LOOK AT THIS MAP!! LOOK AT IT!

What did I say about these builds?

That's right: not a single fleet build in the north

I am overcome with feelings of self-congratulation. At the outset of the match, I said that as England I had the goal of keeping the number of non-English fleet builds in the north to a minimum. By Jove did I make that happen.

Due to my alliance with Germany and our clever play, France was shut out of making any builds. Therefore, France (England's natural enemy) did not even have an opportunity to build a fleet. I don't think I've ever accomplished this before (as England vs. France).

I worked intensely to build my alliance with Germany, and it has already paid off handsomely. Even though Germany got 3 builds in 1901, Germany made all 3 of them armies (as promised). I've played hundreds of matches of Diplomacy in my life, but I cannot recall the last time a German player obtained 3 builds in 1901 and did not make one of them a fleet.

I also worked hard to create a situation where Russia's objective constraints and incentives all went against building a fleet in St. Pete:

I reached an agreement with Germany whereby Germany blocked Russia from taking Sweden (thus denying Russia a build).
I encouraged Turkey to attack Russia. It even seemed like a possibility that Russia would get no builds at all!
I influenced Italy to not attack Austria, thus leaving a strong land power in the center of the board (a strong Austria is good for England, as I stated previously).
I left Norway empty in 1901, leaving St. Petersburg un-threatened. Dear Reader, do not underestimate the importance of my decision to convoy to Belgium instead of Norway (even though Norway was free for the taking).

Limited to a single build, facing war with Turkey and possibly Germany and/or Austria, and perceiving England as a friendly power (both due to my press and the fact that I didn't take take Norway), it must have been an easy decision for Russia to build in the middle of the board.

This is an astounding 1901 victory for England. After just 1 year:

My natural enemy France is essentially destroyed.
My potential rival Russia is completely focused on the center of the board (likely leaving Scandinavia to me, despite my insincere promise to share).
My natural enemy Germany is almost incapable (both strategically and tactically) of making an attack on me (and indeed, is working as my ally).

Coming into 1902, I feel that my momentum is very strong. Just look at this map!!

Yes, I added circles in MS Paint for emphasis.

What Do I Want To Accomplish This Turn?

Last turn, Germany and I formulated a plan whereby I would surely conquer both Brest and Norway and Germany would conquer Sweden:

Army at Belgium move to Picardy
Fleet at English Channel move to Mid-Atlantic Ocean
Fleet at Edinburgh move to Norwegian Sea
Fleet at North Sea move to Norway

And for Germany:

Army at Munich move to Burgundy
Army at Paris support move to Picardy from Belgium
Army at Kiel move to Denmark
Army at Holland move to Kiel
Fleet at Denmark move to Baltic Sea
Army at Berlin move to [either Prussia or Silesia]

I still think that this plan is strong:

Tactically speaking, our plan is almost impossible for someone else to counter. I love plans like that! Not just versus France, but also versus Russia. Russia has just a single fleet in the north, which is barely even a nuisance.
At the end of the year, I will likely have 6 supply centers and Germany will have 7.
- I consider an England with 6 supply centers to be more powerful than a Germany with 7. I believe that I will become the dominant partner of our alliance... potentially without Germany appreciating this fact.
- With our alliance controlling a total of 13 centers, we will have the power to conquer several more. If we keep that momentum going, we could reach a point where (if we continue to be allies) we have so many units that we can basically dictate the outcome of the match.

I think that Germany will follow through with this plan:

Germany seems completely committed to our alliance. I have no hint or suspicion that Germany is considering anything else right now. Germany has kept all promises to me and sent me long, thoughtful messages.
Germany is poised to gain another supply center (and build) without minimal effort. That's a big incentive to follow through with the plan.
Germany is potentially facing down a big land war in the middle of the board and will need my cooperation. Germany shouldn't risk antagonizing me.

So in addition to following through with this attack plan, what else can I do?

Well for one, I still want to encourage an Austria/Russia alliance for the reasons I explained last turn. I also want to protect Turkey for as long as possible. Mulling this over, I came up with an interesting idea: what if I make it clear that Germany and I are committed allies?

If the other powers try to do something about it, Germany is the one who will take the full force of any response; it's not really possible for any non-German power to attack me.
That could keep the far side of the board divided, which increases my chances of getting a solo win. Russia might already be afraid to attack Austria or Turkey when facing down such a big number of German armies, and Austria might be thinking the same. That would protect Turkey. At the same time, Turkey might want to back out of attacking Russia; right now, Russia has a better defense vs. Turkey than Germany, so a likely outcome of a persistent attack on Russia is that Germany, not Turkey, gets most of the spoils.

There is one easy way to make it clear to the other players that Germany and I are committed allies: follow through this year with the attack plan we came up with together. That will show each of us moving all of our units away from each other, undeniable evidence of trust and alliance. So ultimately I just came up with another reason to follow through with Germany and it doesn't really add anything to my turn. But hey, its an interesting thought anyways.

I don't know if I'll really give away the idea of our alliance with my press or not; I'm going to "play it by ear" and see if any opportunity to influence the eastern powers comes along. I'm always wary of bombarding other powers with messages that they don't want to receive or consider. Also, if I flat-out tell someone that I am allied to Germany, that person (especially Turkey, who seems rather experienced) might scrutinize my motivation. I think a light touch will be effective.

Messages with Germany #1

Good morning. It looks we partially got Russia to do what we wanted; Russia didn't build in St. Petersburg, but didn't build in Sevastopol either. Still, it's something.

I think we did the heavy lifting for deciding our moves last turn, so I just want to confirm now that we know what the builds are:

EDI to NWG
NTH to NOR
BEL to PIC
ENG to MAO

MUN to BUR
PAR support BEL to PIC
KIE to DEN
HOL to KIE
DEN to BAL

And I suppose you'll have to guess whether it's better to move BER to PRU or SIL.

Exactly right, I’ll move as you’ve indicated. The only difference is that I might move Holland to Ruhr, so that if I am bounced in Baltic, I have armies positioned to support hold Berlin and support a move back into Munich.

I played a live game as Germany once in which Russia and Austria made exactly the moves I’m worrying will happen, and I was able to talk Austria into turning around on the grounds that to attack Munich would assuredly only give Berlin to Russia and nothing to Austria in the near term. I hope it doesn’t come to that.

Understood. Good thinking.

Messages with Turkey

Sensible build there - little threat to Germany and open seas to Norway and St. Petersburg. Under normal circumstances Russia might have had a hard time choosing his build but I think his anger over Sweden made it a relatively easy choice.

I agree with your message. I considered an army build in Edinburgh, but decided against it since 1) if Russia did build in St. Pete, Russia might block my convoy, which would be a small disaster for me 2) Germany definitely prefers me to not build an army. I'm sure it's obvious from Germany's triple-army build that we have made a deal.

I think that, in addition to Russia's anger at Germany, the fact that I did not take Norway in 1901 factored into Russia's thinking. Most players will resist a known enemy before picking fights with one who hasn't attacked yet.

Actually, I have promised Sweden to both Germany and Russia, so I have to make a major alliance choice this turn.

Germany will help me take Brest in return for help taking Sweden, which is a solid deal. If I work with Germany, I will probably eventually take St. Pete too. However, I think Germany will be useless in helping me take Portugal and Spain, which to me are the real spoils of France's downfall. Germany may even play me and Italy off each other later on.

Russia can't do anything for me immediately if I help Russia into Sweden, and may even be a liability if Russia gets attacked elsewhere. But there is the potential of a big payoff if Russia and I later attack Germany successfully together.

Do you have any information or advice I should weigh?

Sound reasoning there.

Germany has been spreading a story about an A/R alliance. I doubt that either Russia or Austria has informed him about this but I can understand Germany's fear - Russia is mad at him (and mad character to boot) and if Russia informed Austria of his intentions the latter may have seen an opportunity to finally lead a united Greater Germany.

This leaves me in a bit of a pickle as I wouldn't want to distract the hypothetical A/R from such noble cause. My only route, then, is west through the Mediterranean and that will be slow going with only one fleet. However, Italy is determined to take Spain, Marseilles or both so I may have clear waters ahead of me. That, of course, is not so great news for your southern aspirations.

You've got a real choice ahead of you. Germany is the stronger, chattier player whereas Russia is more of a hothead and probably more loyal.

Thank you kindly for your intel and analysis. Let me know if there's anything I might do for you this turn.

Secret Thoughts re: Turkey

I decided to share some of my analysis with Turkey so that I would come across as an honest, thoughtful player. Sometimes, sharing important information can motivate another player to reciprocate.

Notice how some of the information that I'm "revealing" is obvious anyways. I'm partially repeating back the points that Turkey already figured out. It's also very obvious that Germany trusts me, because that's the only thing that explains a triple army build.

The most interesting, juicy tidbit that I'm telling Turkey is that I have promised Sweden to both Germany and Russia. That is a true statement. What I'm hoping here is that Turkey will try to discuss this fact with Germany and Russia indepedently, and discover that I have told the truth about this. That could go a long way in establishing my credibility with Turkey.

Finally, I'm trying out a pretty clever diplomatic tactic: I'm asking Turkey for advice on what I should do. I have (secretly) already made up my mind to work with Germany and attack Russia. However, nobody -- and definitely not Turkey -- knows that I've made up my mind. If Turkey thinks that this is a genuine opportunity to influence me, a couple of things could happen:

Turkey might reveal a bunch of useful information in order to persuade me one way or the other. This will be helpful to me no matter what side Turkey takes.
Turkey might advise me to work with Germany against Russia, which is what I already want to do. Then I can lie to Turkey that I was persuaded to attack Russia by Turkey's messages. That could cause Turkey to believe that I can be influenced and that I trust Turkey's judgment in particular. If Turkey believes that I am cooperative, Turkey may consider me a more serious ally and help me out later on. To gain influence with Turkey, I want Turkey to believe that Turkey has influence with me.
Turkey might give horrible advice to me that makes no sense at all. Because Turkey seems to be an experienced player, I will deem any terrible advice to have been made in bad faith. There are Diplomacy players whose use their messages almost entirely to dupe other players into making bad moves. I would like to know as early as possible if Turkey is such a player.

And sure enough, Turkey gave me some useful information. Turkey told me about Germany's press, Italy's press, Turkey's read of the situation, and Turkey's possible plans for the coming turns. I believe Turkey is being truthful with me here. No only are the statements consistent with what I already think to be true, but Turkey has little reason to lie to me about any of this. Turkey also made sure to keep the statements uncertain and vague, which is credible because Turkey is probably unsure.

Messages with Germany #2

I haven't heard anything from any other player except Turkey, who is also wary of a possible Austria/Russia alliance (but maybe less worried than you and I are). Turkey also said that Italy seems focused on grabbing Spain.

That's all I have to report, dear Kaiser.

Spain going to Italy and Portugal going to England seems like a workable distribution of Iberia. I'd happily sign onto that treaty. And even more happily strike the match to set fire to it whenever you're ready.

Maybe the descendants of Columbus are coming to collect backpay owed by Queen Isabella.

I've offered as much to Italy. It's reasonable, and I hope Italy agrees.

Secret Thoughts re: Germany #2

My gratuitous information sharing with Germany has two purposes:

To maintain good rapport with Germany.
To stimulate Germany to tell me what the other powers have said in their messages. Notice that I did not directly request that Germany repay my information sharing; it's just a gift. But most people, especially a thoughtful person like this German player, will feel like a gift needs to be reciprocated. As always, I think it's much better if someone believes they're doing what I want because it's their own idea (rather than my idea or request).

Messages with Italy

Hey I know we're a few turns out from the complete conquest of France, but I figured that it's worth hashing out a partition plan now rather than step on each others' toes later.

Obviously, I can take Brest and you can take Marseilles. In addition to that, what do you think about splitting Iberia 50-50? I could take Portugal and you could take Spain. To me that seems pretty fair because then we're each getting 2 centers from the decline of France.

I think that's fine 🙂

Secret Thoughts re: Italy

I decided to use the information I learned from Turkey to my advantage. Turkey said that Italy was fixated on the conquest of Marseilles and Spain (a statement which I believe, as it is reasonable for Italy to have this as a goal and to state as much to Turkey), but Italy never told me this information.

So I created a partition "offer" to Italy that already matches what I believe to be Italy's goals. I imagine that from Italy's perspective, I am just coming out of the blue and offering Italy everything that Italy wants. Especially if I have correctly assessed Italy as an inexperienced player, Italy may be delighted that I am extending an offer that is so congruent with Italy's goals.

My offer is neither sincere nor insincere. What do I mean by this? Well, as you know from my last entry, I hope to overpower Italy and conquer all of Iberia from myself (indeed, I hope to progress all the way to Tunis if possible). However, I don't really know at this time if such an opportunity will ever come along. Perhaps Germany will later refuse to help me attack Italy, or perhaps Germany will betray me altogether. Perhaps cooperation with Italy will be needed to block someone else's solo win attempts. If a situation like this exists a few years from now, then I will need Italy's help, perhaps desperately. Under such circumstances, I will honor this partition plan (assuming Italy agrees to it).

In general, this is a good way to approach deal-making in Diplomacy: make promises to the other players that are realistic and you can imagine yourself keeping under some circumstances, but then do whatever is prudent as the situation develops. Not only does that allow for opportunism, it's hard to get caught. It's very, very difficult for other players to detect that you are "lying" to them if you are not actually lying.

A Flash of Insight!

These turns last 36 hours in real time, which is actually quite a lot of time to think about the match. Partway through the turn, I had a realization: If I move English Channel to Brest instead of Mid-Atlantic Ocean, France's army at Picardy will likely be destroyed.

How the Army at Picardy Would Be Destroyed:

An opponent is forced to disband a unit (a.k.a. "destroyed" or "blown up") when that unit is dislodged and also has no retreat option. Forcing an opponent to disband a unit during a Spring turn is probably the single most powerful tactical move in Diplomacy. Deprived a unit needed for defense, the player's defensive position can be overrun during the Autumn turn, capturing their centers. Without the centers, that player cannot rebuild the unit. (Force-disbanding a unit needed for offense is also very powerful because the unit will be sent all the way back to its starting position when it is rebuilt.)

Here is how the French army could be blown up: If Germany keeps the promise to support Belgium to Picardy, then the French army at Picardy will be dislodged by my army at Belgium. The French army cannot retreat to Belgium (where it was attacked from) or to Paris (occupied by the German army); it could only possibly retreat to Brest or Burgundy. But if I move English Channel to Brest and Germany moves Munich to Burgundy, then France will be blocked from retreating anywhere. Even if France orders Picardy to Brest or Burgundy, a "battle" will take place (usually called a "bounce"); players may not retreat units into territories where a battle/bounce took place that turn.

The only possible exception to this is if France orders Picardy to Burgundy supported by Marseilles, which would be enough to overcome the German move to Burgundy. However, if Italy moves Piedmont to Marseilles (which is what I predict will happen), then that will cut any French "support move" order. So if I, Germany, and Italy cooperate, then the French army in Picardy is guaranteed to be disbanded, no matter what France orders.

Advantages:

France cannot possibly take Paris from Germany. With my original plan, there was a slight chance that France would have the ability to regain Paris. Not only do I probably want Germany in control of Paris (Germany promised to help me vs. Italy later on), but Germany might also prefer a plan where Paris is guaranteed to be protected -- which means my rapport with Germany may be increased if I suggest this plan.
If France ends the turn with only 2 centers instead of 3, we have taken away France's ability to decide which unit will be disbanded. France will have to keep the fleet at Portugal and army at Marseilles, which would be the units best used for defending against Italy (and I would rather France defend better vs. Italy than vs. me and Germany).

Disadvantages:

If France moves to Mid-Atlantic Ocean, such a move will be successful. There is a good chance that such a move will be a headache for me later on.
Eventually, I will have to get into Mid-Atlantic Ocean. If I push a French fleet out of Mid-Atlantic Ocean, France will be able to retreat. It is possible that France will retreat to Portugal and try to hold out there forever. It is also possible that France will retreat north to Irish Sea or North Atlantic Ocean (if it is possible to do so) in order to nuisance me and take revenge (I've seen it plenty of times).
If France lets English Channel move to Brest this turn (that is, doesn't bounce out my move with the Picardy army), then on the Autumn turn France might move Mid-Atlantic Ocean to English Channel just to spite me. If that happens, France could spend a year or even two years moving around menacing all my centers from well behind my defensive lines. I would have to guard a huge number of supply centers in order to finish off France, and meanwhile Italy would probably take Marseilles, Spain, and Portugal. If France wanted to get revenge against me, that would be the way to do it; my chances of a solo win would drop to near zero. (This kind of behavior is a frequent problem with Sum-of-Squares scoring.)

What will I do?

I'm going to see if I can make this happen. Successful Diplomacy play requires risk-taking, and I think the risk is worth the reward here. One way I can minimize the risk is to reach out to France and try to persuade France not to move to Mid-Atlantic Ocean. Maybe that sounds crazy to you, but watch what I can cook up.

Messages with France

I would prefer your control of Portugal, Spain, and Marseilles over Italy's. Can we come to terms on this maybe?

Of course, I’m not going to simply hand them over

Understood.

Here’s my situation: I have promised Italy and other powers that I will help Italy take Spain (this year or next). I’d like to get out of that arrangement without making it obvious that I am about to go back on my promise. I am planning to stab either Germany or Russia, this year or next (its a secret!), and won’t be able to hold back Italy in the west if Italy makes too many gains. I don’t want Italy in control of Spain, but I can’t win a race to control Spain because I don’t have the units in place.

If you are to make it into the draw, you need me and Italy NOT cooperate in taking you down. If I cooperate with Italy, you will likely be eliminated within 2 years. I don’t want to do this — I want to start supporting your position on the turn I am supposed to support Italy.

I need you in a defensible position that I can support. With only one fleet committed against you, I cannot successfully attack your position (my army won’t be use for attacking you). We could probably hold off Italy for a long time.

Obviously I could return one day with more forces to attack you, but maybe something will happen in the next few turns that prevents me from doing so. Who knows.

Here is some tactical info you can use to your advantage:

Germany is going to move Munich to Burgundy without support. If you move an army to Burgundy, you will bounce Germany out. Then Germany won’t be able to support Italy to Marseilles in Autumn. That’s a big advantage to you.

Furthermore, Germany is using Paris to support Belgium to Picardy. Therefore, DON’T move Marseilles to Gascony; your move will work and you will end up ceding Marseilles to Italy (when it might be defensible for you this year otherwise).

Picardy will most likely be destroyed because I am moving English Channel to Brest and Picardy won’t be able to retreat. But if you use Picardy to block Burgundy, you will at least get some value out of it before it is disbanded.

Because I am moving English Channel to Brest, if you move Portugal to MAO, your move will work. However, you won’t be able to capture Spain — in Autum, Italy will surely move to MAR with the army and SPA with the fleet. At best, you will bounce Italy at Spain (I will have to poke MAO with Brest to maintain my cover, and MAR will be poked by PIE, so you can’t overcome WMS moving to Spain because all your support will be cut).

However, if you move Portugal to Spain right now (instead of MAO), on the Autumn turn I will BYPASS Brest and move to MAO. You will then control Portugal, Spain (capture!), Marseilles, and Brest. You will be able to get a build at Brest (but still
be limited to 3 units). From there, we can either defend from those positions or try to rearrange if you want to build a fleet in Brest.

I doubt you will ever recover enough to attack me, which is a factor in why I’m offering this deal. I think this offer is generous considering your poor position. I also think it’s tactically and strategically sound. And I have a hunch that no other power is willing or capable of offering you a deal like this.

What do you think?

Secret Thoughts re: France

I'm making an effort to try to reach out to France one more time.

After getting a minimal reply, I decided to just go for it and write a huge message to France.

I decided that I had to send a long message to France (despite France not sending long ones to me) because:

Because I already betrayed France's trust, and because France is in a very difficult losing position, I felt that it was especially important to appeal to France's immediate interest (as opposed to a vague deal like "and then we work together"). So a deal like "don't move to MAO and I'll do you a favor" would probably not influence France's decision.
It is very difficult to explain any situation where France might be better off not moving to Mid-Atlantic Ocean. As you read the message, you'll see that I did actually come up with a scenario where France is better off moving Portugal to Spain this turn, but explaining why this is so required a lot of elaboration.

Even though there's a chance that France will not care and I've wasted my time, the whole message is a waste of time anyways if I can't convince France not to move to MAO -- so what have I got to lose?

My offer here is not exactly sincere or insincere; I am mostly just trying to get a response from France by saying something plausible France might want to hear. However, if France wakes up and does start cooperating with me, I might prop France up until Italy gets attacked.

Reasons why France might believe my proposal:

Assuming that France and I did decide to start cooperating, the plan I suggested here would be a pretty darn good way of going about it. The plausibility of this plan should make it a little bit more credible.
I am appealing to France's self-interest. I have stated many different ways that my plan directly benefits France.
My promise is not too generous where it might be too good to be true. I acknowledge that I still intend to destroy France's army at Picardy, keep France weak, and will want to come back and finish France off at a later time. Being "honest" about things like that, even though that are rather brutal, should make me seem truthful.

Mostly though, I'm just taking my best shot at persuading France not to move to Mid-Atlantic Ocean.

I checked my messages a few hours before the end of the turn and did not see any response from France. So I have no idea if France read or considered my message.

Messages with Germany #3

Just FYI I’m trying my best to get France to cooperate with me in such a way as to slow Italy down. I want you to know because of our alliance, but please don’t leak that info. I’m genuinely trying to help France resist Italy while we slowly get into our attack position this year (while having plausible deniability to Italy that I’m helping France).

If I can convince France not to move to MAO this turn, what if I move ENG to Brest so that Picardy is forced to disband? I wouldn’t want to let France back into MAO if that’s where France is moving, but if France decides not to move to MAO then force-disbanding Picardy could be another devastating blow.
Or would it still be worth it for me to move my fleet to MAO?

Hey, let me preface this by saying I just got back home after a long night of drinking, and you are the only Diplomacy player with whom I feel comfortable opening myself up to when I am in a compromised state of mind. But, this game is so exciting that practically the first thing I thought of when I got home was if you had anything to say.

I had a message composed much earlier today amounting to “do you think it might make more sense to move ENG to Brest to guarantee that Picardy disbands?” But i deleted it because I thought that maybe I was only proposing it out of self-interest. After al, an English fleet [Germany means "French" fleet --YBB] in MAO could be a great pain for you. But, please, let me make it clear: I am 100% in favor of any plan that forces the disband of the A-Pic, as that eliminates the possibility of my losing Paris

In my drunken stupor I also feel compelled to add that my affection for you just from our limited interactions supersedes this game, and even if you end up stabbing me at some point I truly hope that we can remain in touch.

That being said, I hope that we can sick together for he duration of this game, even if it does not make practical sense to do so. I think a 2-way draw would be a beautiful thing to have on our record if either of us ended up winning the tournament. And I mean a 2-way draw in which either of us could easily have taken the solo.

I meant stick* together of course. And with that typo I think I’d best excuse myself from further messages. Bottom line, though, I would in fact much prefer ENG move to Brest.

An alliance between two neighboring powers who completely trust each other is virtually unstoppable.

More valuable to me than any particular position, supply center, etc. is the cohesion of our alliance. Controlling a specific position will not cause us to trust each other. But trusting each other will cause us to control any position we set out to conquer. Therefore, the trust and cooperation is infinitely more valuable than a specific tactical outcome.

So consider it done.

I'm moving to Brest because destroying Picardy is what is in the best interest of our alliance. I am more than willing to make short-term tactical risks to myself in favor of the long-term benefit of our alliance (as I proved by my willingness to convoy to Belgium without support last turn). There's no way I can be stopped from taking Brest if you and I cooperate, so in my mind there's no reason we should risk your loss of Paris if we can avoid it. Even if France moves to MAO, we can find a way to finish off France later, or mop up centers that Italy nabs, so long as we are committed to working together.

It's really funny to me that you decided to send some messages after a night of drinking, because I ALSO went out drinking last night and decided to send messages (I got the courage to send France messages about why not moving to MAO would be a good idea; I have no idea if this will work or not. Maybe you can imagine how such a plan must be the product of an inebriated mind).

This game is absolutely the most exciting thing going on right now for me. I've been telling all my friends who will listen (who know Diplomacy but aren't in the tournament) about our messages, reading your wonderful compliments out loud and so forth. I'm sure that I'm annoying them but it's all I can think about, haha.

As you can tell, I am a strong believer in alliance play, and I consider it to be the most worthwhile, interesting, and fun part of this game.

Normally, at this point I would probably reveal some personal information about myself and try to get to know you better just for the sake of making friends. I have found good friends before during online Diplomacy matches. But because this tournament has a strict anonymity requirement, I think we have to avoid that until the match is finished. But make no mistake -- when we're done with the tournament, we can exchange contact info or whatever and play again sometime.

I'm not so foolish or cold as to stab one of the most thoughtful, friendly, and interesting allies I've ever made. The tournament setting and anonymity make it all the more heartwarming that we've found a way to make the most of the match, on a personal level.

Without referencing anything in particular (so that I don't break anonymity), I have played several games in the past to 2-way draws. Those are rarer, most stimulating, and far more notable than any solo win I've achieved. Each time, the other player and I seemed to have a complete meeting of the minds as we do here. I'm so pleased you brought up the idea.

However, we're probably really getting ahead of ourselves here because if you and I present such a united front, probably 2-3 other powers will band together to shut down any effort to play for a 2-way draw. So even if we want to do it, we've got a long road ahead of us.

The other problem is that I think the tournament rules force the game to finish in 1925, so I don't think we have enough turns in the match to take over the entire board (at least with an England-Germany alliance). Specifically, I don't see how we would dig out Turkey by 1925.

So if we persue this plan of just taking our alliance as far as it can posibly take us until the game is called in 1925, we will most likely end in a 3-way draw with Turkey -- but with a titanic score for each of us. That's more than satisfying to me. And you know, I bet we would bring as much attention to our efforts to finish at a 2-way draw as anybody else does getting a solo win (that attention is valuable to me but I won't get into the reasons why during the tournament).

I'll hold onto a sliver of hope though -- if we lay waste to Russia, and later Austria and Italy, the way that we have to France, then it might be in the cards to haul off all the way to Smyrna and Ankara meet there for the 2-way draw. I'm rating this at like a 1% chance of happening but it is really fun to fantasize about.

Anyways, for any of that to come together we have to maintain our alliance, and I think we've already gone a long way in accomplishing that. I'm absolutely confident that we will emerge from this match with at least some kind of decent draw score and a new friend.

Secret Thoughts re: Germany #3

It occurs to me that Germany could be encouraging me to move English Channel to Brest instead of MAO precisely because Germany believes it to be a worse move for me. As I explained in my initial analysis, if France moves to MAO (which seems like a desirable move for France and therefore likely to occur, despite my best efforts to persuade France otherwise), it will be at best a nuisance and worst a disaster. Germany could be thinking "this move protects Paris for me and also might hold England back, so I'm killing two birds with one stone if England makes this move."

But Germany's message is lucid on this point and doesn't seem deceptive at all: Germany acknowledges that the choice is up to me, that there's a disadvantage to me if France gets into MAO, and that Germany wants that Picardy army destroyed because its tactically superior from the German perspective. I believe Germany's statement about composing and then deleting the suggestion that I move to Brest because it seemed too selfish.

So I think my offer has done something I hoped to accomplish: by suggesting that I make this move that is advantageous to Germany and a risk to myself, I have increased my reputation with Germany. Indeed, if I follow through and move to Brest instead of Mid-Atlantic Ocean, Germany's already sky-high opinion of me may climb into the stratosphere. Moving to Brest is something that benefits Germany in a small way but with a more serious risk to my own interests. Thus I would prove myself to be a devoted ally. Germany, according to those messages, already understands this; I don' t have to explain myself.

Let me explain what I'm doing here: a solo win is simply not possible in a match of Diplomacy unless at least one other player makes a terrible mistake. In a low-level game of Diplomacy, your rivals may make all sorts of unforced tactical and strategic errors out of sheer incompetence. But in a high-level game, the players will not make these kinds of errors. The only kind of mistake the other players might make is who to trust and when. To win a high-level game, you need at least one other player to mistakenly place their trust in you.

Thus, bolstering my reputation with Germany makes moving to Brest worth the tactical risk. As I have stated a few times now in this journal, if I am to solo win then I need Germany to have an enormous amount of trust in me. That is because I will need Germany to continue to work with me after I have reached a significant number of supply centers (say, 12-14) and have crossed the stalemate line somewhere (likely Tunis but maybe Moscow). If I can get that situation to exist, then I will backstab Germany massively from every direction to get a solo win. In order for the backstab to be successful, Germany has to never see it coming.

There are several ways to create this sense of trust I will require from Germany:

Demonstrate my truthfulness. Every single turn, I will inform Germany of all my moves in advance. Germany will see that, turn after turn, I was willing to tell Germany everything about my plans and that all my statements were truthful. After 10, 15 or 20 turns of this happening, Germany will take for granted that I habitually tell the truth. On the turn where I backstab Germany, I can send Germany a list of intended moves that is completely false, but Germany will believe me.
Be a good ally. If Germany considers me to be a loyal ally, then Germany (especially this German player, who sends a lot of messages including silly/fun ones) will gain a sense of duty or obligation to reciprocate. Last Autumn I took a risk that I might end the turn with no builds to guarantee the same for France, and now on the following Spring I am willing to put myself at a tactical disadvantage to protect Germany's control of Paris. For someone who is emotionally moved by grand gestures (as I think the German player appears to be), my "selfless" tactics should be quite charming.
Seem like a real friend. In my experience, creating a feeling of friendship goes a long way in gaining someone's trust. In some matches, I will strike up a personal conversation about what we do in our personal lives and so forth (I am avoiding that here because this tournament match has to remain anonymous until finished). In this match, I am trying to achieve this with my "mirroring" strategy; I keep reciprocating the content and tenor of Germany's messages. I am also doing my best to seem upbeat, positive, and complimentary.

Normally, I would say that establishing these sorts of things would take several years of alliance play (weeks in real time). But here, I appear to have accomplished all of it by Spring 1902. I believe Germany's messages about how much fun it is to play with me and so forth -- I really do!

My trust-gaining strategy requires deep thought, far-sighted planning, and taking short-term losses for long-term gains. I've played many matches with Diplomacy players who are very experienced and have a good mind for tactics, but find the solo win elusive because they are incapable of doing anything that risks their own interests in favor of any ally. As a result, they almost always end up in draws and rarely get a solo win. This is because the other players reciprocate their mistrust, paranoia, and selfishness. If Germany ever gets a sense that I am a greedy or selfish player, Germany will not trust me in the way needed for me to solo win.

My efforts to induce Germany to trust me mix together true and false statements.

I do believe that strong alliance play is very powerful. I do believe that the core of an alliance is working together (that is, that working together should come first and the players can easily figure out the best way to make attacks once they have some trust). It's true that I've made good friends from playing Diplomacy. It's true that I typically reveal personal facts about myself (once someone is on my side) to draw an ally closer.

I sort of made up the idea that I "went out drinking" too. I went to a pub, had a beer, and messaged France. But I was never inebriated. I just wanted Germany to feel like we're cut from the same cloth.

I am absolutely "foolish" and "cold" enough to backstab any ally, no matter how great our relationship. To be clear, I won't backstab over nothing; I will only backstab Germany if it is in my best interest to do so (like to get a solo win).

Germany's 2-way draw suggestion is kind of ridiculous. I mean, that does happen from time-to-time, but usually with powers who are on mirrored sides of the typical stalemate line (like France and Italy, England and Turkey, or Germany and Austria). I actually have reached a 2-way draw only once (as Austria with Germany). Here, Germany probably did not consider that we only have until 1925 to play out this game.

Nevertheless, I always agree to play for a 2-way draw when someone offers it, or at least hint that I would consider such an opportunity. Why? Well, there's nothing to lose in simply agreeing to such a plan, especially so early in the game like this. Most likely we will never have an opportunity to really play for a 2-way draw, and if we do then that will be when I stab Germany for the solo win. If Germany is lying to me about wanting to play for a 2-way draw (always a possibility because the offer is so absurd, but this German player radiates honesty), it won't matter because I'll never be baited into actually playing for a 2-way draw when the time comes. I'll just refuse to do so, and the game will probably have to end in a bigger draw.

Secret Thoughts re: Russia

I should have sent this message to Russia right away, but it did not occur to me to do so until the end of the turn.

I have advised Russia to move to Sweden so that I have a chance of sneaking into St. Petersburg in Autumn. If Russia moves to Sweden (and Germany follows through), then Russia's move will work. In Autumn, Germany will make a supported attack on Sweden with Baltic Sea and Denmark, and that will be that (Russia can't defend Sweden without my assistance).

But if Russia also fails to move any army to Moscow or Livonia (which I think is likely to happen already, so I'm not going to say anything about that to avoid spooking Russia), then Russia will have no unit capable of moving to St. Petersburg in Autumn. When that happens, I can just slip Norway over to St. Petersburg and conquer it -- likely ending Russia's presence in the north for the rest of the game, and making absolutely certain that Russia cannot build a fleet to use against me. If Russia believes me that I'm going to support-hold Sweden, I might even take both Norway and St. Petersburg (if Russia doesn't believe me, Russia will likely move Sweden to Norway just to harass me, bouncing me out from conquering that center).

By contrast, if Russia bounces Germany at Baltic Sea, then Russia might decide to give up on Sweden and instead park that fleet back in St. Petersburg.

Final Thoughts

In case France does move to Mid-Atlantic Ocean and later becomes a horrible problem for me, I want my thinking at this time to be perfectly clear: I am hoping to achieve a solo win this match, and I am willing to take big risks in order to accomplish that goal. It's true that France's fleet could become such a bother that I am later prevented from getting a solo win. However, I believe a solo win will never be possible unless I establish Germany's complete trust in me. Therefore, it is worth risking the scenario where France takes revenge on me in order to gain that trust from Germany.

Even if France does move to Mid-Atlantic Ocean, and even if that does cause a problem for me, I still think the better move today is to move to Brest. I will not let the resulting fallacy change my opinion in hindsight.

1 thought on “Online Diplomacy Championship R1 Spring 1902”

Thomas April 12, 2019 at 8:42 am

Excellent journal! I’m shocked about how deep the E/G connection was, but oh well. I’m to blame for not really being extremely active in the game (I’m from another site, and real life was being a jerk), I like how I’m being portrayed as a totally inexperienced player which I’m hopefully not. Good luck in your other game!

-Temasek22, Italian player

Reply ↓

Online Diplomacy Championship R1 Spring 190241 min read