Global Messages

Germany: Good luck, everyone. Maybe the worst man (or woman) win.

Germany: May*, I promise that English is my first language.

Russia: Good luck all.

Turkey: Ditto that.

England (me): Have a fun tournament everyone

France: <3

Italy: Good luck and have fun to all!

Messages with Germany #1

Dearest England, 

I think of our closely intertwined history and culture (from the English astronomers who verified Einstein's theory of relativity, to the German ancestors' of England's most prolific literary son J.R.R. Tolkien, to our shared affection for tall glasses of beer), and I see no sensible course other than to do all I can to align myself with the noble people of your island. 

I propose we do one of the following:
(1) Western Triple. Clean, relatively simple, we just need to count on France not to pull a fast one on either of us. 

(2) Attack France! (specifically, attack France using much the same strategy as articulated here: http://www.diplomacy-archive.com/resources/strategy/articles/basics_england.htm).

I'm sending my F-Kiel to Denmark, and my army Berlin to Kiel (no surprises there, I know). If you want to go the "Attack France!" route, I'll probably send Munich to Burgundy. 

Please let me know if you find either idea appealing, or if you have a different idea in mind altogether. I'm perfectly open to anything, and I look forward to hearing from you!

My dear friend Germany,

As one would expect from the land of poets and thinkers, you have produced a message that I find charming and intelligent. As I sip my beer this evening, I can think of nothing more delightful than working together with a serious-but-friendly German player.

Although I am not an experienced tournament player, I have played enough Diplomacy to understand your proposals. Indeed, I am familiar with the strategy article you linked. In my experience, Germany and England make excellent allies because they share two natural enemies and can expand almost indefinitely without coming into conflict. Based on my first impression of your press, I would look forward to playing out a long alliance with you in particular.

Based on my past experience, I consider Western Triple to be a neigh-unbeatable alliance if the players actually follow through. However, I share your feeling that France remains a threat to the other two powers -- almost from beginning to end of the match.

To be perfectly frank, I tend to adhere to the "Death to France!" philosophy of English play. So long as France remains, England is in danger. But if France is destroyed, I have a good shot at making it into the draw with a decent number of centers. That's my thinking anyways.

So if we are in agreement that we can attack France immediately, that's what I'd like to do. Of course, we should obscure our intentions for now so that we can get a sucker-punch on France.

Your opening move ideas seem sound and I have nothing to add.

To move the conversation forward:
- What openings would you consider acceptable for me? Would you accept my convoying my army to Norway, or consider supporting the army into Belgium? It's very important to me to have a sure chance of success at convoying off my army.
- What do I need to do to count on your blocking Russia out of Sweden?
- If I promised to build no more armies, could you promise to build no more fleets?
- What do you think are fair terms regarding control of Belgium and Sweden? To me, it seems essential for Germany to eventually control Belgium so that Germany can make an all-out attack of France with armies. In the past, I've taken Belgium in 1901 and then ceded that center to Germany in 1902 while taking a center elsewhere. Is that something you might be comfortable with?
- Let's try to persuade Italy to attack France, or at least Turkey, instead of Austria.

Secret Thoughts re: Germany #1

Germany messaged me right away. Germany's opening message is impressive and intelligent. In my experience, many players are attracted to the game of Diplomacy because they are worldly people who think about European culture and power politics. This player's references to English and German culture probably indicate that the player has been a fan of the game for a long time. Coupled with this player's familiarity with concepts like "Western Triple" and the link to the strategy article, the German player comes across to me as one of considerable skill. Germany's stated opening-moves plans are sound.

Notice how my response attempts to "mirror" Germany's style. For example, I made a reference to Germany as "the land of poets and thinkers," which I understand to be a translation of a traditional German description of their own society. This player might appreciate the reference. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, so if Germany feels like the two of us have a similar message style -- that is to say, that Germany thinks it will be enjoyable to exchange a lot of messages with me -- that could cause Germany to favor me as an ally over the other players. I have also tried to match the length of Germany's messages and the speed of Germany's responses so that I seem sincere, eager, and credible. Terse responses like "Yeah, let's do that!" are likely to be perceived by others as lies because most players are too lazy to write out complicated messages when they intend to just attack anyways; lengthy messages seem friendly.

My messages to Germany here are also completely truthful (i.e. I do think Western Triple is unstoppable, but I prefer to attack France if Germany is willing to do that together with me). I highly desire Germany as my ally, so I see every reason to be complimentary and forthcoming in my opening messages.

I hope that by advancing the conversation from opening moves to tactical/strategic choices we need to make a few turns down the road, I come across to Germany as serious and credible about our alliance. I don't expect Germany to agree to all my proposals (presently or on future turns), but I do expect the fact that I am making such proposals to cause Germany to treat our possible alliance as a serious and long-term arrangement. I also don't want to push too hard for a really narrow battle plan, because coming across as narrow-minded or stubborn can spook someone from wanting to form an alliance.

Here, I have employed an effective persuasion tactic: makes lots of different proposals, all of which I considerable favorable to me. If Germany chooses between the options I have proposed, or elaborates on my suggestions, then Germany will feel "in control" of the situation (while following my subtle influence). People are far more likely to go through with ideas and plans that they feel they participated in creating. I also think Germany has attempted the very same tactic with me (offering me "attack France" or "western triple"), another thing which makes me think Germany is a strong player.

Messages with Germany #2

Excellent, “Attack France!” it is. I’ve had to hop from desktop to mobile so forgive me if I miss a few points of yours, but let me try to address them in order:

-To obscure our intentions, I propose leading France to believe that England and Germany are both strongly in favor of a Western Triple. My initial press to him floated the ideas of both a WT as well as a Sea Lion—I will back down off of lobbying at all for a Sea Lion so that there is greater chance of you entering the channel successfully. I also raised the possibility of a Sea Lion to Russia, but will now let him know that I no longer expect France to be onboard with such an arrangement and ask him to keep his army out of St. Petersburg and focus on the south as a condition to avoid a bounce in Sweden. If you expect to be more successful leading France to believe you intend to move against me, I am comfortable with that as well.
-I would like to see London make a play for the Channel. I’m perfectly fine with Edi heading to North Sea (and indeed I doubt an alliance between us could last long if I felt otherwise). The following turn, I am amenable to your taking Belgium—if we can convince France of a WT, we may even be able to induce him to steer clear of Picardy, and if I bounce him in Burgundy or he doesn’t move there at all, then you’ll be able to glide in unopposed. If I do move to Ruhr rather than Burgundy, I would be happy to support you into Belgium, but not if Munich is threatened (by an army in Burgundy or, I suppose, a surprise unit in Boh or Tyrolia). I am comfortable also with your convoying an army into Norway rather than to Belgium—I think the preferable/better play will be clearer depending on Russia’s moves and if you successfully enter the Channel (if you do enter the Channel, I’m of the mind that it might make sense to cheekily send your Channel fleet to MAO while convoying to Norway for a ((hopefully)) guaranteed SC). It dawns on me that I haven’t answered your question directly. How about: F Lon-Eng; F Edi-North Sea; A Liv-Yor.

-If you enter the Channel successfully, I give you my word that I will bounce Russia out of Sweden. If you get bounced out, my presumption will be that your effort was made in good faith and I will still bounce in Sweden, but I will make some effort to investigate whether a bounce with France in the channel was prearranged (knowing and keeping in mind all the while that France and possibly other parties would have every reason to sow conflict between us by lying about whether it was planned).

-Yes, please consider this message my agreement to build no more fleets on the condition that you build no more armies, with the understanding that we should both still feel comfortable approaching one another with requests that an exception be made to address a special threat/circumstance.
- I know this is only 1901 so pardon my earlier and imminent anachronisms, but I agree that I’ll probably need to roll my tanks through Belgium if I want my Blitzkrieg to be successful. But, I think if you do get your army into Belgium, it may be more practical to let it be than to try to work out a way to hand it off to me. With that in mind, if you do take Belgium, I would like to have Sweden—and if I take Belgium, I would consider Sweden yours for the taking. That being said, I’ll be glad to revisit a possible exchange of Belgium and Sweden or something of that nature.
-I’ll do what I can to sic Italy on France.

One small thing I should maybe note: to the extent that I use third person singular pronouns in my press at all, my tendency is to default to “he” under the half-serious assumption that everyone on the Internet is male, but mostly because it’s a pain to type out he/she or a similar all-encompassing term over and over. If I’m wrong about yours or anybody else’s gender, I hereby apologize in advance.

Secret Thoughts re: Germany #2

Germany's plan to deceive France with the promise of a Western Triple is a decent idea. I have no idea if France will fall for it or not; both of us trying to pressure France into Western Triple could scare France and backfire. But there's at least a chance that it will work.

The fact that the German player let me know about his attempts to rally other powers against me indicates that he doesn't want me to freak out if I catch wind of those messages. In my experience, a player usually warns me about the press they've sent to other powers if that player wants to be my ally. My assessment of Germany's credibility keeps rising.

I think opening to English Channel is the better opening for England, but I did not want to reveal that to Germany. Most English players will not open to English Channel, and the German player has no way of knowing that I deviate from that default. So I played coy about what opening I wanted to do in order to induce Germany into offering something to me in return for opening to English Channel. In my opinion, a very fair concession is for Germany to bounce Russia out of Sweden (indeed, in high-level Gunboat Diplomacy games, I think England has to open to English Channel in order to imply into existence this bargain with Germany). As Germany, I would try to induce England to open to English Channel by offering to bounce Russia from Sweden -- and that's exactly what Germany has done here.

Germany agreed to my proposal that Germany build only armies and England build only fleets. This is a very common agreement in an England-Germany alliance, since neither power really needs those units to make the alliance work (maybe Germany wants 1 more fleet and England wants 1 more army, but my personal preference is that Germany build zero fleets and I usually have to promise to build zero armies to get that; recall that among goals I outlined for England is to keep the number of northern fleet builds to a minimum). This agreement is advantageous to both allies, because any violation of this promise during the builds phase gives away an intention to backstab a full year in advance (which is a terrible strategy, so likely neither player would violate the agreement).

Messages with Germany #3

I have a great feeling about our ability to work together. I think it bodes well that we want to send messages of similar length, and seem to have a matching attitude about how to play out an England-Germany alliance. I think our play-styles fit well, such as your idea that we can reach a general understanding on how to build our units without writing that in stone.

I've read your message carefully and I am delighted by it. I'll make some specific responses below, but if there's anything I do not specifically address, please be assured that I see things the same way you do and I'm just trying to communicate efficiently.

- I agree to your proposal that we urge Western Triple on France. It seems like an excellent smokescreen. If France isn't into the plan, I will suggest attacking Germany together, but that will be a lie. Thanks for letting me know that you are comfortable with that back-up plan.

- I am glad you have an open mind about how to proceed in Autumn 1901 and in future turns after that. I think we understand each other and can decide the best way for me to convoy after the opening moves unfold. Nevertheless, I am glad we are able to talk a few turns ahead. I think we will have no difficulty working out Belgium and Sweden. I agree that sneaking in MAO in Autumn 1901 can be a powerful move for England.

- I think that most French players won't move to English Channel on the first move unless they believe England is going to move there too. Therefore, I am telling every player who asks (except you) that I am not opening to English Channel. I want my move to succeed, and I think it will if you can keep it hush-hush. Fingers crossed!

- I'll forgive you for your lazy pronoun usage 😛 though I personally think its worth the effort to be clear or avoid pronouns altogether.

I think you hit every issue of immediate relevance. I appreciate your repeated expressions of plain camaraderie. I share your optimism about our compatibility as allies. It helps of course that I haven't received any press from anyone else (apart from Russia)! But I'm grateful for the dual coincidence of us both catching the game in its early hours and us seeming just to get along well. I feel we see eye to eye and I look forward to an exciting, fulfilling game. 

I'll get to work now expressing to France that I don't think we'll have Russia on board with a Sea Lion and so I would really like to go with a WT, and expressing to Russia that I don't see France getting on board with a Sea Lion and I'd rather see St. Petersburg empty.

Secret Thoughts re: Germany #3

Because I very much desire Germany's alliance, I have included as many complimentary comments as possible in my messages. And by Germany's own words, I seem to have succeed with my expressions of "plain camaraderie."

Ultimately, I think the German player is being sincere with me. It makes sense for Germany to seek alliance with England over France, as France has a much easier time going after Germany later in the game and also in blocking a German solo win. Germany's proposals about how each of us should open are reasonable. There's little incentive for Germany to hose England in 1901 because Germany and England can't make opening moves that might bounce each other.

I decided to push Germany back a little bit in regards to the comment about the genders of the players for cynical reasons. To be perfectly honest, I probably wouldn't have noticed Germany using masculine pronouns. But I thought that if I acted a little more critical towards Germany on this irrelevant issue (irrelevant to the game, not to everyday life), that might enhance the credibility of the eagerness of the rest of my press. In other words, I hope to enhance my overall credibility by making it clear that there's a limit to my flattery.

Anyways, if I'm right about Germany being sincere with me (as I am being with Germany), I think we will strike up a good alliance.

Messages with Russia

Hey England. Wishing you a good game. We should avoid the customary squabbles ver Scan? Maybe even we could work together, and help ourselves to a mutually beneficial position. We could help each other. What do you think?

Hey there Russia. Good luck! I know what you mean about the customary squabbles. I have an open mind and think that we could work something out. I think it's especially important that we be willing to do so in case we get attacked by other powers early on.

I don't consider Scandinavia to be the natural progression path for England, but it is almost essential to take Norway in 1901 to be able to get a 3rd fleet. After that, holding Norway specifically isn't important to me. I would, for example, down the road be willing to swap Norway for Sweden or Denmark if we were to make an attack on Germany together.

Sounds good. Let's keep in touch.

Okay good. I thought maybe I would offer this: I can commit myself to solely fighting France, Germany, or both so long as you don’t build a fleet on STP(nc). After taking Norway in 1901, I could move away or support your fleet into Sweden on that understanding. Is that something you could agree to?

Yes, that would be quite fair. I should not need any northern fleets, so all good.

Okay thanks. Let’s see how the openings go then and continue from there. Thank you for getting back to me!

No problemo! Nice speaking to you.

Secret Thoughts re: Russia

Russia's message to me is short, sweet ...and probably insincere (or at least indifferent to whether the message will accomplish anything). My messages are not very serious either.

I won't hold any insincerity against the Russian player. It's a simple fact of life that Russia and England have very little common interest at the start of the game. Each power is really hoping to become completely dominant in Scandinavia, the earlier the better.

If Germany and I do form an alliance, then Russia will almost certainly get blasted out of the north within the first 2 or 3 years of the match. In my opinion, this is a desirable scenario for England because knocking Russia out of St. Petersburg likely means that Russia will have to disband that starting northern fleet and that Russia will never build any northern fleets for the rest of the game.

However, I have no reason to antagonize or alienate Russia right at the start of the match. Germany might not be honest about allying with me, or might backstab me early on. If so, then I will have to salvage my relationship with Russia, because it is far, far better for a friendly Russia to be in control of Scandinavia than a hostile Germany. So even though I presently I have no intention to cooperate with Russia, I am still laying the groundwork for future cooperation should that turn out to be advantageous to me.

Messages with France #1

Hello, hello -- welcome to the game my friend. As neighbors, we have a lot to discuss at the start of the game. I can keep my messages as brief or as long as you prefer. Whatever it takes to make things easy for you!

To start things off, I could agree not to open to English Channel if you can agree to do so as well. If you want to work out a grand bargain or become allies, let me know what I can do for you. Good luck!

Sorry if I'm getting ahead of myself but I did get some messages from Germany already, who is pushing for "Western Triple", a concept I am familiar with but not sure about doing in a tournament setting. What are your thoughts on this?

And bonjour my English friend! I’d be more than happy to have a dmzed English Channel, and would also be happy to work together against Germany. If I can get into burgundy I’ll gladly support you to Belgium to start some good faith

Okay, wow! What a great way to open up the game. Alright then, for starters, I’ll agree to a dmzed English Channel. I think that is a good way for England to bring working with France.

No interest in Germany’s western triple proposal, I take it?

And of course, how can I turn down the offer of support into Belgium! If that works out and we keep attacking Germany, then I’d be willing to cede Belgium to you once I get control of Holland or Denmark in 1902 or 1903.

If you and I do make an agreement to attack Germany first, then we could pretend to agree to that Western Triple alliance and then make a surprise attack on Germany during an autumn turn — what do you think of that?

If you’re gung-ho I’m attacking Germany together, it can be a strong opening to just support Paris to Burgundy. But I don’t expect you to reveal all your intentions to me so early — it’s just a suggestion.

I’ve alreaxy agreed to it lol so it’s a yes to that one. I’m gonna move to Picardy simply cause I don’t want to show them all my cards at once

Okay it seems like we’re on the same page. I will convey to Germany that I am also interested in Western Triple.

I don’t actually want Belgium that much in the sense that it’s just getting between you and Germany if we go to war against Germany, but with Western triple my understanding is that England usually picks up Belgium with a fleet and convoys to Norway - is that your understanding too and do you want to try to get Germany to agree to this, or do you have something else in mind?

Thanks for getting back to me timely, I think that’s a really good way to start off the game. I haven’t gotten as much press from anyone but you and Germany.

Since you don’t want to show your cards, do you have it in mind that our attack on Germany will be in 1902 after convincing Germany to move against Russia?

Hm. Yeah you’re probably right. That sounds fine by me. I’ll message them

Excellent. Thanks for getting back to me so frequently. I have had a lot of good results with E-F alliance in the past, playing to big-scoring draws with Turkey each time, so I am looking forward to working together if we can make it happen.

I think Germany will be dissuaded from letting Russia into Sweden if there appears to be a triple.

Secret Thoughts re: France #1

As I have stated elsewhere, my strategy for charming the other players in this tournament is to "mirror" their message style back to them. This worked for Germany and Russia (who messaged me right away). However, the match has been proceeding for over 6 hours and I have yet to get a message from France. Because I have responded to both Germany and Russia, I don't want France to find out that I messaged both of them and not France -- that might spook France into thinking I will attack. So I decided to send the first message to this player. I kept my message simple, friendly, and open-ended.

Initially, I did not think the French player was being sincere with me. It comes across to me as "too good to be true" when the French player offers to support England into Belgium in 1901; usually the goal here is just to deter England from making an immediate attack.

Most French players don't want to antagonize their neighbors until 1902, since France has the best ability to pick up 2 or 3 neutrals in the first year if left alone. More specifically, most French players prefer to open their fleet to Mid-Atlantic Ocean (the ideal way to pick up Portugal in 1901); as long as I don't do anything to spook France into thinking that I will attack, France will probably move Brest to Mid-Atlantic Ocean.

I am lying through my teeth here about wanting  to form an alliance with France against Germany, and that I want a demilitarized zone in the English Channel. I added a lot of detail to our long-term plans so that my lies are more believable.

I think it is absolutely fabulous that Germany and I reached an agreement to sell France on a Western Triple, and that it appears to be working.

I am a little nervous that I have over-played my hand here. I sent France longer messages than France sent to me, which goes against my "mirroring" strategy. However, I am hoping that be including miscellaneous ideas in my messages, France will believe that I am willing to be an ally and decide not to move to English Channel this turn.

Messages with Austria

Hello my friend. I'll let you talk to your neighbors and settle in before bothering you with more distant problems. But when you've got a moment, let's see what I can do for you. 🙂

I'm glad you reached out -- I'm a believer in keeping all lines open and as Austria I am needing a lifeline to get out of the first round!

That’s wonderful. I wish you the best of luck playing as Austria, especially since I am England and think that we are good natural allies.

I’ll do what I can to encourage Italy to leave you alone. Is there anything else I can do for you?

That'll do it, thanks.

Secret Thoughts re: Austria

England and Austria have little to talk about at the start of the game. Although I consider Austria to be a natural ally to England (the other clear natural ally being Turkey), there's nothing that either power can do to directly aid the other during the first few years.

My extension of goodwill is sincere, and so is my promise to try to persuade Italy to leave Austria alone.

Messages with Italy

Hello my friend. I'll let you talk to your neighbors and settle in before bothering you with more distant problems. But when you've got a moment, let's see what I can do for you. 🙂

Hello my friend, hope we can work together soon!

Me too! Sooner rather than later maybe?

I understand that Germany has floated the idea of Western Triple to both me and France, but has ALSO suggested Sealion to France and Russia, so I’m kind of nervous about where I stand.

I want to know if there’s any way I could encourage you to come Weston early and attack France in 1901 or 1902. What can I do for you?

Wow, the Germans sure are trying to do everything to get us to go after each other, he's telling me he wants me to jump in on France because you may be onboard. If you're in on it, I'll be joining in!

Indeed, the German player seems to be inciting everyone to attack everyone else except Germany. Go figure!

I feel very uncertain about Germany's and France's true intentions, and I don't want to incite them against me. However, if you and Germany do attack France together, I won't hesitate to join in. If you make an opening move that keeps open the possibility of an early attack on France (that is to say, you don't all-out attack Austria in 1901), then we could make a joint attack. How exciting!

Secret Thoughts re: Italy

As England, my strategy for manipulating Italy is very simple: induce Italy to attack France (England's most natural enemy) instead of Austria or Turkey (England's most natural allies).

This Italian player did not send messages early on and apparently did not send that many messages either. Accordingly, I suspect that this player is not very committed to the tournament or else not very experienced at Diplomacy. If true, I hope to take advantage of this player.

I mentioned the idea of a Western Triple alliance to scare Italy into not attacking Austria on the very first turn. My statement is truthful ("Germany has floated the idea"), but manipulative. I hedged my statement by claiming to be worried about Sealion (the anti-English opening that France and Germany can pull off together) so that I can later explain away my English Channel opening.

It seems that the German player followed through on our mutual agreement to induce Italy to attack France, as have I. France has tremendous defensive abilities (in my opinion, second only to Turkey). However, we really could blow France out of the water if all  3 of us attack. I hope Italy keeps this promise. It's difficult to get a read on this player.

Messages with France #2

I have little intel from Italy or Austria. Have you found out anything useful?

I have heard literally nothing from Italy. If you haven’t either that’s a little reassuring but still, it’s not great

This is the sole message I received from Italy: "Hello my friend, hope we can work together soon!"
That's better than the nothing you got, I guess, but not exactly a conversation. I think it's more likely that Italy isn't very committed to the tournament than that Italy is planning to immediately attack you. But still, yeah.

Actually they have now become conversational, so I think and hope all is well

I got only one more 1-sentence message. Anyways, at least it'll shape up to be a good game. It's no fun is someone drops out.

Secret Thoughts re: France #2

I believe France that Italy did not initially send messages, since Italy was so terse with me too. I decided to mix together some truth and lies to add to my credibility with France. I confirmed that Italy did not send much press, but I wasn't open about everything Italy and I discussed...

Messages with Turkey

Hello my friend. I'll let you talk to your neighbors and settle in before bothering you with more distant problems. But when you've got a moment, let's see what I can do for you. 🙂

Hello, England. It is not a bother at all to receive a friendly message, regardless of how distant the sender is. Starting out in oppsite corners I think we have an excellent opportunity to communicate and share information to our mutual benefit as we do not pose an immediate threat to each other. 

I have not decided on a strategy yet but I do know that I will open to Bulgaria and the Black Sea. The question is whether Smyrna moves to Constantinople or Armenia. I suppose that your priority is to make sure that either France or Germany is your best friend as it is very rare for all three to coexist peacefully - no one wants to be the odd man out there unless support from either Russia or Italy is assured.

Good luck and have fun!

Wow what a wonderful message! I completely agree. I understand and value the concept of natural alliances. If this match ends in a draw where either of us gets a lot of points, probbaly the other will too.

For what it’s worth, I suspect that Russia will make a southern opening. I also have been offered to form western triple by both France and Germany, but I am not sure if one or both is lying to me (I feel funny about it).

I almost always open with the army to CON as Turkey, but I might suggest, for this game specifically, that you might get a good result if you attack Russia early (based on the possibility of an early western triple and Russia wanting to play a southern game, if my understanding is correct). I’ve read that opening to Armenia is correlated with better results for Turkey even though it’s an uncommon move. I won’t hold it against you if you don’t 🙂

Haha, I like you already! 

I would be very interested in seeing how a western alliance pans out. Just like communism, it's a nice idea but I've yet to see it work out properly as one of the three always finds himself left behind and the other two, sensing their superiority, are not willing to give up any of the spoils. War of resentment ensues. What happens in the Channel and Burgundy goes a long way of telling how the winds are blowing as well as where the army in Liverpool goes.

A move to Armenia has a lot of merit. Five of seven players are watching for the slightest sign of a juggernaut and Smy - Con does nothing to remove their suspicion. Armenia offers attacking options and should a fleet get into the Black Sea a fun surprise is to convoy the army to the other side. Another attribute of Smy - Arm is that it is a great move for England who can then dream of Russia abandoning his north. So, I need to get a feel for what the Russian player (and, of course, Austria and Italy) is like before I enter my final orders.

Of course, of course my friend. I’m enjoying this match already as well. It makes me happy just to know that you’d at least consider it. I don’t expect you to reveal all of your intentions to me 🙂

I’ve never played western triple out to the end, but I have had good results before as England or France by cutting out Germany later on. That’s getting ahead of myself though. For now I’m nust trying to figure out if France and Germany are in cahoots trying to dupe me.

I cannot provide any information about your neighbour's intentions as neither has revealed anything to me. I can, however, tell you that I have informed Russia of my intention of moving Smy - Arm. I have not received his response yet so use that information as you wish.

Secret Thoughts re: Turkey

Turkey is absolutely the best and most natural ally for England. In a serious game, it should be impossible for England or Turkey to conquer each others' home centers. England and Turkey also have the best ability to play for a 2-way draw.

At the outset of the game, all I really want to do is establish some rapport with Turkey. However, the Turkish player here sent me some intelligent, thoughtful messages and even wanted to converse with me about the Turkish opening. That bodes very well for our long-term relationship.

Turkey floated the possibility of an anti-Russian opening by moving Smyrna to Armenia. I think that is very favorable to England, because it weakens Russia (a natural enemy of England) and avoids harming Italy and Austria (good allies for England). Normally I wouldn't suggest that opening to a Turkish player (considering it none of my business and a waste of time to send such messages), but because the Turkish player brought up the topic, I decided I should try to persuade Turkey to attack Russia early on.

In order to make a serious effort at persuading Turkey to attack Russia, I mixed together a bunch of truths, half-truths, misleading truths, and lies.

• I mentioned that I think Russia will open south. That is a true statement, but probably of minimal persuasive value (most Russian players open south).
• I mentioned that France and Germany have offered to form Western Triple (half-true) and lied that I think I am being lied to (I think they are both honestly trying to curry my alliance). A Western Triple would mean Italy and Austria would be menaced by France and Germany, thus opening an opportunity for Turkey to attack Russia (Turkey said that Western Triple wasn't that credible, and that's a fair point).
• I threw out the idea that Turkey has a better success rate when opening to Armenia. It is a true statement that I have read this, but actually I don't believe that this is a strong opening for Turkey (what an interesting misleading truth!). I personally think that Turkey is better off attacking Austria or Italy ASAP.