Whew! I got Belgium!
Too bad for me that France covered Brest instead of Paris.
Developments
I am relieved that my convoy to Belgium worked. I gambled and gained an acceptable result. I did not win big because France blocked me from taking Brest, but that seems to have been beyond my control or influence. Oh well.
Under these tactical circumstances, I trust Germany to keep that promise to build 3 armies; I would be able to retaliate if Germany did not.
Something else I can feel good about for this turn is that Italy precisely executed the moves I advised. Perhaps Italy would have done those moves anyways, but Italy claimed to be considering a different moveset until I gave that advice ("I've planned a Venice bounce, but that's fine too 🙂 "), so perhaps I have some influence with Italy.
Also, Turkey attacked Russia as I desired, despite that vague press I received. That's a good development for me too.
I'm also glad that neither Russia nor Turkey attacked Austria. England usually wants Austria to be strong, and in this game in particular I think it is to my advantage if Austria becomes strong. I will discuss that later on.
What Do I Want To Accomplish This Turn?
Dear reader, don't forget my most important teaching: in Press Diplomacy, first decide your strategic goals and consider your tactical options, then send messages to the other players to help you accomplish those goals.
This is the Winter turn, a.k.a. the "builds phase." Usually, there's not that much going on during Winter turns (indeed, the original rulebook does not allow communication during this phase).
I already believe that Germany will honor the promise to build 3 armies, so I shouldn't have to put in work there. Italy will almost certainly build a fleet in Naples no matter what anybody says. France doesn't get any builds at all. That's 3 players I don't have to influence this turn.
Austria will get an army in Budapest, and most likely an army in Trieste. There's a chance that Austria will build a fleet in Trieste. Austria might do so if Austria is allied to Russia and can sell Italy the idea that the fleet is an anti-Turkish build. Honestly, I don't really care that much what Austria builds in Trieste right now. Further, the political situation between Turkey, Russia, and Austria seems too vague and tense for me to meddle in something so precise as Austria's build choice. However, I might be able to influence, in a general way, what alliance emerges from the 3 eastern powers. More on that below.
If Turkey is committed to war against Russia and feels safe from Austria, then Turkey might build an army. But otherwise, Turkey really needs to build a second fleet -- and this is what I expect based on my read of the board and the players. Turkey has postured as someone I can't manipulate, so I think I shouldn't even try when the outcome seems so obvious anyways.
So my thinking boils down to 2 meaningful questions:
- Where will Russia build and what kind of unit will it be?
- Where should I build my fleet?
The Russian Build
If at all possible, I must persuade Russia to NOT build in St. Petersburg. If Russia is committed to building there, then I need to persuade Russia that it should be a fleet on the south coast. I have every intention of attacking Russia next turn in Spring 1902, so the more-poorly defended Russia is from my attack, the better.
I don't care that my betrayal will alienate Russia, because if I successfully conquer Norway in 1902, I think I will be all-but-certain to conquer St. Petersburg in 1903 (or at the very least, Russia will be unable to build in St. Petersburg). If Russia is shut out of the north, Russia's opinion of me will become irrelevant. Therefore, I am willing to say just about anything to Russia to get what I want.
Side note: many Russian players will make peace with England once St. Petersburg is lost, since the tension between the two powers is mostly resolved after that; I kind of doubt that this Russian player will act that way though.
My Fleet Build
England already starts off the match with a deficit of fleets and almost always builds a 3rd fleet as soon as possible. This will also be fulfilling my promise to Germany, but I probably would be building a fleet anyways is what I'm saying.
I think I can rule out building in London:
- If my intention is to send a fleet west, I should build in Liverpool. I can then immediately move the fleet to Irish Sea, avoiding a possible logjam at English Channel. Such a build would also likely please Germany.
- If my intention is to send a fleet north/east, I should build in Edinburgh. If I want to send a fleet to North Sea, I can do so from there (same as London), but I also have the option of sending the fleet to Norwegian Sea.
In many matches, this might be a maddeningly difficult strategic decision, but here I think the answer is obvious: France can already be overpowered with the units headed that way (from me, Germany, and Italy); therefore, I should throw more weight against Russia (who is still a threat). Now I just need to make sure to sell this to Germany.
Long-Term Strategic Thinking
Consider this chain of reasoning:
- If I am to solo win, I will very likely need control of Tunis.
- In order to get control of Tunis, I will probably have to take it from Italy by force.
- Tunis is quite defensible from the east. Just 2 fleets can hold Tunis for a long time. 2 fleets and 2 additional units (of either type) can set up a very strong defensive position at Piedmont-Tuscany-Tyrrhenian Sea-Tunis. With a mere 6 units, eastern powers can form a stalemate line that includes Tunis.
- Therefore, the most likely scenario where I will be able to take Tunis for myself is if Italy comes under attack from the east (by Austria or Turkey) at the same time that I attack from the west. Italy will most likely consider the home centers more important, so if I send a large number of fleets into the Mediterranean I should be able to conquer Tunis.
I have an idea for how to create this scenario: encourage an Austria/Russian alliance. In many games, an Austria/Russia alliance is bad for England because France (the most distant power from the alliance) emerges super-powerful (and often plays to a 3-way draw with the other two). But in this match, France has been nearly obliterated in the first year. If Austria and Russia team up, that should do two favorable things for me:
- Incite a war between Italy and Austria. Either Austria will attack Italy as part of the alliance with Russia, or the obvious alliance between Austria and Russia will trigger Italy to attack preemptively. This could give me a shot at Tunis later on, as I explained above.
- Discourage Germany from ever attacking me or building any fleets. An Austria/Russia alliance usually blasts Germany from the east pretty early in the match, and the threat of this will force Germany to keep a wall of armies guarding Munich and Berlin.
Global Messages
Austria: Opps, they got drunk and chased to women home!
Germany:We will need to send a regiment to retrieve the errant soldiers posthaste. They'll be lucky not to be court martialed.
Secret Thoughts re: Global
I thought I should point out why I am not joining in this silly banter: although I am sending private messages to Germany that are like this (in order to charm Germany), I don't want to give away to the other powers that I have a good relationship with Germany. Playing along with these jokes about the units disobeying orders would show my cards.
Hiding my feelings is of paramount importance on this turn because I need to convince Russia that I want to attack Germany (instead of Russia).
Messages with Germany
Preliminary Matters
WOW.
Well, I'm thrilled you got into Belgium. And I am frankly pretty surprised France didn't cover Paris. I guess it was a matter of being trapped between a rock and a hard place with few good options.
Let the history books reflect that in Autumn of the Year of Our Lord 1901, the Republic of France ceased to be among the great powers of Europe.
Artfully stated. This really could not have gone better.
Building 3 armies as promised.
Here's what I have for now:
A Par S A Bel-Pic
A Mun-Bur
A Hol [?]
F Den-Bal
A Ber-Prussia?
A Kiel-Den
For the record: I won't be distraught if Paris were the only blue territory that I gain from our conquest of France. To the extent that I am in a position to make either/or decisions, I intend to prioritize your growth over mine until we are balanced again in our number of centers. I'm of the mind that our alliance will be most healthy if we grow at the same pace, thus minimizing anxiety and temptation to stab.
My friend, we have accomplished more in the first year of this match than most players accomplish in three. I think mid-game strategy will be upon us in just one or two years, so in my opinion it's time to start planning more strategically and long-term. I'm going to mix together my own positive ideas together with my responses to your thoughts. You said a lot of quick points, and I have read them all. If I don't explicitly acknowledge something you said to me please understand that I nodded to myself and did not feel the need to say more.
What follows is an absolutely titantic message. I'll understand if it takes you a while to process all of this and compose your response. Luckily, we have a 36-hour build phase to go over this. In my experience, most players would be overwhelmed and annoyed to receive such a huge message (especially regarding stuff that hasn't come to pass yet), but I have the impression (correct me if I'm wrong) that you'll be delighted to receive such a thoughtful, attentive message from your friend.
Thank you kindly for your point about trying to even out the score. It's nice of you to say something like that explicitly, even if you might have implied that before. I like keeping up the good vibrations I feel from this alliance. Since this is a "Sum-of-Squares" scoring tournament, it is important that we end the game with as many centers as possible in roughly-equal numbers. I've played this game long enough to know that 50% of the games end in a draw, and that the number is even higher in games with strong players (who know how to form stalemate lines). Especially since I have been assigned England this game, I am kind of assuming that I am playing for a draw and the question is really how many centers will my allies tolerate me getting (and vice versa) before we all vote draw.
So to your specific point about French centers: what matters to me is that we achieve and maintain a balance. If we make progress against Russia over land, then it's more important for me to get centers in the west too. If we stall out against Russia, then its more important for you to get someting in the west. I think we see eye-to-eye. I have some more specific points about the conquest of France to follow.
I can't remember the last time I felt the need to open up the chat archive to make reading a lengthy message easier. You've already come to know me well enough to guess correctly that I was delighted to receive your letter. I first saw it on mobile, then scrolled, and scrolled, and scrolled some more, and decided I'd better jump on a desktop to respond to this properly. If we were speaking via Outlook emails I would copy and paste the whole thing and make notes in a different color throughout, but alas, we're limited to the Webdiplomacy interface (which is typically more than adequate, but this is an atypically superb alliance).
I perhaps have not given as much thought as I should to the effect that the tournament scoring should have on my/our strategy, but everything you've laid out as far as playing for a draw in this context and with this caliber of player (notwithstanding my personal assessment of Russia...) rings true to me. I think we do indeed see eye-to-eye on this matter, much as we have every matter we've discussed to date.
To echo your thanks for my explicitly noting my intention to balance my growth with your own, I am grateful you stated in clear terms that if I hit a wall with Russia, you'll work with me to help me nab something more than the Eiffel Tower.
Secret Thoughts re: Germany
Preliminary Matters
Germany and I each started off with a straightforward celebration of our victory. This is a very pleasant alliance.
Once I got a moment to sit down and compose a message, I decided to send Germany one huge message to go over all the topics I wanted to discuss. Normally, I would be reluctant to send a huge message because most players are annoyed and overwhelmed by that. However, I definitely prefer to send big messages if I think the other player will accept that amount of press. I had a hunch that the German player would like to get a big, deep, detailed message.
Dear reader, if you don't know this about me by now, let there be no misunderstanding: I have thoughts upon thoughts about Diplomacy matches, and I can write about these games the way other people breathe air.
For a boring winter turn without any alliance changes or anything obvious to write about, Germany and I managed to exchange a big amount of press on several different topics. For readability reasons, I have not organized my press with Germany chronologically. Instead, I have organized it by subject area. During this match, the German player and I, like everyone, had to make the most of the limited capabilities of the webDiplomacy message interface. In our excitement, we sent each other messages at the same time, mixed topics together, etc.
I'll spare you the trouble of having to sort it all out. I re-ordered the messages and edited out some of our messages that are simply efforts to stay organized.
These section headers are, more or less, what Germany and I actually used to stay organized (I named them).
Germany's initial ideas for what moves to do are pretty sound, and I give a more elaborate response in some of the sections below.
I brought up the idea that we are using a "Sum-of-Squares" scoring system to put the idea into Germany's head that we need to end the game with a big number of centers. This is completely true, and also I will need Germany to accept this if I am going to get Germany to tolerate my efforts to cross the stalemate line a few years from now.
Please notice this subtle point: the scoring system only applies if the game ends in a draw; if someone gets a solo win, that player takes all the points. So my message simply assumes that Germany and I are playing for a draw, and that is how I want my ally to believe I am thinking about this game. To be sure, I will be perfectly satisfied if the game ends in a draw where I have a big haul of points, but a solo win is better. Because of my intention to solo win, it is all the more important to cause my ally to believe that I want to play for a draw; I will never solo win if the other players see it coming.
Have you ever played the game Mafia? If you haven't, just skip this paragraph. In Mafia, whether you are a citizen or in the mafia, you have to claim to be a citizen. In my opinion, in Diplomacy, the "citizens" are "Carebear" players who deliberately play for a draw with their favorite players. Whether or not you are a Carebear, you should act like one. It can be very disarming to your allies, especially in an anonymous game.
My offer to help Germany reach a big number of centers is sincere, but perhaps a little misleading. So long as Germany builds only armies, I don't care how many centers Germany reaches; I will always have the upper hand in this alliance, even if Germany controls a few more supply centers than I do.
Let me explain: England is a "corner power," and Germany is not. In my opinion, England, France and Turkey are the corner powers (not Russia, despite what other people might tell you). These corner powers are described as such because they are literally in the corners of the board and cannot be easily flanked because the boundaries of the map simply disallow it. This means that it is very rare for these countries to be attacked from multiple directions. By contrast, Germany, Austria, Italy and Russia (yes) can be attacked from several directions at once with relative ease.
Because England is a corner power, England's total strategic power per supply center is much more than that of the non-corner countries (this applies to France and Turkey as well). What do I mean by this? Well, I mean that an England with 6 supply centers has far more power than a Germany with 6 supply centers. That is because if England has conquered 6 supply centers, it will be quite difficult for England to be pushed back -- but Germany could be attacked from the North, South, East, and West and blown off the map with relative ease. Germany at 13 centers is not a serious solo-win threat because defending Germany's long front is very difficult. England at 13 is probably a serious solo-win threat because England can concentrate a huge number of forces towards the 5 centers needed to solo win. [Edit: I wrote a post about these concepts called "Forget the Numbers Game"]
I hope Germany does not understand this strategic concept, and either way I will not enlighten Germany to my thinking here. If necessary, I will deny that this way of thinking is true! I need to trick Germany into accepting a situation where we have an equal number of supply centers (the bigger the better) because that will set me up for a devastating backstab that Germany can't defend and might result in my solo win.
Messages with Germany
Austria/Russia Alliance
It looks like Austria and Russia might set up to be allies (Russia took Rumania with a fleet, was attacked by Turkey, and was blocked by Germany, so alliance with Austria is the obvious implication). Italy is cooperating with Austria as well. In my opinion, there's a high chance that Austria and Russia will attack you togther in 1902. If I'm right about that, then it's absolutely our good fortune that France covered Paris instead of Brest! A pile of armies in the middle of the board is what we need immediately in 1902, much more than another fleet.
For you to be successful in fighting off an A/R alliance (if one exists or forms; to be clear, I'm only suspicious at the moment), you'll need help -- from me obviously, but maybe we also have to work to help Turkey from being blown away. Italy leaving Turkey alone could make a difference. Let's keep up our conversations with Italy.
So, with all that in mind: I agree, I need to conquer Brest ASAP. That will afford me one more unit to throw at Russia, which should be sufficient for the two of us to overpower the Tsar...but it might be a close-run thing. Our opening is one for the history books, and I don't want to throw it away with a tactical error. We have to think really effeciently with our tactics vs. Russia.
Just one turn into this game, I perceive the possibility of this alliance as the last remaining existential threat I face. It is within the realm of possibility, however remote, that I next turn will have Austrian and Russian armies attempting to move into some or all of Tyrolia, Bohemia, Silesia, and Prussia.
Italy could prove crucial to keeping Austria off of my back. I am contemplating making my support into Marseilles contingent upon a move to Trieste from Venice. I hesitate to make this demand because I suspect Italy will pass it along to Austria--which would have the ironic, adverse effect of increasing the likelihood that Austria cooperates with Russia against me. With this in mind, I intend to proceed cautiously and get a feel for Italy's current relations with and perception of Austria. All things considered, I have the sense that it would be asking too much too soon of Italy--even a successful move into Trieste would be difficult to hold. But, it remains on my mind and I haven't ruled it out.
I think press with Austria is the most practical means at my/our disposal to reduce the possibility of an A/R alliance. The Austrian and I have a reasonably good rapport, and I believe I have a shot at convincing her that I would be the more reliable ally to have in the middle and endgame than Russia. I'll dwell tonight on how to formulate that argument, and aim to get a letter to Austria as soon as I can.
I will continue to correspond with Russia, but I expect it largely to be an exercise in futility. Truly, it is convenient that my next natural target after France happens also to be the author of some of the most bewildering, irritating press I have received in long while. A strategy predicated on madman theory might make sense if Diplomacy took place later in the 20th century and incorporated nuclear weapons, but under the circumstances I see no reason at all not to take steps immediately to bring "death to Russia."
Secret Thoughts re: Germany
Austria/Russia Alliance
I hope an Austria/Russia alliance forms. My assessment to Germany about the possibility of an Austria/Russia alliance is sincere... but might be wishful thinking.
However, even if an Austria/Russia alliance is not about to form, I want to make Germany nervous about that possibility. I want Germany to feel dependent on my alliance. If Germany genuinely thinks Austria/Russia alliance will exist starting next turn, Germany will not dare build a fleet (in violation of our agreement).
The rest of my thoughts are sincere about how to deal with the A/R possibility.
Germany's response is very thorough and I don't have much to add. Germany seems to deem this threat as serious as it is (to Germany). I'll consider that a positive development for me.
Messages with Germany
Death to France
I think the next order of business is to get you into Picardy and then into Brest. Meanwhile, I'll send another army into Burgundy, maybe support Italy into Marseilles.
Right now, we can be certain to conquer Brest with just the units we've committed against France. If we do these moves (I'm incorporating your suggestions):
BEL to PIC
PAR supp. BEL to PIC
ENG to MAO
MUN to BUR
PIE to MAR [Italian Move!]
Most likely, the move to MAO will just bounce France. If it works, so much the better. If Italy pokes MAR, then France cannot possibly move any army into Burgundy, and Picardy will be forced to retreat to Brest. Even if France moves MAR to GAS, we will have 3 units bordering Brest (ENG or MAO, PIC, PAR) to France's 3 and will be certain to conquer Brest.
If we do these moves, there's an extremely tiny possibility of France pushing you back out of Paris, but to do so France would have to surrender Marseilles and we could regain Paris immediately after. I think this risk is negligible.
Yes, yes, yes! You have put to paper exactly what I was thinking, even going so far as to address (what I thought was) the chance that France forces me out of Paris. Upon reflection, I think the only way France has even a remote chance of nabbing Paris is if Munich moves successfully into Burgundy, but then needs to move back into Munich to save the city from an Austrian attack. If Munich is unthreatened, and France is in Gascony, then Burgundy can support hold Paris, and your BEL and my PAR can support your MAO to BRE (or, if you bounced in MAO, I think we'd want to support your PIC into BRE with ENG and PAR providing support).
Bottom line, I think we're on the same page when it comes to France. Brest is going down. Marseilles is probably going down.
Secret Thoughts re: Germany
Death to France
My tactical analysis on how to fight France is perfect, undeniably so. Germany was already thinking along the same lines as me of course. That's because any experienced player would analyze the situation the same way.
My ideas are completely sincere and I think they are very likely to succeed and net me Brest with negligible risk to Germany.
I love Germany's response. Dang, this sure has been a fun alliance so far.
Messages with Germany
The Italian Question
In addition to our plan of attack for 1902, I want to start a conversation on our long-term conquest plans for the French centers. You and I put an enormous amount of effort in bringing France down, and I'm kind of nervous that the majority of the spoils could go to Italy, who did nothing diplomatically to bring down France and doesn't even seem like that great of a player to be frank. In the short run, it could be advantageous to us to put Italy into Marseilles, but in the long run I want to push Italy back out. How do you feel about this?
To be even more specific, I don't want to head down a path where France is eliminated, and all you have to show for it is Paris and all I have to show for it is Brest -- and Italy winds up with Portugal, Spain and Marseilles. To me, that would be outrageous, lead to a bad tournament result for us in the draw, and risks powering up Italy into an enemy that is more difficult for me to fight than France.
So what I want is to reach an understanding with you that cooperating with Italy to finish off France is a temporary alliance, and that we will turn on Italy as soon as it becomes convenient to do so. Obviously, if we need Italy to fight Austria for us in 1903+ AND IS DOING SO, then we should do what is in our strategic interest. But if Italy emerges strong in 1903 (perhaps by also attacking Austria) or refuses to fight Austria (to your detriment), then I think we should agree to push Italy back out of the West.
If you feel differently, by all means air your thoughts now well in advance of the moment. This is not a statement of more core interests, but rather of my abmition for our alliance. We have a few turns to think things through, but as we previously expressed to each other, it is best for our alliance to reach a clear understanding of what will happen next.
"So what I want is to reach an understanding with you that cooperating with Italy to finish off France is a temporary alliance, and that we will turn on Italy as soon as it becomes convenient to do so."
Please consider that understanding reached. I'm happy to turn on Italy sooner rather than later, and indeed had even considered withholding support into Marseilles, fearing as you did that the spoils of our conquest might be snatched up too quickly by the Green Marauder. But, on balance, I think it's worth bolstering a soon-to-be enemy in order to eliminate more quickly the variable posed by France's continued existence (and it's my understanding that you agree with this notion). But, let's be sure soon to hash out the specific steps we can take to annex any Italian colonies in France and the Iberian peninsula.
As you observed, Italy could also be useful in containing Austria.
Secret Thoughts re: Germany
The Italian Question
In addition to creating an attack upon Italy from the east (as I discussed at the start), I need to lay the diplomatic groundwork for my eventual attack on Italy. Even though my planned attack on Italy would not occur until perhaps 3 or more years from now, I don't want that event to come as a surprise to other powers. Otherwise, they might see my attack on Italy as an attempt to get a solo win.
Accordingly, I decided to start a conversation with the German player about my eventual attack on Italy. The German player seems to enjoy messages that contemplate long-term issues.
Rhetorically, I bring a lot of emotion into my appeal. I point out that Germany and I did all the work to bring down France (true), and yet the majority of the spoils may go to Italy (also true). I think this will appeal to Germany's emotions like a sense of fairness and justice; the idea that hard work should be rewarded.
Because the German player seems to have a very "romantic" attitude (the references to history and the role-playing style messages), I think Germany can be swayed by such an appeal. I want to induce a feeling in Germany that there would be an injustice if Italy takes too many centers, and that this injustice is corrected by Germany tolerating my overpowering of that vulture, Italy.
I hedged my statements in case I am wrong and Germany doesn't feel this way; I don't want to alienate my best and necessary ally.
But.....Presto!!! Germany claims to see things my way. That's awesome! Let's hope it holds true.
Secret Thoughts re: Germany
Death to Russia, Part 1
My messages to Germany are an accurate and sincere plan on how to destroy Russia. They're pretty complicated; you're better off just reading the messages without commentary.
While we're here, let me offer you a word of advice: if my long messages about this complex, contingent situation are difficult for you to understand, try all the more to understand them. My messages here are thoughtful, lucid, and intelligent. Learning to understand (and hopefully, to write!) messages like these will greatly improve your ability to play Diplomacy.
See, although Diplomacy is played on a board -- with a visual map and everything -- most players don't have the ability or inclination to draw diagrams and such about the situations. Usually, the players communicate to each other in words and expect each other to understand the situations they're describing. This is actually a major reason why I am deliberately not including any pictures with my journal that the players can't see. We're not using anything other than the map and our words, and we consider that comprehensible. You should too.
Messages with Germany
Death to Russia
I think I have enough resources at my disposal to make Russia immediately regret his warmongering rhetoric. I'm contemplating Den-Baltic and Kiel-Den, and I support myself into Sweden.
If you're planning to convoy into Norway immediately, would you be open to my moving F Den to Ska? Avoids a possible bounce in Baltic.
I'm hoping Russia refrains from building in St. Petersburg. I'd think a build in Sevastopol is practically mandatory.
If Russia builds fleet St.P (SC), I might have to be a little more conservative.
Update on Russia: I've just been informed that "Everyone is on my side. Except you." That's rich. That Turkish move on Sevastopol and Black Sea would seem to suggest otherwise.
Let's end this sucker. Need I say more?
I think the following 4 units should obviously be used for war vs. Russia:
Your army at BER
Your army at KIE
Your fleet at DEN
My fleet at NTH
And, keeping in mind that we can clearly conquer Brest with just 4 units (my fleet in ENG, my army in BEL, your army in PAR, and your new army in MUN), we have 2 units that are free to do whatever:
Your army at HOL
My fleet at ???
In my opinion, I should throw my new fleet at Russia so that I'm likely to take Norway (with the additional build at Norway, I can then build another fleet in LVP to send westward to either finish off France or block Italy at MAO without letting off the gas vs. Russia). The best way to do that would be, I think, to build in EDI. I'll elaborate.
[Scenario A: No Russian Build in STP]
In Spring 1902, I would move North Sea to Norway and EDI to Norwegian Sea. Russia can't stop me from moving to into Norway, and I can use the fleet in Norwegian Sea to support-hold Norway if Russia sends Moscow north to STP.
Your idea to fight for Sweden with your army seems like a strong plan, and is consistent this scenario. An added bonus: if your fleet successfully moves to Baltic Sea and my fleet successfully vacates North Sea (if the moves fail, we can just keep trying!), our ability to play out our alliance will be massively increased. If I vacate North Sea, my capacity to attack you is greatly diminshed, and if your only fleet is located 2 moves away from North Sea, I can safely leave North Sea empty.
In this scenario, I would recommend moving Holland to Kiel. Holland wouldn't be needed to guard anything, and from Kiel your army could support-hold Munich (if you are attacked by Austria and Russia) or be used to make surprising convoys against Russia (e.g., to Livonia).
Because Scenario 3A is so favorable to us, we need to figure out every way possible of manipulating Russia into building somewhere other than STP. Obviously, SEV is ideal for us. Russia might respond favorably to my direct approach (who knows?), but I wonder what can do indirectly that would affect Russia's choice?
[Scenario B: Russia Builds in STP] [formatting altered for reader ease -YBB]
In this scenario, Russia could bounce me out of Norway in Spring 1902, and make a supported attack on Norway in Autumn 1902 if Russia gets that fleet into Sweden. Indeed, that's what I would try to do if I were Russia. Russia would support Sweden to Norway using STP in Autumn 1902, allowing you to conquer Sweden but denying me Norway, and requiring a bigger committment to digging Russia out of the North.
That seems like a very bad situation to me. Each additional year that Russia sticks around is more time for Russia to grind down Turkey together with Austria, and limits my ability to profit off of the decline of France. An additional build would make Russia tougher to dig out.
Therefore, if Russia builds in STP, I think it is very important to continue to bounce Russia out of Sweden (or to get in there yourself if Russia doesn't bounce). If I move North Sea to Norway (likely bounce with STP) and EDI to Norwegian (same tactics for me as Scenario A), then there are decent follow-up tactics for Autumn (depending on whether Russia bounced you in Sweden or not).
Probably I would recommend KIE to DEN and HOL to KIE, together with DEN to SWE. I'll elaborate.
[Scenario B-1: Russia Builds in STP and Bounces in Sweden]
Assuming Russia bounced me at Norway in Spring, then my fleets can support each other to Norway in Autumn because Sweden will be vacant; Russia cannot make any supported move upon Norway. You would move to Sweden in Autumn, either bouncing Russia yet again or taking it for yourself (either one being a good outcome).
HOL and KIE would be left with guard duty basically, but not a big deal. As far as my thought takes me, I think this scenario guarantees that Russia cannot conquer any centers in the north. On the follow-up turn, we could trade Sweden and Belgium if you wanted to.
[Scenario B2: Russia Builds in STP and Moves to Baltic]
I can take Norway as described above in Scenario 3B1. You would have armies in Denmark and Kiel guarding those centers from Russia and easily be able to defend yourself. I would suppport-hold your fleet in Sweden, thus deny Russia any build and increasing your center count. If Austria and/or Russia haven't made a meaningful land attack, you could bounce yourself over one of your home centers so that you have an open spot for a build.
[Conclusion:]
I am willing to entertain other attack plans vs. Russia, but when you come up with your proposals this is what I want you to keep in mind: if we can't guarantee my control of Norway at the end of 1902, then I want a compesation elsewhere (like guaranteed control of Sweden instead). I think we have an incredibly important window of opportunity right now, where if we power up quickly we could end the game with a huge number of centers respectively (hopefully setting us up to place well in the tournament). But because England is always so slow to start off (and this game is no different), I see that window of opportunity closing really quickly (Italy taking over the Iberian centers and stalemating me); that's why it feels so critical to me to get 2 additional fleet builds ASAP. What I'm saying here partly assumes that you will see things my way vs. Italy, but anyways that's where I am with my thinking right now.
I agree wholeheartedly with your inventory of resources we may safely (and ought to) allocate to slay the Beast. My forces stationed in Berlin, Kiel, and Denmark have all been provided winter gear in anticipation of an extended siege of Moscow--we will not relive Napoleon's tragedy. I agree that both North Sea and your new fleet in EDI (and I agree that EDI is the correct play) ought to go toward the conquest of Norway. I further agree that Holland should move to Kiel: so let it be written, and so it will be done.
I anticipate
Scenario A: No Russian Build in STP
will come to fruition. Russia sent me a message today to the effect that he is perfectly happy to let you take St. Petersburg in the pursuit of making my life hell. This was in response to press from me to the effect that if he refrains from building in St. Petersburg and Warsaw, I will put all of our differences behind us and gladly ensure that he take Sweden this turn unmolested. I frankly don't think there is anything else I can say or do that could steer Russia one way or the other.
I think if you promised to move on me immediately if there is no build in St. Petersburg, there's a chance that Russia would take the bait. I mean, a build in Sevastopol would actually make practical sense for Russia... it shouldn't be quite this hard of a sell, but that's neither here nor there.
If I'm not mistaken, if Scenario A is what comes to pass, and an army in Moscow does not move to St. Petersburg, you and I are guaranteed to take Sweden and Norway. This would be absolutely perfect. Your point about our greatly diminished capacity to attack one another is a great observation and all the more reason to hope Scenario A is what we see.
If we see
Scenario B: Russia Builds in STP,
I assure you unequivocally that I would order Denmark to Sweden. There is no logical alternative.
With that established, I think we can safely dismiss the possibility that you will not control Norway at the end of 1902. Either there is no build in STP, and Norway is yours whether or not Russia successfully enters Sweden; or, there is a build in STP, and my move to Sweden guarantees you can support yourself into Norway the following turn.
Secret Thoughts re: Germany
Death to Russia, Part 2
The only commentary I want to add at the end is that Germany's response is adequate, intelligent, and aligned with my thinking completely.
Exchange with Russia
Well well well, that turn didn't go half bad for you after all! Those were some excellent guesses to support yourself into Rumania and block Turkey from moving into Sevastopol.
Based on how you didn't attack Austria, and how frustrating it was for Germany to break the promise to let you into Sweden, I take it you might be preparing to attack Germany in 1902 (and not Austria?). I'm asking because if you're going to attack Germany in 1902, then I think we should make a deal on how to attack Germany. France is dead in the water. Germany is the only threat to me now. Here's my offer:
I will move into Norway in Spring 1902 with my fleet.
Then in Autumn 1902, I will support your fleet into Sweden
(if it works, then we keep attacking Germany together)
If you agree, then as a condition for this deal I want you to build in Warsaw, Moscow, or Sevastopol this turn (not St. Petersburg). But just this turn. After I take Norway and you take Sweden, we will each get builds, and I will be OK if you make a build in STP if you really want to (just not a fleet on north coast).
Can you agree to this deal? Are there any conditions you need me to follow? Please let me know
This is not required, but is just a suggestion: if you build an army in Warsaw and make a peace deal with Austria, you could move Galicia to Silesia and Warsaw to Prussia to make an all-out attack on Germany next turn. That might go well if I attack Germany at the same time.
I agree. I will talk to Austria
Excellent. If you, me, and Austria all agree to attack Germany, then we might be able to crush Germany, despite Germany's strong start.
I intend to build a fleet at EDI. Please let me know if there is anything else I can do for you.
Secret Thoughts re: Russia
I whipped up quite a whopper here. Let's examine the quality of my deception:
- Russia seems frustrated with Germany, so I have played on that frustration. I mentioned Russia's feelings to stroke Russia's anger at Germany, thus (hopefully) increasing Russia's desire for me to join in an attack on Germany. I believe my offer to attack Germany is telling Russia what Russia wants to hear.
- To make my offer seem credible, I highlighted that Germany is the only threat to me now that France is hobbled. This is a half-truth. What Russia doesn't know is that Germany promised to build 3 armies; Germany will actually not be much of a threat to me if Germany keeps that promise. (I have every reason to think that Germany has kept this promise a secret, and I know I have.)
- My deal is very fair, which should seem credible (don't build in St. Pete until I have Norway, then I will support you into Sweden and you can build in St. Pete afterwards). Offering TOO MUCH to the other player might give away that the offer is a ruse.
- I thew in some tactical advice just to seem like I am being attentive to Russia (which makes the messages appear sincere).
In addition to all that, I want to draw your attention to how this lie affords me strategic options if things don't go my way:
- If Russia decides to build in St. Petersburg despite my (apparent) offer, I have an "out" here: when Russia does not do as I have requested, I can simply tell Russia that we have no deal. Russia will never know my offer was a lie.
- In the off chance that Germany DOES build a fleet (in violation of our agreement), then I will almost certainly fulfill my promise to Russia. One of the benefits of making a plausible offer is that if things go haywire, you might actually decide to keep your false promises. I cannot overstate the value of this.
Russia claimed to accept the offer and to be looking for alliance with Austria. How wonderful!
Messages with Austria
Hey, you managed to survive the first year very well. Woohoo! Always a feat for Austria. It sure is a reversal to see France as the one blown away in 1901 instead of Austria.
If you don't mind my asking, is Russia trying to cooperate with you? Your move to Vienna makes it seem like you were afraid of Russia, and Russia probably should not be in Galicia if you are supposed to be allies, but on the other hand you didn't attack each other. Anything helpful you can share with me?
At the moment both my neighbors regard me a friend, which cannot last, and hence, my insecurity. The time for decisions draws nigh.
Is there an info I can give you or promises I can make that would help you make your decision?
Secret Thoughts re: Austria
I am still making an effort to charm Austria. If possible, I want Austria to do well this game and treat me as an ally. Austria is a natural ally to England, and (as I stated at the outset of this turn) I am hoping that Austria will eventually join me in attacking Italy.
That said, even though an Austria/Russia alliance is highly desirable for me, I don't want to overplay my hand or patronize Austria. Austria needs to feel as though alliance with Russia is an independent decision. I am inquiring about whether they are allied to influence Austria to think that the two of them should be allied. I am hoping that Austria will tell me something I can do that would help Austria to decide to ally Russia.
Messages with Turkey
Well, it could have gone worse. At least Italy is committed to not attacking you. I'm glad you attacked Russia. It's too bad that we couldn't stop Russia from making a build.
Hey, do you have a sense of whether Austria and Russia are trying to be allied? Or do you think Russia is just being aggressive in every direction?
It is hard to tell what Russia and Austria are scheming in dark corners. Like everyone else I suspect they want to appear friendly while trying to gain an advantage by standing on the other's toes.
I decided not to contest Rumania since I assumed Russia would support his move there and I didn't see the need to aggravate him more than I did. Good for you to get Belgium although I thought the prospect of a risk-free move to Norway would be too much to resist. The race for Scandinavia is still on and I think you will get Norway without a problem as Russia is toothless in the north.
Since you have control of both the North Sea and the Channel an army could be a sensible build for you although I prefer building fleets at every opportunity when I play England. I think I will go for a fleet in Constantinople as it allows me the most flexibility.
Thanks for the info -- anything helps! And yeah, it was a decent turn for me (or at least, it could have gone worse). I am going to do the boring thing and build another fleet right away.
I think a fleet in Constantinople is the strongest build. I wouldn't do differently.
Secret Thoughts re: Turkey
Although I stated in my Austria section that I want to encourage an Austria/Russia alliance, at the same time I want that alliance to be unsuccessful. I am hoping that Austria and Russia will attack Turkey, but that Turkey will see it coming and make good guesses that block the attack. The longer the other side of the board stays divided, the greater my chances of a solo win. So to that end, I am trying to bolster what I imagine to be Turkey's natural sense of concern or paranoia that Austria and Russia might attack together.
Turkey's analysis and advice are, in my opinion, the Diplomacy equivalent of "water cooler talk." I think Turkey is just trying to stay in touch with me and appear to be interested and friendly, despite not really having anything to offer me. That's usually all England and Turkey can do for the first couple of years. I think frequent communication is a good habit though, so that there is some sense of trust in place on later turns.
Secret Thoughts re: Italy
I want to mirror the way Italy is treating me if possible, and so far I've been kind of pushing it (by sending Italy more detailed messages than Italy sends to me). So if Italy feels there's nothing for us to discuss during the winter (a.k.a builds) phase, then I'm not going to initiate anything.
Italy and I seem to share an understanding that Italy will attack France, so the logical move is for the Italian player is to build a second fleet. Indeed, Italy almost always wants to build a second fleet in 1901. I think I can take it for granted that Italy will build a fleet, and to remind Italy to do that runs the risk of my seeming patronizing (which will alienate Italy).
Italy's press with me has been rather sparse. I think that an experienced player would be sending me messages, probably ones that encourage me to attack Germany. Instead, I'm getting nothing. As I specified to Germany in my messages, I have the impression that Italy might be a relatively inexperienced player.
Dear reader (especially if you are Italy and decided to read this journal after the match), please understand that my assessment is not an accusation. I am merely trying to get a read on the other players in order to maximize my advantages.
I believe that I am highly seeded at this tournament, which means a certain number of players in this match are inexperienced compared to me. In order to maximize my advantage, I need to assess which players seem experienced or inexperienced. I can only size up the players based on their moves and their press; I have nothing else to go on. So based on Italy's moves and Italy's press, Italy gives me the impression of being inexperienced (compared to the other players).
Secret Thoughts re: France
France never responded to my effort to reach out. I get the impression that France has simply given up after such a poor opening. That's a shame, and is rather boring for me. It also gives me no opportunity to manipulate France (or join with France to backstab Germany).
In my opinion, abandonment is a frequent problem when matches use "Sum-of-Squares" Scoring. I wrote an article about this problem.
Messages with Germany
Final Words
Cheers friend, best 1901 I've had since I can remember, let's make every turn after this just as much a success as the first.
P.S.: one important long-term consideration for us is that we actually need you to conquer STP with an army if at all possible (otherwise I'll have to build another army and convoy to STP, which is not ideal). In the long run we will need an army in STP if you're to be the one owning Warsaw and Moscow at the end; conquering STP with a fleet will result in a dead end (it can't support attacks on Moscow, or attacks on Warsaw by poking Moscow). You may already know that, and it's not relevant to any of my other points, but it's something I wanted you to keep in mind if you hadn't thought about it.
RULE BRITANNIA! BRITANNIA RULES THE WAVES!
Cheers! I have not derived this much enjoyment from a Diplomacy game in at least half a decade.
I expect to order the following:
A Mun-Bur
A Par S A Bel-Pic
A Kie-Den
A Hol-Kie
F Den-Bal
And Berlin's movements will turn on the Russian build, but I hear Prussia is wonderful at this time of year.
P.S.: I agree that it must (or, well, really ought to) be an army that takes St. Petersburg. My intuition is that it will ultimately be easier to get a newly constructed army of yours into there than it will be to get a German army in there, but I'm prepared to cross that bridge when we come to it. It may well be that an opportunity presents itself for you to get a fleet into St. Petersburg in 1902; I'd hardly suggest in that scenario that we should rule out your seizing such an opportunity (but, I know you wouldn't rule it out either, so I'm really just thinking aloud).
It seems we are aligned on every point. I am so very glad that we used the uneventful build phase to plan ahead. I am building my fleet in EDI.
I think my orders for Spring 1902 will be:
EDI to NWG
NTH to NOR
BEL to PIC
ENG to MAO
Indeed, I don't foresee anything happening that would make the orders different.
Rest well my friend. I'm having a wonderful time. I forwarded your compliments to anybody who would take a look at such things. Maybe I need to enter into tournaments more if this is the caliber of player drawn to such things and the quality of play it draws out of the players. Or maybe I just got lucky!!
Secret Thoughts re: Germany
Final Words
What a wonderful message to read from Germany before I go to bed this evening. Absolutely pleasant. We seem to get the same kind of fun out of this hobby.
I decided to plant the seed in Germany's mind that I might need an army build eventually. My underlying tactical point about needing an army in St. Petersburg is 100% true. It's also true that it's very easy for England to be the one to put an army there (indeed, this is very common with an England-Germany alliance), but I did not want to state that outright; I wanted Germany to be the one to suggest this idea. When another person believes an idea to be the product of their own thinking, you don't have to persuade them of anything.
It is absolutely critical to my solo win strategy that I build armies at some point. It looks very clear to me that I will not need that many fleets actually, because France will never build and Russia will be destroyed (in the north) shortly. If Germany does not build fleets, then I actually only need a small number to totally dominate the seas in the north. Every army I'm somehow able to convince Germany to allow me to build is one step closer to a solo win.
Probably what I will do is wait until Winter 1902 (when I have no fleet in North Sea) and suggest that I build an army in Edinburgh, to be convoyed to Norway by Norwegian Sea.
My statements about my build and intended moves are completely sincere.