

This is a good example of how it is valuable to evaluate the experience level and skill of the other anonymous players. I can imagine a less-experienced player employing a simplistic rule like "attacks should never be announced in advance." But because I read Turkey as experienced, I think Turkey understands that lying to me about St. Petersburg would be pointless.

Finally, Turkey brought up the prospect of my solo win. Even though the prospect of a solo win has consumed my brain since Spring 1901, I have to deny that this is what I'm trying to do. I simply have to. Conceding that I'm attempting a solo win will almost certainly prevent war between Italy, Austria and/or Turkey.

My points about why I am not, and never was, planning on a solo win are rather plausible. They're blatant lies, but plausible nonetheless. Please note how I tried to act funny about the situation, flattered even by the suggestion that I could solo win, rather than angry or frustrated. Anger and frustration are the emotions expressed by a person who has been caught in a lie. Eye-rolling and humor are the emotions expressed by a person falsely accused.

Messages with Italy #1

I've seen the moves, thanks for sticking to your word.

On the other hand, the Austrians have betrayed me, I'll have to move back.

You are very welcome 🙂

Yes, it seems you made a mistake in trusting the Austrian instead of me 🙁 but you were understandably worried.

I think we will have a good alliance going forward. You supported my fleet into Portugal when it really mattered, and I kept my word to you about attacking Germany when that really mattered. We have established trust.

In addition to that, I have my hands full fighting Germany and you have to fight off the Austrian, so we have better things to do than fight each other.

Is there anything I can do for you? Would you like tactical advice?

Secret Thoughts re: Italy #1

I wrote a really long message to Italy, and then pared it down to the much simpler one you see here. I am trying to stick with my diplomatic strategy of "mirroring" by responding to Italy's short-but-sweet messages in kind. My message is still kind of lengthy...

The revelation that Italy consider's Austria to be a backstabber is incredible. If true, I am sure Italy will turn around all those units immediately, which is exactly what I want!

I said everything I can think of to get Italy on my side and to play on Italy's emotions. I rubbed it in Italy's face that Italy should have trusted me instead of Austria, but in a tone of disappointed sympathy rather than "I told you so." If I intensify Italy's embarrassment at having made the wrong moves last turn, Italy might over-correct and trust me too much on a later turn (having been embarrassed once already for failing to trust me), which is exactly the kind of mistake I need Italy to make if I am to solo win.

Other than that, I am trying to emphasize how good it will be for me and Italy to be allied in the simplest, shortest words I can muster. I also want to give Italy the idea that I would support Italy's moves and give tactical advice (like I was doing for Germany the whole game) so as to open the door to manipulating Italy more directly. However, I won't dispense advice to players who aren't receptive to that.

Messages with Italy #2

Here is my only request from you this turn: please do not move your army to Gascony or support the German army to Gascony.

I can promise to stay out of Gascony for the rest of the game if you can too (so long as I don’t have to chase any armies out of it). Can you agree to that?

Yes, I'll be able to agree to a Gascony dmz between both of us. Why such a wierd request though?

Excellent! Thank you
I guess I don’t see the request as weird? I just wanted to make my expectations clear. The way I see it, we work together, than neither one of us has any business having a unit it Gascony.

But since you asked, I am considering bouncing MAO and Paris off of each other at Gascony to stop Germany from moving there.

I also don’t want to alarm you with anything unexpected, since clearly I unnessarily worries you last turn by not telling you about my fleet build.

Is there anything specific you’re expecting from me? Just want to make sure

Also, are you willing tell me what exactly went down with Austria?

Secret Thoughts re: Italy #2

I sent Italy my message about cooperating about a day ago, but didn't receive a response. On webDiplomacy, the retreats phase gets as much time as any other turn (36 hours), so it's actually been almost a full turn since Italy and last talked (to maintain the readability of this journal, I have been collapsing together the messages sent during the retreats phase and subsequent turn).

I decided to send Italy a small proposal. If Italy were a talkative player, I would probably try to make a more all-encompassing agreement and try to give Italy tactical advice about where to move each unit. But since Italy sends me only short, simple messages, I am sending Italy a short, simple offer: if you stay out of Gascony, I will too.

My offer is reasonable; we both have better things to do than move to Gascony, and one of us moving an army to Gascony would almost certainly be a precursor to any war between us. It's reasonable and typical for allies to establish such locations as "no go" areas (usually referred to as "DMZs" for "De-Militarized Zones"). What I'm trying to do right now is discourage Italy from moving to Gascony while I consolidate my gains vs. Germany.

Italy's response -- agreeing to a DMZ but asking why -- is baffling to me and therefore alarming. I don't at all think it's a weird request, but if Italy perceives my request as weird, Italy might think I'm planning to attack (I'm not, not right now at least). I will violate this DMZ if I think I can get a solo win by doing so, but otherwise I won't.

I threw in the idea that I might self-bounce at Gascony using my fleet and army (something I have been considering since the start of the turn) so as to deter Italy from trying to move there just to see what happens. I want to make Italy think that an Italian move into Gascony will fail without actually promising to self-bounce.

I decided to try to keep being nice and change the topic.

Messages with Austria #1

Well, Germany and I have been wondering which of use would get dumped by alliance first. We were both sure it would be me.....

Looking at your moves, Italy’s moves, Turkey’s moves, and Germany’s moves, it seems to me that every single player (other than me) expected (or hoped) that I would not attack Germany this turn. So you’re in good company.

I am genuinely interested in alliance with you and have been since the beginning (we are natural allies, after all), but we’ve never gotten anywhere with our press. Do you still want to do your own thing or is there something I can help you with?

Well, when it was Britain/Germany with others still alive, I talked Italy and Turley into a southern 3-some. They haven't yet broken faith, and I won't be the first to do so. But I'm happy to draw with 4, and if one of them does go rogue, I'll be your happy puppet.

Understood. Thanks for explaining.

Just so you’re aware, I’ve had an understanding for quite some time that either Italy or Turkey or both would be tempted to attack you as soon as I showed that I really would attack Germany. This could be the time to at least defend yourself.

And as I understand it, Italy expected different moves from you last turn. Is that true?

So Germany has told me for ages. I am too far into this to go back now, I only live if one of them holds faith.

Secret Thoughts re: Austria #1

Austria reached out to me for the first time in a while, but it's just to say a useless post hoc observation. Turkey has sent me a few like this too. The most charitable interpretation I can make of Austria's message is that Austria is trying to open up a conversation. So I'm responding to Austria as if that is Austria's goal. I'm reminding Austria of my (sincere) desire to help Austria out.

I honestly can't say what Austria is trying to accomplish with this conversation. Austria telling me that Austria wants a 4-way draw might be important, but for the life of me I can't see why I, England, would be advantaged in agreeing to a 4-way draw (and therefore, I don't understand what Austria might hope to gain in informing me of this Austrian goal). Austria saying "I'll be your happy puppet" if Italy or Turkey plays for a 3-way draw gives me a huge incentive to pressure Italy and Turkey into attacking Austria (which is manifestly contrary to Austria's interest). Austria is promising to throw me the solo win if Italy or Turkey attacks -- why would I agree to a 4-way draw when a solo win is still in the cards? I just don't get Austria's thinking here.

These baffling messages give me a strong impression that Austria is inexperienced. Austria didn't send me very many messages, and then when Austria finally did send me messages, those messages have (unintentionally) increased my motivation to conspire against Austria. Sheesh.

Messages with Italy #3

Your stab was so unexpected that he (probably everyone else too) thought I was losing Spain and Marseilles and had to stab him to survive/stay relevant.

What do you think of the four-way the Austrians propose in Global chat?

That size of the draw doesn’t matter to me because this is sum-of-squares scoring. What matters to me is how many centers I can get before the game ends.

So here, if you, Austria and Turkey continue to work together, I expect that you’ll try to help Austria get Munich and Berlin, or maybe you and Austria will split those. It also means that you might be baited by Austria and Turkey into throwing everything you have against me just to hope to take 1 more center from me (such as Portugal).

Assuming you aren’t backstabbed, that means you’ll end the match, most likely, with the 6 centers you have or maybe 1 more. It also possible that “we will help you get X center” is a ruse to get you to lower your defense against Austria and Turkey (Austria already demonstrated a willingness to stab you as soon as you moved against me, and we aren’t even close to endgame) so that they can backstab. Once Austria and Turkey have control of Munich or Berlin and know I can’t solo win, they won’t need you anymore.

So I’m my mind, it is not important to me that Austria be eliminated per se because none of Austria’s centers are ones I will ever get. HOWEVER, I expected you and Turkey to be attacking Austria this year or the next; Turkey explicitly promised to attack Austria as soon as I stabbed Germany. And if you and Turkey are working with Austria instead of attacking, here are a bunch of bad things (for me) that I think will happen:

1) I’ll have no chance at taking Munich and/or Berlin, limiting my final score to 13 or less (not that you care about this but it is a reason for me to object to drawing with Austria)

2) You (Italy) will have nothing to do for 2-3 years and seem to be easily lured into lowering your defenses. Where are you going to send your units? Austria is about to get a build, and also can take Tunis from you this turn because you left it indefensible. I suspect that Austria, Turkey, or both will stab you, and the ultimate result of that will be a possible Turkish solo win, something I really want to avoid. (remember that I’ve told you that I powered you up and never attacked you because I want you to be able to defend against Turkey.) If you send your units forwards me, most likely I will easily defend my position and you will instead be easily backstabbed just like Germany just was. That’s something I want to avoid.

So like, oof, I’m trying to do everything I can to deter you from sending units my way (including making my defensive position strong so that you wouldn’t be able to take my centers), but talking of a draw with Austria (who stabbed you over essentially sheer paranoia) undermines this long-term goal I’ve been working on (keep you strong and unassailable by Turkey).

And by comparison, if you were to attack Austria, you could get 3 or more SCs with relative ease, and end the game with a much higher score than you have now without much risk.

I know that’s a really long message but this seems like a critical moment so I’m putting in the hard work to keep our alliance together the way I want it. I’ll understand if you reject my ideas. I’m not saying that my way of thinking is the only way to think about the situation. I just want to make a case as to why we can still work together for mutual benefit.

Secret Thoughts re: Italy #3

Curses, Austria seems to have talked Italy into thinking that Austria's betrayal wasn't really a backstab or shouldn't be considered as such. Crap, crap, crap. I don't like this development because 1) I think Austria is being honest and really won't attack Italy, which is bad for me; and 2) I think Italy will believe Austria, which means Italy won't back off from my position.

Obviously, I have this huge self-interest in keeping the other side of the board divided so that I can end the game with a bigger share of the centers and be in position to attempt a solo win. But that does not mean my interest in this regard is in conflict with Italy's.

I decided to make my case to Italy as to why a 3-way draw is better for Italy (and me) than a 4-way draw with Austria. Everything I've said to Italy as part of this plea is fairly sincere and reasonable. I really do think Italy is better off attacking Austria, and I really do think that Austria and/or Turkey will eventually backstab Italy if Italy throws more units at me. The only thing misleading about my messages is that I've omitted my ambition to play for a solo win. Otherwise, I think this is a reasonable case for a 3-way draw.

Let me explain myself another way: I'm saying everything I can call to mind that might motivate Italy to stand down from our border and instead worry about Austria and Turkey. In order to do that, I have to think about the match from Italy's perspective and where Italy's interest lies. So the points I have made to Italy are the things that would be on my mind if I were in Italy's position. It's hard for me to describe such points as either "sincere" or "insincere" since I am making accurate, truthful points about Italy's strategic and tactical situation, but my underlying motivation is completely cynical and I just want to manipulate Italy into fighting someone else. In my opinion, this kind of messaging is extremely effective and, as you can tell from reading the other parts of this journal, I constantly employ this method. Possibly the most powerful way to manipulate someone with a message is to state true things about that person's self-interest that coincide with your own desire for how that person should act.

I need to keep working on breaking up that eastern alliance. If Italy, Austria, and Turkey refuse to fight each other, a solo will never be possible for me. But all I can do is try to persuade them to fight.

Messages with Italy #4

Wow, that's really an extremely long message!

To be honest, I've been trying to coordinate with Turkey to stab Austria for some time. But unfortunately still couldn't find the chance.

It is inevitable for us to do this, it's the Turks and my fastest way to gain some quick SCs and match your SC count after you take over what's left of Germany.

Let's continue working together for mutual benefit

Understood. Thank you for reading. I'm glad we're on the same page.

A tip from me to you: Protect yourself from Austria to the extent possible. If Austria stabs you this turn, Austria will take Tunis. If Austria ends up stronger than you, Turkey may have to play to a draw with Austria instead.

Secret Thoughts re: Italy #4

Yikes, I think it took it too far with my long message to Italy. I think Italy very politely informed me that my message was just too long. I need to reel it back.

I'm glad Italy informed me that Italy and Turkey are conspiring to attack Austria. I've sort of known or suspected that they were doing this already, but Italy affirming that this is the plan increases the chances that it will really happen.

Italy didn't say whether or not this turn is the turn they're going to attack, just that such an attack is inevitable. I wonder if Italy and Turkey haven't been able to get their act together and coordinate, or if Austria is doing something behind that scenes that is making their attack plans difficult to finalize?

Messages with Austria #2

Mmm I think you don’t have complete faith in them. Last move you covered your centers from a possible Italian attack, and it looks like Italy expected you to vacate ION and you didn’t. Or am I reading that wrong? Help me out 🙂

I’ve been trying to help you, indirectly, quite a bit. For example, last turn Turkey promised to attack you if I would attack Germany — so I didn’t promise to attack Germany, (even though I knew I was going to) in order to deter Turkey from making an attack. Another: several years ago, I promised to support Italy into French centers on the condition that Italy not attack you.

So I’ve been trying to help you as my natural ally even though we haven’t talked much.

If you could get even a little momentum going with a build this turn, you could eventually expand against one of them (probably Italy since Turkey is far too powerful at this point). I think that if you don’t try to get some momentum, it will be too easy to squeeze you out during endgame.

Specifically, Italy can't defend Tunis from you this turn, so it's yours for the taking. And you should be able to keep Warsaw so long as Turkey doesn't betray you. That means you could end the turn with 2 builds and be in position to take more Italian centers in the future.

If you reach 7 or 8 centers, you will be too strong to be eliminated. Turkey won't be able to attack you because you would be able to throw the game to me. But if you remain at just 6 centers, squeezed between an Italy of equal size and a Turkey of far greater size, then they should be willing to attack you during endgame because you won't have enough centers to throw me the game before you're eliminated.

Something to think about.

Secret Thoughts re: Austria #2

I'm still trying to stir up tension between Austria and Italy while seeming like I have Austria's best interest at heart. I reminded Austria of my helpful efforts in the past. I pointed out the problems Austria is having interacting with Italy, and the advantage Austria might get by attacking Italy.

What I am saying about Austria getting squeezed out during endgame is reasonable and what I believe will really happen. Obviously it's in my interest to stir up trouble between the triple alliance in the south, but I also think that it is truly in Austria's interests to become much stronger before the match winds down.

The most important thing I want Austria to have on the mind is the opportunity to swipe Tunis. Because of how Italy moved last turn, Austria can just sail into Tunis and take it. Italy has no other opportunity this turn to take a supply center, so consequently Italy will have to disband a unit if Austria seizes Tunis.

I do in fact think it is in Austria's best interest to seize Tunis (like I said, the stronger Austria becomes, the better for Austria when we approach endgame), but it is also very much in my interest for Austria to do so. If Austria can be convinced to nab Tunis, Italy will probably go berserk and withdraw from the west. I have said this a few times in this journal already, but I do not think I can solo win without a war starting between Italy and Austria. As Italy and Austria struggle, I could push Italy out of Spain and Marseilles (to Austria's delight, most likely), and then launch everything I have at Tunis while the two of them are still fighting. That seems to me like my best chance for a solo win.

Messages with Austria #3

You are correct that I have more faith in Turkey than Italy. After all, Italy attacked me at first and then got talked into doing something else. Heck, if you and Turkey wanted to end with a 3-way, I'm half hoping its Italy that goes rather than me. He is much easier for you to get to.

Turkey and I have shared an understanding since maybe 1901 or 1902 (I can't remember exactly when) that we will play for a 3-way draw together. Who, precisely, we've been considering the best 3rd partner for that draw has changed at Turkey's insistence.

Originally, Turkey wanted the draw partners to be England/Germany/Turkey and I (obviously) cooperated with that plan. I set up my units so that Germany and I could blast Italy out of Spain and Marseilles last turn (everyone saw that I was able to do this) and play out the E/G/T draw.

But Turkey reneged on our plan and told me that I should play for an England/Italy/Turkey draw. Turkey refused to cooperate with me any further unless I attacked Germany and not Italy. Italy and Germany had both been decent allies to me, and I had to attack one of them to keep the match going, so I honored Turkey's strongly-urged preference (dare I call it, "demand?") that I attack Germany instead of Italy.

To be clear: at no point in this game has Turkey ever approached me about an England/Austria/Turkey draw. Turkey is either lying to me about planning to attack you as soon as it is convenient, or Turkey is lying to you about planning to keep you in the draw. Turkey has a pretty big motivation to lie to you, and very little reason to lie to me.

Up until now I have tried to communicate this kind of information to you through hints and subtlety, and I also have not sent you big messages because we weren't talking much. But this turn might be decisive to the ultimate outcome of the match, so I'm sharing much more with you than I have before.

Based on this information that I know (which I just explained to you), I think that the match will end in a 3-way draw with me, Turkey, and one other power. There is no way that the other power will be Germany, so it has to be either you or Italy.

I agree with your last message, and I think we have a shared interest in making you that 3rd power (contrary to Turkey's messages to me). Here's what I think:
1) If we eventually eliminate Italy, I will get +2 supply centers in the end, boosting my tournament score (since this is sum-of-squares scoring). If you are eliminated, I won't get anything from it.
2) If you are strong, a solo win is out of the question for Turkey. If Turkey gets a lot of centers from eliminating you, Turkey could turn on Italy and attempt a solo win pretty easily. Seen it a million times. I don't want that.
3) I would much rather have your help vs. Germany than Italy's. If Italy helps me vs. Germany, Italy could eventually turn on me and try to take some the centers I gain (even if Italy and I were to share in the draw, Italy could take more of that draw from me, which I don't want). But if you and I cooperate with Germany, the partition is rather clear: Munich and/or Berlin to you, and that's that. I don't think you could snipe any of my centers later on.

I have emphasized so much why your well-being is in my best interest because I want you to believe that my offer of alliance and my tactical advice is sincere. If I can convince you that I'm here to help, you won't think I'm just trying to trick you into making a bad move or something.

I honestly think that Turkey is contemplating a E/I/T draw and/or a solo win attempt if possible. Therefore, I urge you to take your fate into your own hands -- don't depend on mercy from Italy and/or Turkey -- and conclude this year as strong as possible. The more centers you have, the more pressure Turkey will face to agree that you should be the one in the draw instead of Italy.

I simply cannot afford to attack Italy alone and won't be doing so. But if you and/or Turkey can agree to make a move against Italy, I will back you up. If you weaken Italy even a little bit, Italy's defensive position will completely collapse. Specifically, if you take Tunis this turn, Italy goes down to 5 centers. Then next year, I will easily push Italy out of Spain and Marseilles, bringing Italy down to just 3 (or even 2 if you take Venice), and in 3 short years Italy will be eliminated.

If you and I enact a plan to bring down Italy and Germany together, you could end the match with a big number of centers -- some combination of the 5 you have, plus Warsaw, Munich, Berlin, all Italian home centers and Tunis. You might have to give something up to Turkey to keep things balanced, but I think you would end the game with around 9 or 10 SCs. That's something I can realistically offer to help you do, and it is in my interest to see that come true.

Think about it my friend.

Secret Thoughts re: Austria #3

Finally, a chink in the armor: Austria admits to being concerned about Italy, and maybe even resentful, because Italy seems unreliable compared to Turkey. And now Austria brings up an idea (without my suggestion!) that there should be a 3-way draw between England, Austria, and Turkey. This is something I can work with.

So I decided to finally cut loose and try to work my magic on Austria with a long message. Maybe Austria will resent receiving such a long message; Austria never sent me a long one. Austria might consider the message patronizing, confusing, time-consuming, etc. Some people I've played with have flat-out told me that the long messages are overwhelming and annoying and it turns them against me. However, more often the result is that the recipient is delighted that someone is taking up so much interest in them (indeed, in a press game I played before this tournament, a vanquished player told me that he loved getting showered by my messages, even though I backstabbed and eliminated him all the while). To soften my blow (so to speak), I included an explanation as to why I'm suddenly sending a long message.

I decided to send Austria a summary of what has diplomatically transpired this game in order to alarm Austria. Austria has send so many messages about "having faith" in Italy and Turkey, and it's because those messages seem sincere that I consider them reckless. I have to do my best to put it into Austria's mind that the danger from Turkey is real (this is my sincere opinion). Although my summary of what happened to my alliance with Germany greatly simplifies the situation (and places almost all the responsibility on Turkey, which is misleading), that summary is a plausible explanation for what as transpired so far (since my summary is at least "inspired by the true story" of what happened). I'm trying to emphasize Turkey's role in board-wide diplomacy so that I can paint Turkey as powerful and duplicitous. I think that is in fact the correct way to understand the Turkish player; I simply want Austria to share that assessment. As Pablo Picasso supposedly said "Art is the lie that enables us to realize the truth."

I think my most powerful point in the whole message is my statement that Turkey has no incentive to lie to me and a huge incentive to lie to Austria. That is a true statement, and might be persuasive to Austria.

I consider it contrary to my interest for there to be a 4-way draw, but I also don't believe that there will be one. I believe Turkey will seek a 3-way draw as originally promised. So although a 4-way draw would not be what I want, I think I should just assume that a 4-way draw won't happen.

With that in mind, I consider seeking a draw with Austria to be far more likely to result in my getting a solo win or a big score in the end. Therefore, I have been able to come up with lots of sincere points about how Austria won't really get into a 4-way draw (that's what I honestly believe), that I would like to help Austria get into the draw (I honestly prefer Austria to Italy, for strategic reasons), and how Austria can ensure a place in the draw (I seriously think Austria should backstab Italy while it's still possible).

Obviously, everything I'm trying to get out of Austria would facilitate my chances of a solo win. But that does not mean I'm being insincere here. I genuinely think that Austria's best chance at getting into the draw or getting a good draw score coincide with the things that increase my chances of a solo win. Such is the nature of natural allies.

Because I read Austria as an inexperienced player, I have a feeling that Austria doesn't recognize the importance of natural alliances (the way Turkey clearly does). Inexperienced players often treat distant powers as irrelevant; the inexperienced players focus only their neighbors -- specifically, whether their neighbors will attack them or help them take centers. So because I can neither help Austria take a center nor attack Austria, I think that Austria has mostly ignored me. That's unfortunate; it is precisely because we cannot attack each other that we are natural allies.

I am hoping that by pointing out why it is in my personal interest to help Austria (and by pointing out why I am pointing that out), I will increase the chances of Austria coming around to my way of seeing things. It's all about credibility. Credibility is essential to achieving a solo win.

Messages with Austria #4

I'm in theoretically -- not in a position to take a center from Italy at the moment though so I'm not sure what your plan looks like tactically. This season I'm defending Germany's effort to come back before disbands, then I hopefully get a build. So tell me what to do to get your blessing?

In principle, I consider us allies. You have my blessing no matter what, even if you don't do as I advise. I consider you inherently my ally just from the fact that you are playing as Austria and I am playing as England. Let's start messaging more often so that we can work out ways to coordinate.

I'm afraid I don't understand two points in your message and I want to follow up:

1) You say that you're "not in a position to take a center from Italy", but literally you have a position in Ionian Sea that you can use to take a center from Italy (Tunis). I take this to mean that you're unwilling to attack Italy for an unspecified reason. Obviously, I can't *make* you attack Italy, but I'm warning you, I really think this is your last chance to make a pre-emptive strike. I think you will be attacked this year by Italy, Turkey or both -- and if not, then definitely the turn after.

2) How do you intend to simultaneously "defend Germany's effort to come back" and also get a build? It makes sense to me that you'd conquer Warsaw to get a build, but if you're doing that then what move could you possibly make that assists Germany?

Secret Thoughts re: Austria #4

Oh me, oh my. I am glad to finally, finally have Austria on my side (at least, theoretically). I hope I can use this influence to my advantage somehow.

To be frank, dear reader, I think Austria's message is nonsensical. Here are the different ways I can interpret Austria's gobbledygook:

Austria is trying to be vague with me on purpose for a strategic reason I am unable to fathom. Vagueness is a legitimate tactic, and I use it myself, but I just don't understand what Austria might gain from that here.
Austria is a poor communicator. Austria does in fact want to me understand the message, but the message is poorly-thought-out or maybe Austria doesn't know the best words to get the point across. That's possible, but Austria seem articulate enough to be capable of communicating in plain language.
My interpretation: Austria's message is sloppy because Austria's thinking is sloppy. Austria might be fairly inexperienced compared to me, and therefore may not understand the tactical and strategic implications of all the players' positions. Austria might actually be thinking about the match in terms of pure abstractions like "I am helping Germany" and "I am allied to Turkey" without measuring those ideas up against the actual board and the positions the players have (what I usually call, "reading the board"). For example, looking at the board, without Austria saying one word to me, it is clear that Austria intends to capture Warsaw and otherwise has no meaningful ability to harm or help Germany (Germany can easily defend Berlin and Munich no matter what Austria does, and other than at those points, the two powers cannot meaningfully interact... ). Who knows though, maybe time will reveal something different.

Messages with Germany #2

I also have a proposal of my own - are you willing to make a supported attack on Belgium using Burgundy and Ruhr? Specifically, Burgundy to Belgium supported by Ruhr. I’m hoping to make a supported attack there myself, and then have it be blocked, but I want to be able to say that you just made a good guess against me. Is that something you see as in your interest going forward?

I’m not sure what I stand to gain by doing as you ask, but, candidly, there’s a good chance I ordered Bur-Bel with support from Ruhr already as it’s not a terrible move under the circumstances.

I’m certainly amenable to any arrangement that mitigates my suffering, here. One center is better than none, two better than one, etc. Turkey has promise he’ll support me into St. P from Moscow, who knows if that’s true.

Unfortunately I’m going to be pretty busy with work this weekend (to reveal more might be too identifying, but I’ll explain after the game has ended), otherwise I’d sit down and try to cook up a proper pitch for you.

Secret Thoughts re: Germany #2

I decided to reach out to Germany on the only thing I could think of: asking Germany to make a supported attack on Belgium, which is probably something Germany wants to do anyways. Sure enough, Germany said that such an attack was already planned.

The reason I reached out to Germany about this is to show that I am willing to cooperate on something. It's entirely the principal of the thing, of showing Germany that I am reasonable, friendly, and that it's nothing personal. Anything I can do to keep Germany from going down the path of revenge.

It's possible that Germany might decide to seek revenge and therefore not make a supported move to Belgium simply to defy my request. But because attacking Belgium is already a move that Germany would want to make, Germany is probably a little more likely to make that move now if Germany thinks it somehow will count (in my mind as England) as "cooperation."

Messages with Germany #3

I think that in order for you to make it into the draw, you have to tempt me into backstabbing Italy before you are eliminated. That way, the other powers will panic and support-hold your positions to incorporate them into a stalemate line. Accordingly, your main goals would be to hold onto Munich and Berlin, and try to have Marseilles, Warsaw, and/or Moscow if possible.

Otherwise, the game will grind to a draw with E/I/T or possibly that plus Austria, which will squeeze you out of even those centers that sit on the stalemate line. A strategy of recruiting the other players to all rally against me right now when I am in no shape to attempt a solo win will increase the chances of that grinding-draw result because I’ll never be able to even try for a solo.

I am willing to backstab Italy next year if I am in a good position. Even if I backstab Italy and later the game still ends in a draw, that’s to my advantage. My take of the draw will be higher if you have some of those centers and aren’t eliminated — sum-of-squares scoring gives a bigger share to the center leader if more players share in the draw.

So if you are trying to make the best out of a possible draw, then I think it is in your interest to keep my units positioned to attack Italy as long as possible, and to make me as strong as possible as quickly as you can.

So maybe Turkey will support your army to STP, but that is not a strategy for you to make it into the draw; that is a strategy of trying to take revenge against me while you still can. I wouldn’t fault you for pursuing such a strategy; I’m just saying that trying to get into STP is inconsistent with your stated goal of trying to make it into the draw.

You cannot hold STP during endgame. nobody can hold STP from the south in the end; I will inevitably take it back. So your goal in taking STP could only possibly be to retard my advance. Again, Not saying that is an invalid goal, just saying what I think will happen. If my growth is slowed down, the game will become long and grinding. I won’t have the spare units to attack Italy, so I won’t attack anyone but you. I will use my units to take back STP and grab what I can before someone else takes Munich and Berlin.

But if I have a lot of units and even tacit cooperation from you, I could be tempted to attack Italy next year and give you the opportunity to rally everyone against my solo win attempt. If I reach 15 centers or so, the other powers won’t dare try to eliminate you. But the only way I can reach such a high center counter without taking all of your centers is if I start attacking Italy.

In sum, our mutual interest lies in this: a solo win attempt from me is your best chance of getting into the draw, and giving you a shot at the draw is my best chance of getting a solo win. If I never attempt a solo win, you will probably be eliminated in 2-3 years.

Fighting against me tooth and nail (eg taking STP) is an understandable strategy, but one that would be based on diminshing your own chances of making it into the draw in order to ensure I have to play for a draw with Italy and Turkey (revenge strategy). (One reason I hate sum-of-squares scoring is that players decide to pursue revenge instead of self interest because they devalue the draw).

Think hard about whether fighting me is really in your interest.

I don’t see why you would want to delay attacking Italy any longer. If you hope to solo, it seems to me that an immediate move from MAO to North Africa, Channel to MAO, North Sea to Channel is the most appropriate course.

I just have the one damned fleet, and you’re already assured 2 (more likely 3) of my supply centers, and I’m likely to lose another to Austria. I’m not going to be able to launch a counter-attack.

Sorry, I should clarify that I do see the sense in supporting North Sea to Belgium with support from Holland. But certainly, channel to MAO and MAO to NA seem practically mandatory.

I understand, and thank you for the tactical advice. I agree that you are no threat to me, and I am in no hurry to eliminate you.

In my own judgment, I think I need to wait until one of Italy/Austria/Turkey attacks the other before I attack Italy. That way, at least one of them will see me as an ally. But if I attack Italy before any of them fight, they will likely stay allied and the match will end in a 4-way draw.

I think that if I delay my attack on Italy just 1 more turn, I'll have my chance. That's why I encouraged you to make your supported attack on Belgium (which as you noted, is strong move for you whether or not you are cooperating with me) -- I can appear as though I am keeping my promise to all-out attack you (and to leave Italy alone) while maintaining all my positions to attack Italy the very next turn.

If I wanted to deceive you, I would just tell you what you want to hear. But I enjoy playing with you and want to cooperate to the extent possible, so I'm telling you the truth about my intentions instead.

Secret Thoughts re: Germany #3

I finally figured out how to plead my case to Germany for cooperation. Once Germany told me that Germany was going to struggle as best as possible to get into the draw, I decided to send a long message about how Germany needs to power me up. If I thought that Germany was seeking revenge, I wouldn't be bothering.

Everything I said to Germany about why Germany needs to cooperate with me is honest and accurate. I'm far more used to playing draw-size scoring matches where a player in Germany's position would almost certainly agree to the proposal I'm making (since 1 center is enough to make it equally into the draw), but in sum-of-squares scoring I'm sure this proposal is hard to stomach.

My "tough love" points here are true: I actually and truly think that if Germany fights hard against me, that will increase the chances that Germany is ultimately eliminated. Specifically, I think that trying to take St. Petersburg from me is contrary to Germany's interest for the reasons I stated: Germany will never keep that center, and slowing down my solo win attempt will only give the board time to finish off Germany.

Finally, let me add that I am really just trying to maintain what rapport I have left with Germany, and to start Germany thinking a certain way. I am not expecting Germany to do me any favors right now.

Messages with Germany #4

Sorry, I should clarify that I do see the sense in supporting North Sea to Belgium with support from Holland. But certainly, channel to MAO and MAO to NA seem practically mandatory.

I understand, and thank you for the tactical advice. I agree that you are no threat to me, and I am in no hurry to eliminate you.

Well, I think the move to Belgium makes sense for you to make whether or not you know for certain if I’m moving there. But, hell, I’ll just be honest and tell you that yes, I am ordering a supported move to Belgium. It was what I had ordered before you asked.

I’m also taking a stab at St. P, but I kind of expect Turkey to [censored -YBB] me over.

Secret Thoughts re: Germany #4

I think that Germany is trying to goad me into prematurely attacking Italy. Notably, if I don't have a fleet in English Channel, I can't properly convoy all the armies I'm going to need on the continent to eventually capture Munich. But rather than call Germany out for trying to trick me (what would that accomplish...?), I decided to ignore that and continue with my "charm" strategy.

Although I could just tell Germany what Germany wants to hear, I would immediately and unnecessarily disappoint Germany. I might even come to be perceived by Germany as a sadistic or serial liar -- views that could lead Germany to seek revenge against me instead of fighting for a draw. It's easy to feel vengeful towards a liar. In this situation, I'd rather just stop responding to Germany than lie.

Accordingly, I decided to explain to Germany my true analysis of what I think will have to happen for me to get a solo win as my justification for why I am not going to attack Italy this turn. I am perfectly aware that Germany wants very badly for me to attack Italy instead, but I think what I am doing is softening Germany's disappointment by setting Germany's expectations to something realistic.

Based on my assessment of Germany's character, I think that Germany might lose graciously to a player who seems thoughtful and strategic; in other words, I think Germany would rather lose to my well-earned solo win than be eliminated during a draw. It's more dramatic to have been eliminated as part of the process of someone getting a solo win than to be eliminated during a grind down to a draw. Because I assess the German player as being dramatic this way, I think that on some level Germany hopes that I will solo win. Obviously, I think that Germany will try to stay alive and linger into the draw if possible. But I seriously believe, right now, that Germany will think of my solo win as the second-best outcome to Germany's elimination. That's weird to say, and maybe if I ever talk to Germany about this after the match Germany will deny ever having felt this way, but right now, with solely the information available to me from this game, that's my idea of Germany's mindset.

Tactical Analysis

It's nice to just decide for myself what my moves should be.

As usual, let's start by thinking about what I want to accomplish in a general way and then start getting into the specifics. The main thing I am trying to do this turn is ensure that I capture as many German centers as possible (while retaining the center I already have). My second priority is to ensure that when I build new armies this Winter, I can immediately convoy them off of Great Britain.

Looking at the board, I can see (and therefore, Germany can also see) that Germany cannot possibly push my armies out of Paris or Holland. It is possible for Germany to push my fleet out of Sweden with a supported attack, but I can easily counter that using Norway, North Sea, or both.

First, Let's Talk about Belgium

Of all the centers that Germany could fight for, Germany's best chance is to fight for Belgium. Germany could move Burgundy or Ruhr to Belgium, either one potentially supported by the other. I know Germany recognizes this as the best hope for a successful attack because Germany said so when I brought it up.

What's the best way for me to go about countering this move?

Although I could move Paris to Burgundy or Holland to Ruhr to try to cut support, that runs an unacceptable risk that my army will actually vacate the center I'm trying to capture on this turn (e.g., Germany moves Burgundy to Gascony or Ruhr to Kiel). In my mind, I can't justify the risk of failing to capture 2 centers that I otherwise would be sure to capture.
There is a move I can make that ensures Belgium can't be captured without risking Paris or Holland: move English Channel to Belgium supported by Holland (or North Sea). Either English Channel successfully moves to Belgium or else Germany's supported move is bounced out.
- I do not like risking that my fleet will wind up in Belgium. A fleet in Belgium is nearly useless in this situation (it can't convoy or move further inland and gets in the way of future convoys). So by making this move, I find myself hoping that Germany does in fact make a supported attack on Belgium.
- Germany has a huge incentive to make a supported attack on Belgium this turn because that is the only attack Germany can make that is likely to work (Germany admitted to this in our messaging). I think that even if Germany thinks I really am going to make a supported move on Belgium (I did tell Germany I intended to do just that), Germany will simply make a supported attack on Belgium and hope for the best (it is possible that I could be trying to bluff Germany).
- Considering all possible risks and benefits, I think the right move is to guard Belgium this way.

Now that I've decided to move English Channel to Belgium, I want to ensure that I have back-up fleet back-filling English Channel. This Winter, I intend to build armies in Edinburgh and London, and I want to have fleets in place in North Sea and English Channel to convoy those armies right away. That means I need to move Mid-Atlantic Ocean to English Channel. By moving Mid-Atlantic Ocean to English Channel, I ensure that if my fleet successfully moves to Belgium, I still have another fleet in English Channel to convoy during the Spring. (I wouldn't want to move my fleet at North Sea to English Channel because that would be robbing Peter to pay Paul.)

Ideally, my move into Belgium will fail, which will create a chain reaction that also causes my move to English Channel from Mid-Atlantic to fail. However, this sequence might not go according to plan. What would the consequences be if Germany doesn't make a supported attack on Belgium?

The only player who could move to Mid-Atlantic Ocean this turn is Italy (from Spain). Given Austria's recent lies to Italy, my strong defense, and Turkey's plan to attack Austria , I doubt Italy will pick a fight with me this turn. I also think that it wouldn't occur to Italy that I would move my Mid-Atlantic Ocean fleet backwards to English Channel, especially after I have held my positions in Portugal/MAO for a while. For Italy to think to move Spain to Mid-Atlantic Ocean would have to be a wild guess, or an incredibly good read, and I just don't consider the Italian player to be a person capable of such things.
I actually have the ability to further hedge against Italy betraying me with a good read or wild guess: I can move Portugal to Mid-Atlantic Ocean, a move that will fail if either 1) English Channel bounces out of Belgium; or 2) Italy moves Spain to Mid-Atlantic Ocean. With this move, the only way Italy could counter my moves would be if 1) Germany didn't make a supported move on Belgium; and 2) Italy moved Spain to Portugal. Italy moving Spain into Portugal seems even more unlikely than Italy moving Spain to Mid-Atlantic Ocean, since (again) Italy doesn't have a reason to attack me and there's no way Italy would have a hint that I'm making these moves.

I'm simply going to assume that Italy won't attack me at Portugal. Accordingly, the worst-case scenario is that I end up with my Mid-Atlantic fleet in English Channel, and either Mid-Atlantic Ocean or Portugal empty. I can live with this. Although it would be a tactical setback for my fleets to end up moving backwards from Italy (who I eventually intend to attack), there might actually be a strategic benefit in ordering my fleets to move away from Italy (whether or not the moves actually succeed): by moving away from Italy (or attempting to), Italy could become convinced of my goodwill and loyalty. I simply cannot solo win if Italy is paranoid that I will attack.

One alternative moveset I considered was self-bouncing Paris and Mid-Atlantic off of each other at Gascony. The benefit of such a move would be to prevent Italy (or maybe even Germany) from sneaking into Gascony. My decision to not self-bounce at Gascony comes from the following risk-benefit analysis:

If Italy successfully moved to Gascony, I believe that I could easily stop Italy from taking Brest or Paris next year. My ability to attack Italy would be reduced, but Italy wouldn't be able to take my centers. With so many units lured way out against me and unable to conquer additional centers, Italy's ability to defend the Italian home centers would be next to nothing and Austria might be tempted to attack Italy. Italy would have to give up attacking me and go to war with Austria. In other words, Italy getting into Gascony might even be to my benefit.
The possibility of a hostile support order pulling my army out of Paris weighs on my mind. I realize that Italy is probably not sophisticated enough to make a move like that and Germany probably won't, but that possibility still seems like an unnecessary risk.
If I don't have a fleet in English Channel next turn, I can probably kiss my chance of a solo win goodbye. It's a logistical pain in the rear to convoy a bunch of armies out of Great Britain, and slowing that down be even one turn could be decisive in whether or not I eventually gain control of Munich.

Next, Let's Talk About Scandinavia

My first thought is: is it possible for me to capture Denmark in addition to or instead of Sweden?

It is possible that I could capture both Sweden and Denmark. I could move North Sea to Denmark supported by North Sea. Germany would have to counter by either moving Baltic Sea to Sweden (cutting support) or supporting Denmark to Sweden (pushing me out of Sweden). What are the pros and cons?

Pros:

Reducing Germany to merely 3 centers (Munich, Kiel, and Berlin; I feel certain that Germany won't keep Warsaw) would effectively put Germany out of the game and probably unable to seek any revenge on me.

Cons:

If I capture Denmark, I vacate North Sea. That means I can't immediately convoy an army that I build. In my view, this is devastating to the utility of this plan.
If I want to cut Germany off from the ability to move Denmark to Sweden, I have to support-hold Sweden with Norway -- thus allowing Germany to move Moscow to St. Petersburg (either directly, or on the retreat if Turkey pushes Germany out of Moscow). That seems terrible, so I would not support-hold Sweden... which means I could end up capturing only 1 center and moving out of North Sea, which is a terrible outcome.
Reducing Germany to 3 centers is not entirely beneficial to me. Right now, I do not have armies anywhere near the positions necessary to capture the German home centers. If Turkey, Italy, and/or Austria attack Germany before I can get into position, someone else might wind up with control of Munich or Berlin. If Germany collapses slowly, I may have more turns to get into position and take those centers for myself.

It's not worth it. Here's what I decided:

I'm going to cover St. Petersburg with Norway. Turkey warned me that Germany's Moscow army will be dislodged, so if I don't cover St. Petersburg, Germany will retreat there. Germany did leak to me that Turkey promised to support Moscow to St. Petersburg. I believe that Turkey would have said this to Germany, but I think Turkey is lying to Germany so that Germany doesn't do anything unpredictable with that army. Either way, if Turkey lied to me and told the truth to Germany, there's nothing I can do about it at this point.
I'm going to move Sweden to Denmark supported by North Sea. That ensures that I capture either Denmark or Sweden, which is perfectly fine by me. I'm not going to bother thinking through whether I would rather have Denmark or Sweden, since which one I get is up to Germany. We'll just see what happens.

Final Thoughts

A quick summary of what I think the other players will do:

I really do think that Turkey will backstab Austria this turn. The temptation to Turkey is huge because 1) Turkey could get a lot of centers by attacking Austria; 2) if Turkey doesn't attack Austria now and Austria gets builds, it will be harder to stab Austria in the future; and 3) this is Turkey's last chance to attack Austria before I become strong enough to threaten a solo win (sort of referenced by Turkey in Turkey's message to me).
I am not sure, but Italy might attack Austria. I don't think Italy will attack me, so I think Italy will either attack Austria or else flounder around for another turn.
I am unable to guess whether Austria will move Ionian Sea to Tunis or not. It feels like a 50/50 chance to me.
I think Germany will, more likely than not, make a supported move into Belgium (probably Burgundy supported by Ruhr). However, I won't be surprised if something else happens. I'm not going to bother predicting what the other German moves will be since I don't intend to do anything about it.

1 thought on “Online Diplomacy Championship R1 Autumn 1904”

Tasnica May 13, 2021 at 2:57 am

It’s funny that you mention Russia’s messaging after being eliminated, as I always made extensive use of post-elimination messaging, especially in Public Press games. It was often fun and cathartic to chat up the other players as a “government in exile”, and there were even a few occasions where my suggestions or advice influenced actual moves on the board despite not having a single piece myself.

I don’t remember who once told me that they never would have stabbed me if they knew it’d be such a headache for them, but clearly I didn’t give them that impression soon enough!

Reply ↓