[Reply]

[Reply]

A&E 090205 / DC240: Thanks again to all of the players and observers. I read the EOG statements and other comments with great interest. With David's EOG statement, we've heard from almost everyone, and so I figure it's time to wrap this up, and provide some overall comments on the game from your GM.


Britain: While he was the beneficiary of some luck, Frank played a near flawless game and deserved the win. I thought the critical moment for Britain actually came very early, with the crippling of France in the first year. Not only was Britain's biggest rival neutralized, but Frank managed to woo Mike into serving the invaluable role of loyal Janissary. With the Danes secured as an ally, this left Frank with no serious threats, and Spain was the only potentially hostile enemy by sea. With French help, the Spanish were wiped out from Iberia, and then there were no threats. It was not an accidental situation that Frank ended up with no enemies, and it was a remarkable achievement to win the game without any opponent putting up a significant challenge. Another key for Britain was keeping his army in Hanover, which proved extremely useful later in establishing control of northern Germany.

Austria: Jorge played an outstanding game also, and came extremely close to the win. I am writing an article on Austrian strategy, and feel like Jorge executed the optimal plan nearly perfectly. The two main threats to Austria are France and Turkey, and Jorge developed his gameplan with this in mind from the start. He was a key orchestrator of the first year attack on France, which allowed him to establish himself as the dominant power in the Alps. He recognized that attacking Turkey and becoming a Med power requires fleets, and with only one port, he needed to build fleets at every opportunity. I also like how he bypassed the easy build in Bavaria to get the more distant build in BaW, figuring he could come back and get Bavaria later. Finally, Jorge's ability to gather DPs was unbelievable, as he won the DP battle every turn. I love the diplomacy point rules because the neutral units can serve as a force multiplier for players that are strong
diplomats, and this is a particularly valuable skill for the Archduke, given all of the neutral units nearby.

The Turning Point of the Game: Jorge was the early leader, and then in Fall 1765 the most critical event of the game happened, although by itself it didn't seem too important. Prussia sent in an original set of orders that helped Austria by cutting Turkish support in Wallachia for a Polish attack on Budapest. The deadline was delayed for a day when Britain didn't send orders in. At the very last minute, Prussia sent in a new order set, in which they ordered more conservatively and protected themselves from a possible Polish attack. Prussia indicated in his EOG statement that Frank convinced him to prevent an Austrian solo, and so Frank must be given some credit here. With the first order set, Austria would have retained Budapest, Poland would have been reduced to 1 SC and likely disbanded the army threatening Austria, and most importantly Austria could have built a 3rd fleet against Turkey, as he worked hard to leave Vienna open. With this build,
he likely would have defeated Turkey and won the game. Instead, Austria lost Budapest, had no builds, and never was able to regain momentum in the southeast.

Denmark-Norway: With my articles on Denmark-Norway and Turkey, I had special interest in watching how the game went for these two players. My most forceful argument in the D-N article was that Denmark cannot ally with both Britain and Sweden, yet David took this strategy right from the start. Maybe it just took some time for my words to sink in, as David later brilliantly implemented the ideas from my article, which is to eliminate quickly either Britain or Sweden (Sweden in this case), and then form a rock-solid alliance with either Britain or Russia as you kill the other one. There was only one flaw here: his alliance with Britain was so strong that David let his ally win the game!

Turkey: I was pleased when Robert convoyed his army into Tunis in the first year. In my article, I outlined various reasons why this tactic is useful, and it proved so here as Robert became the "Master of the Maghreb". Robert also fought a brilliant war against a dangerous opponent in Austria, and had to play perfectly in order to both prevent Austrian victory and save himself. Sending armies into the chaos in the eastern steppes was a risky strategy that could have paid off with victory, although losses in Two Sicilies and Barcelona forced disbands that undermined this plan.

The End of the Game: The final major point of discussion is the ending. At first I was bothered by how the game finished, but I believe that the actions were largely defensible from each player's individual perspective, if not collectively. Denmark made a calculated gamble that he could count on Austria and hopefully Turkey to prevent British victory long enough that Denmark could maybe beat Britain to the finish line. Turkey also gambled by leaving the Med somewhat vulnerable in order to pursue their land attack in Russia, and counting on Austria to prevent British victory while Turkey still attacked Austria. Jorge realized in the mid-game that he could not defeat Turkey, and made a dogged attempt to instead work with Turkey that ended up making Jorge look foolish twice (although I think Jorge had the correct idea). However, it is clear from Robert's EOG statement that cooperation with Jorge was never going to happen as much for personal as
strategic reasons. And to be fair, if Robert had worked with Jorge, he likely would have faced an Austrian stab down the road where Jorge went for the win once Britain was safely contained. Jorge was faced with the scenario where he was a sacrificial lamb being the "good boy" by fighting Frank, when both the Danes and Turks were unwilling to do so, and indeed counting on Jorge to do so in order to further their own ambitions. With little hope of personal glory in this situation, he decided that he might as well influence the final outcome, and for obvious reasons preferred Frank to David or Robert after weeks of frustrating diplomacy with the latter two.

For the other players, I would like to thank everybody for their participation, and for staying active in the game until the end. I thought that Kurt (Sweden) had a great game plan, by making peace with the Danes and attacking Russia, but had some bad luck where the Russians guessed correctly every time on defense. Conversely, Tsar Nathan was faced with a tough situation where he was forced to defend from the first turn, and put up a memorable resistance.

There was some conversation earlier about the 2 SC powers. Personally, I have no problem with some powers starting in better positions than others. There is no pretence in this game that all 10 positions are equal to start, and as a player of A&E I take this into account when evaluating my final performance. For example, I had a game as Denmark-Norway where I expanded to 6 SCs and managed to eliminate Sweden and Britain (who was played by the extremely formidable Ray Bruce). Although I later made errors and was stabbed by Prussia, that is one of my proudest games as a Dip player, even if I only reached 6 SCs and didn't come close to victory. Some players like the challenge of playing a minnow, and seeing what they can do with the position; it's not for everybody, but there are enough of us out there that enjoy it. Also, as mentioned earlier, I feel like the DPs are a huge leveling force that allow any power to punch well above their weight.
Somebody (I believe Warren) asked if any 2 DP powers have been eliminated in the first year, and yes, Denmark-Norway was eliminated in the first year in the previous game that I GM-ed. I don't see this as a problem though.

That wraps things up from my end. Looking towards the future, I am writing a strategy article for Austria that will be in the Diplomatic Pouch later this summer. A&E is now programmed to play on the DPJudge, and the next game that I GM will be the first A&E game on that platform. Thanks to those that have expressed interest in playing, and while I will seek new blood first, we had some problems filling this game, and so I expect that there may well be some spots open.

Finally, my own WW2 1931 variant is finally ready for its first gametest after years of development. You can learn more about the variant here: http://ww2-1931.tripod.com/. You can see the original (huge) map with the units, plus the new pretty map that Kristian Gustafsen has kindly helped me with (although without units, I'm doing that this week). The last steps will be completed by this weekend, and I will formally put out a recruiting call then. I would be happy to have anyone from this game on the roster, so please let me know if you're interested.

Thanks again to our players and observers, it was a very entertaining game, and I look forward to crossing paths again.

Nick


---------------------------------------
Nick Higgins
Congress of Vienna variant website:
http://1814congressofvienna.tripod.com

[Reply]

A&E 090205 / DC240: Thanks again to all of the players and observers. I read the EOG statements and other comments with great interest. With David's EOG statement, we've heard from almost everyone, and so I figure it's time to wrap this up, and provide some overall comments on the game from your GM.


Britain: While he was the beneficiary of some luck, Frank played a near flawless game and deserved the win. I thought the critical moment for Britain actually came very early, with the crippling of France in the first year. Not only was Britain's biggest rival neutralized, but Frank managed to woo Mike into serving the invaluable role of loyal Janissary. With the Danes secured as an ally, this left Frank with no serious threats, and Spain was the only potentially hostile enemy by sea. With French help, the Spanish were wiped out from Iberia, and then there were no threats. It was not an accidental situation that Frank ended up with no enemies, and it was a remarkable achievement to win the game without any opponent putting up a significant challenge. Another key for Britain was keeping his army in Hanover, which proved extremely useful later in establishing control of northern Germany.

Austria: Jorge played an outstanding game also, and came extremely close to the win. I am writing an article on Austrian strategy, and feel like Jorge executed the optimal plan nearly perfectly. The two main threats to Austria are France and Turkey, and Jorge developed his gameplan with this in mind from the start. He was a key orchestrator of the first year attack on France, which allowed him to establish himself as the dominant power in the Alps. He recognized that attacking Turkey and becoming a Med power requires fleets, and with only one port, he needed to build fleets at every opportunity. I also like how he bypassed the easy build in Bavaria to get the more distant build in BaW, figuring he could come back and get Bavaria later. Finally, Jorge's ability to gather DPs was unbelievable, as he won the DP battle every turn. I love the diplomacy point rules because the neutral units can serve as a force multiplier for players that are strong
diplomats, and this is a particularly valuable skill for the Archduke, given all of the neutral units nearby.

The Turning Point of the Game: Jorge was the early leader, and then in Fall 1765 the most critical event of the game happened, although by itself it didn't seem too important. Prussia sent in an original set of orders that helped Austria by cutting Turkish support in Wallachia for a Polish attack on Budapest. The deadline was delayed for a day when Britain didn't send orders in. At the very last minute, Prussia sent in a new order set, in which they ordered more conservatively and protected themselves from a possible Polish attack. Prussia indicated in his EOG statement that Frank convinced him to prevent an Austrian solo, and so Frank must be given some credit here. With the first order set, Austria would have retained Budapest, Poland would have been reduced to 1 SC and likely disbanded the army threatening Austria, and most importantly Austria could have built a 3rd fleet against Turkey, as he worked hard to leave Vienna open. With this build,
he likely would have defeated Turkey and won the game. Instead, Austria lost Budapest, had no builds, and never was able to regain momentum in the southeast.

Denmark-Norway: With my articles on Denmark-Norway and Turkey, I had special interest in watching how the game went for these two players. My most forceful argument in the D-N article was that Denmark cannot ally with both Britain and Sweden, yet David took this strategy right from the start. Maybe it just took some time for my words to sink in, as David later brilliantly implemented the ideas from my article, which is to eliminate quickly either Britain or Sweden (Sweden in this case), and then form a rock-solid alliance with either Britain or Russia as you kill the other one. There was only one flaw here: his alliance with Britain was so strong that David let his ally win the game!

Turkey: I was pleased when Robert convoyed his army into Tunis in the first year. In my article, I outlined various reasons why this tactic is useful, and it proved so here as Robert became the "Master of the Maghreb". Robert also fought a brilliant war against a dangerous opponent in Austria, and had to play perfectly in order to both prevent Austrian victory and save himself. Sending armies into the chaos in the eastern steppes was a risky strategy that could have paid off with victory, although losses in Two Sicilies and Barcelona forced disbands that undermined this plan.

The End of the Game: The final major point of discussion is the ending. At first I was bothered by how the game finished, but I believe that the actions were largely defensible from each player's individual perspective, if not collectively. Denmark made a calculated gamble that he could count on Austria and hopefully Turkey to prevent British victory long enough that Denmark could maybe beat Britain to the finish line. Turkey also gambled by leaving the Med somewhat vulnerable in order to pursue their land attack in Russia, and counting on Austria to prevent British victory while Turkey still attacked Austria. Jorge realized in the mid-game that he could not defeat Turkey, and made a dogged attempt to instead work with Turkey that ended up making Jorge look foolish twice (although I think Jorge had the correct idea). However, it is clear from Robert's EOG statement that cooperation with Jorge was never going to happen as much for personal as
strategic reasons. And to be fair, if Robert had worked with Jorge, he likely would have faced an Austrian stab down the road where Jorge went for the win once Britain was safely contained. Jorge was faced with the scenario where he was a sacrificial lamb being the "good boy" by fighting Frank, when both the Danes and Turks were unwilling to do so, and indeed counting on Jorge to do so in order to further their own ambitions. With little hope of personal glory in this situation, he decided that he might as well influence the final outcome, and for obvious reasons preferred Frank to David or Robert after weeks of frustrating diplomacy with the latter two.

For the other players, I would like to thank everybody for their participation, and for staying active in the game until the end. I thought that Kurt (Sweden) had a great game plan, by making peace with the Danes and attacking Russia, but had some bad luck where the Russians guessed correctly every time on defense. Conversely, Tsar Nathan was faced with a tough situation where he was forced to defend from the first turn, and put up a memorable resistance.

There was some conversation earlier about the 2 SC powers. Personally, I have no problem with some powers starting in better positions than others. There is no pretence in this game that all 10 positions are equal to start, and as a player of A&E I take this into account when evaluating my final performance. For example, I had a game as Denmark-Norway where I expanded to 6 SCs and managed to eliminate Sweden and Britain (who was played by the extremely formidable Ray Bruce). Although I later made errors and was stabbed by Prussia, that is one of my proudest games as a Dip player, even if I only reached 6 SCs and didn't come close to victory. Some players like the challenge of playing a minnow, and seeing what they can do with the position; it's not for everybody, but there are enough of us out there that enjoy it. Also, as mentioned earlier, I feel like the DPs are a huge leveling force that allow any power to punch well above their weight.
Somebody (I believe Warren) asked if any 2 DP powers have been eliminated in the first year, and yes, Denmark-Norway was eliminated in the first year in the previous game that I GM-ed. I don't see this as a problem though.

That wraps things up from my end. Looking towards the future, I am writing a strategy article for Austria that will be in the Diplomatic Pouch later this summer. A&E is now programmed to play on the DPJudge, and the next game that I GM will be the first A&E game on that platform. Thanks to those that have expressed interest in playing, and while I will seek new blood first, we had some problems filling this game, and so I expect that there may well be some spots open.

Finally, my own WW2 1931 variant is finally ready for its first gametest after years of development. You can learn more about the variant here: http://ww2-1931.tripod.com/. You can see the original (huge) map with the units, plus the new pretty map that Kristian Gustafsen has kindly helped me with (although without units, I'm doing that this week). The last steps will be completed by this weekend, and I will formally put out a recruiting call then. I would be happy to have anyone from this game on the roster, so please let me know if you're interested.

Thanks again to our players and observers, it was a very entertaining game, and I look forward to crossing paths again.

Nick


---------------------------------------
Nick Higgins
Congress of Vienna variant website:
http://1814congressofvienna.tripod.com

[Reply]

[Reply]

-----Original Message-----
From: Robert Stein [mailto:smileyrob68(at)gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, 10 June 2009 11:19
To: Warren Ball
Cc: Jorge Saralegui; Mark; Nick Higgins; frankmartin(at)surewest.net; to jeffrey kase; nathanbalbright(at)yahoo.com; davidchegould(at)bigpond.com; Gould, David (DPS); kelly058(at)verizon.net; isaac.zinner(at)gmail.com; VonPowell(at)aol.com; Chris Dziedzic; toosauto(at)gmail.com; dc240(at)diplomaticcorp.com; stevelytton(at)hotmail.com; c.p.mcinerney(at)gmail.com; karsten.nitsch(at)gmx.de; former.trout(at)gmail.com; Sturmkraehe(at)comcast.net; Michael Norton
Subject: Re: Ambition & Empire 090205 / DC240: Players & Powers


I guess it is about time I write an EOG and add my two cents to the discussion, particularly as it seems my decision to retreat to Ion in the second to last game year triggered Jorge and his vassal Isaac giving Frank the final centers needed for a solo victory. But before getting into all of that, I'd like to thank Nick for mastering this game and inviting me to play. It's my second game of A&E. I played Denmark once a while ago when the some of the rules and map were a bit different. I like the game, and look forward to playing again. I also wish to congratulate Frank on a game well played, and a deserved victory, even if I don't like how the game ended.

At the beginning of the game I tried my best to negotiate demilitarized buffer zones with my three closest neighbors. Austria and Russia were willing to do this; Spain was not. The refusal of Spain to demilitarize Wes was a major factor in determining my opening. I sincerely wanted a demilitarized Wes so that I could feel free to move north without fear of attack through the Ion. Had Isaac agreed to the demilitarized zone, I am positive I would have ordered Con-Bla rather than Con-Ion and tried to make Cri rather than Tun my third build center. But I felt Isaac had made it clear that the African centers were a high priority and I knew that if I didn't move towards Tun immediately, I'd soon see Spanish fleets threatening Con. Though I wouldn't be able to exploit the Russian move north and impending conflict with Sweden I knew was coming, at least that knowledge gave me confidence that I could move to the med without worrying about Russia attacking me.

In the first winter I received a letter from Jorge that really set the tone for the whole game, the letter demanding I either agree to support him to TWS that fall or allow him to build a fleet so that he could take it himself. Yes I had agreed in the build up to the first turn to eventually support him to Tws so long as he take it with an army and not develop any navy at all. I never expected him to call in that marker in the second year, and the fact that he did, and wouldn't back off his demands let me know that he was looking at me much more as a target than as an ally. Jorge wrote in his EOG that I reacted as I did because I was "understandably unhappy over how well I was doing under our agreement" That is not entirely the case. I reacted as I did because he was making a demand that completely tied my hands and prevented me from doing anything that turn other than helping him. In fact in the letter making the demand he wrote how my convoy to Tunis put me in good position to "take a turn off." I wrote Jorge "If you needed Two Sicilies this year, I would have no problem supporting you there. But you do not. You can easily gain four other supply centers [Bav, Swi, Tus, Pap the neutrals Jorge had "stacked in reserve"] while letting The Two Sicilies remain neutral. In either scenario you propose, either by directly supporting you to The Two Sicilies or by covering Con should you occupy Adr, I have to expend at least one unit in order to ensure you can take Two Sicilies, a center you do not need. Yet I only have three units, and cannot possibly take another center if I have to use at least one to help you take The Two Sicilies while at the same time worrying about an attack from Spain. Please explain to me how this scenario, which sees you take possibly five centers this year, but limits me to zero while exposing me to an attack from Spain, constitutes you cooperating with me? If you were truly cooperative, you would recognize that the conditions that would have allowed me to commit to supporting you to The Two Sicilies simply do not exist, while the condition that now causes me to think that an Austrian fleet would be a great threat to Turkey, namely that you have already showed yourself to be allied with Spain, a power that refuses to negotiate any type of peace agreement with Turkey, does." I even wrote with a plan that would see me take Alg in 1764, build F Tun that winter which could then do the job of F Ion in defending Wes so that I would be able to support him to Tws in 1765, but I also made it clear that if Austria built a fleet, there would be war between Austria and Turkey. Yet Jorge replied that since I could not commit to supporting him to Tws in 1764 he was building that fleet, and build it he did. The war between Austria and Turkey had nothing to do with my unhappiness over Jorge's success, and it certainly was never about rallying to Frank's pleas to stop an Austrian solo; it was always and only about Jorge's decision to build a fleet, to occupy Tws with a fleet, and to keep a fleet within easy striking distance of Con and Tun.

But yes soon thereafter Frank began trying to build an anti-Austrian coalition. As I was already committed to fighting Austria, and would rather fight with allies than alone, why wouldn't I join? So I joined with Britain and Spain in a coalition to fight Austria in Germany and the med, although I thought both Britain and Spain seemed at least as interested in fighting France as Austria. After a bit, I came to doubt the sincerity of Isaac's commitment to fight Austria at all, a doubt which given Jorge's EOG seems to have been valid. Thus when in preparing for S 1766 I heard from Frank that he was planning on stabbing France, I pitched the idea that he stab Spain instead, and use France to do it by convoying Bre-Por. Frank agreed to do so, so long as I agreed to side with him when he eventually stabbed France. If Isaac had been less transparently pro-Austrian, I may have just let Frank stab Mike and tried to proceed with the BST alliance against Jorge. But between the perceived disloyalty of Spain to that alliance and the knowledge that long-term France would be more able to counter-balance Britain than a Spain who was neglecting Mid, I not only supported the BF stab of Spain, I was its architect.

Nevertheless after it happened I received a letter from Jorge about how I had been the one most disadvantaged by that stab, and an offer to end our war and join an alliance with Austria and Spain against Britain and France. Had I at all believed that Spain and Austria had ever stopped being allies, maybe I would have bought this pitch, but as it was i believed this was just another attempt by Austria and Spain to manipulate me to their, I mean Austria's, advantage. So there never was a "stab" of Austria. During that year in which I "negotiated" with Austria and Spain, I never stopped being loyal to Britain and France. If Austria wanted to manipulate me by acting as my ally, I wasn't above doing the same thing to him. Maybe in the fall of that year I had a moment where I actually considered going through with the attack on Britain and France, but I stuck with them for a few reasons. First Austria's insistence on a set of tactics that put his fleet in Wes without leaving me any units to defend my African centers made me fear that all he wanted to do was steal those centers. Perhaps more fundamental though was Isaac's absence from the negotiations, and the realization that Spain and Austria were indeed "intermarried" with Isaac ceding all power to negotiate and probably even make orders to Jorge. On the other hand, even if I didn't agree with everything Mike or Frank did, at least we were an alliance of three independent agents who could work things out through negotiation. The decision to stick with BF over AS was as much, if not more, pro-Mike and anti-Isaac than it was pro-Frank and anti-Jorge. Although I would be dishonest if I said there was not some degree of pro-Frank and anti-Jorge. Working with Frank felt much more like being part of a coalition, working with Jorge felt like being under the control of a dictator. Once Jorge made a suggestion, you could write letters until your hands fell off but there was never any give and take, at least as he dealt with me. I also detected a condescending attitude towards me that shines through in his EOG. He's the only one who sees the "big picture." Really, maybe the picture is just different depending on which seat you are sitting in, but with Jorge, if you don't see the picture as he demands you see it, there is something questionable or laughable about the way you play the game.

Meanwhile in the east, when I saw the Polish army in Boh I wrote offering to support him into Bud. Though there had been no real relationship between the two of us prior to that, I felt putting Poland in Bud, and denying Jorge his build center closest to Con could only be a good thing. And from that point on, Matt was truest, closest ally I had. Around this time Denmark had successfully stabbed Sweden, and was beginning to move on both Prussia and Russia. David wrote proposing a three way alliance amongst Denmark, Poland, and Turkey that when originally proposed would have seen Poland come to control War, Kie, and Mos. I really liked the idea of this alliance. It would have allowed us to pressure both Britain and Austria, and Poland would have been a not insignificant buffer between Denmark and me. Unfortunately David never intended such an alliance but merely sold it to set up his "stab" of me in F1768. I wonder if David had it to do over again if he might actually go through with the DPT alliance. Of course David's is not the stab that hurt. All David did was not give the promised support from Stp for Kaz- Mos (held at the time by Prussia). But if David had not offered that support, I likely would have given the same order he himself gave, Kaz S Russian Army Nov-Mos. But David did make the offer, and I made the order, not really expecting it succeed as David had already shown himself to be unable to tell me a single truth so far in the game, but knowing Kaz-Mos couldn't hurt me either.

No the stab that hurt that fall was Mike taking Brc. I felt I had been in Mike's corner so many times I had lost track. It seemed a seasonal occurrence that I dissuaded Frank from stabbing Mike, I had engineered his convoy to Iberia, and I hadn't attacked Mad when Austria expected me to. Yes Frank did finally stab Mike; I couldn't restrain him any longer, but had Mike not stabbed me, I would have used my army in Brc to help him against Britain, but after being stabbed, I couldn't turn around and help Mike the next year. Still here is where I made the one move I would probably take back, and that is the decision to retreat to Gas. I should have disbanded that army and kept both armies in the east rather than disbanding Zap. But when I suggested to Frank that I might do this, he asked me to keep the army in France and promised to get it into a supply center the next year. Also I had to concede that there was slight possibility that David could construe my armies in Zap and Kaz as threatening and I didn't want to give any him any added incentive to continue concentrating on eastern europe rather than moving against Britain. I knew that though Britain hadn't stabbed me yet, it was only a matter of time, and I really tried my best to secure a friendly relationship with Denmark that would have allowed us to counter-Britain, without taking our thumb off Austria, but no matter what I did, David kept coming further and further south through both Nov and Bal.

Then in 1769 the British stab came. I wasn't furious about the stab, as Frank wrote in his EOG. I was furious about this press Frank submitted with the stab: "England to Turkey: Robert, it came down to your unwillingness to let me help.
All information I had this year is that you will be losing the Western
Med, which cripples your defense of North Africa. Assuming that Jorge would continue to press, and that he has easy builds for the taking in Budapest,
Savoy, etc, I needed to side with somebody who could help me stop an
Austrian solo. I don't plan on taking any Turkish centers (after Paris, which I needed to shore that front), but my fleets are heading through Gibraltar, if they can."

Every line of that press was BS. I only lost Wes because I let myself lose Wes in order to move into position to finally take Tws. Yes I knew in so doing I would be giving an African center to Spain, and yes I knew Spain was Austria's vassal, but though Wes borders three centers, the Spanish fleet could only take one, and Spain couldn't build. By surrounding Tws, I was going to be able to destroy the Austrian fleet, ending any future chance of Austria growing in the med. Sure Spain could take centers, but Austria couldn't. Destroying that fleet was a severe blow to any remnants of a solo threat Austria presented, but yet i was stabbed because I was unable to help stop an Austrian solo? Furthermore, there were no easy builds for the taking in Budapest as my army in Cro could defend it almost indefinitely. The only reason I even had an army in France in general or Paris in particular was at Frank's request, and subsequent to Mike's stab, I was only going to use it to help Britain. And both he and I knew that next spring he would order Mid-Mor not Mid-Gib. Frank you stabbed me to steal a center and make your final push for a solo. I respect that. I don't respect you trying to sugar-coat it with disinformation and false"reasons." I had been a loyal ally from the second game year; I was owed an honest stab.

And that brings us to my retreat. Yes I knew Frank would try for Mor, and I gather that I didn't retreat to Mor was to some amusing and signals my failure to see the "big picture." I just think I saw the picture differently. For starters, if Austria had really wanted me to remain in position to move to Mor next spring, perhaps he should not have ordered the Spanish fleets to dislodge me from Wes. If you are the reason someone has to retreat, it's not right to demand they retreat away from you. But my decision was not based on a simple decision to intentionally not do whatever it was Austria demanded. I reasoned that the Spanish fleet in Wes could just as easily defend Mor as I could, and I was better off finally securing the Ion and doing whatever I could to encourage David and Frank to finally fight one another. This is the letter I wrote Jorge in response to his demand I retreat to Tunis: "Denmark wants me to attack Britain. Britain wants me to attack Denmark. I am sure each feels if I attack the other they will be free to solo. Given I don't have the resources to fight both, I am thinking right now my best strategy may be to attack neither and force them to attack one another if they want to slow the other's progress. Of course that doesn't mean I will just let them take centers. As I told Denmark, my highest priority at this time is ensuring Warsaw remains Polish, Kiev Russian and Moscow is returned to Russia. As for stopping Britain, Isaac is welcome to move to Mor. As long as he blocks Britain from Mor, and doesn't instead try to steal Alg from me, Britain isn't going to get very far in the med." I never heard from Jorge again.

Yes I continued to attack "Austria," but this wasn't so much attacking Austria as attacking Austrian naval presence in the med. Yes I took Tws, and in so doing destroyed that fleet, which had been a game-long objective. Yes I took Pap, but contrary to what Jorge may have thought, Pap was a neutral, not an Austrian center/fleet. None of that in any way had to stop the Spanish fleets from defending Mor or the Austrian armies from defending Baw. Look the final map. There is now a stable border between myself and Jorge. Our units are positioned so that neither of us needs to worry about losing another supply center to the other. This is a line that Austria could have held from his side with 4 armies (Tus/Ven/Vie and one of Boh/Tyr/Bav) That would have given him three armies to fight Britain in Germany, four if he didn't cede Baw but instead built another army in Mil. The alternative was to "retreat" to Mor and build in Ank leaving Tun/Ion/Con completely undefended. No thanks. Austria could well have seen Pap and Tws come under Turkish control allowing us to create a stable, secure border between us while still telling Spain to defend Mor and doing his best to see that neither Britain or Denmark made any further gains. That is what I was doing. That would have been playing for a draw. But my guess is that once Jorge saw he was going to lose the fleet, and with it any chance to solo, he decided to lose rather than accept a draw. Not a choice I would have made, but that was his. We did all make mistakes. We all contributed to Frank's solo. We all are losers, Jorge and David no less than Kurt and Mark. But only two of us, actually only one of us, actively supported Frank into the final centers needed for victory rather than continue working for a draw with players who may not agree on the best way to achieve that draw and and may not do everything demanded of them, and it wasn't me.

Robert







On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 9:36 AM, Warren Ball <warren_k_ball(at)yahoo.com ([email]warren_k_ball(at)yahoo.com[/email])> wrote:
[quote:3b98004bab] Well, I wasn't privy to the emails obviously but I saw the moves. I find it very hard to believe that anyone offered France a worse deal than being repeatedly stabbed. I don't agree w/him allying w/Britain after the 1st stab but I understand that he felt that Britain offered him the best deal he could get. You may have felt the deals you offered were better but France obviously didn't or he would've accepted them.

I also doubt that merely Austria & France could have stopped the solo alone, especially when other countries were hitting them. Everyone shared in the loss no matter how many sc's they had and everyone should've worked together to stop the solo. Britain didn't gain 10 sc's in the final turn. Everyone could have saw it coming.

--- On Tue, 6/9/09, Jorge Saralegui <jmsaralegui(at)gmail.com ([email]jmsaralegui(at)gmail.com[/email])> wrote:

[quote:3b98004bab]
From: Jorge Saralegui <jmsaralegui(at)gmail.com ([email]jmsaralegui(at)gmail.com[/email])>
Subject: Re: Ambition & Empire 090205 / DC240: Players & Powers

To: "Warren Ball" <warren_k_ball(at)yahoo.com ([email]warren_k_ball(at)yahoo.com[/email])>
Cc: "Mark" <mdemagogue(at)gmail.com ([email]mdemagogue(at)gmail.com[/email])>, "Nick Higgins" <congressofvienna1814(at)yahoo.com ([email]congressofvienna1814(at)yahoo.com[/email])>, frankmartin(at)surewest.net ([email]frankmartin(at)surewest.net[/email]), "to jeffrey kase" <jeffreykase(at)yahoo.com ([email]jeffreykase(at)yahoo.com[/email])>, nathanbalbright(at)yahoo.com ([email]nathanbalbright(at)yahoo.com[/email]), davidchegould(at)bigpond.com ([email]davidchegould(at)bigpond.com[/email]), David.Gould(at)aph.gov.au ([email]David.Gould(at)aph.gov.au[/email]), kelly058(at)verizon.net ([email]kelly058(at)verizon.net[/email]), smileyrob68(at)gmail.com ([email]smileyrob68(at)gmail.com[/email]), isaac.zinner(at)gmail.com ([email]isaac.zinner(at)gmail.com[/email]), VonPowell(at)aol.com ([email]VonPowell(at)aol.com[/email]), "Chris Dziedzic" <dipping_chris(at)yahoo.com ([email]dipping_chris(at)yahoo.com[/email])>, toosauto(at)gmail.com ([email]toosauto(at)gmail.com[/email]), dc240(at)diplomaticcorp.com ([email]dc240(at)diplomaticcorp.com[/email]), stevelytton(at)hotmail.com ([email]stevelytton(at)hotmail.com[/email]), c.p.mcinerney(at)gmail.com ([email]c.p.mcinerney(at)gmail.com[/email]), karsten.nitsch(at)gmx.de ([email]karsten.nitsch(at)gmx.de[/email]), former.trout(at)gmail.com ([email]former.trout(at)gmail.com[/email]), Sturmkraehe(at)comcast.net ([email]Sturmkraehe(at)comcast.net[/email]), "Michael Norton" <mjn82(at)yahoo.com ([email]mjn82(at)yahoo.com[/email])>
Date: Tuesday, June 9, 2009, 11:22 AM


Warren,

Most of your observations are on the money, but you're wrong on two points.


First, Spain never went back to Britain after multiple stabs. After the French convoy stab, he "intermarried" with Austria and worked in tandem with me for the rest of the game. It was only five years later, at my request (and trust me, solely to end a game that no longer mattered to him) that he supported Britain into Brc in exchange for support into Alg. That hardly constitutes "going back for more stabs."


Second, France didn't say that no one else offered him any sort of deal (although I can see why you misread his EOG that way). I offered him two separate deals - one in winter 1763 and another, better one in 1768 - that France accepted. France explained why he chose to break those deals: a better offer the first time around, (undeserved) mistrust the second.


In my opinion, a sustained effort by France against Britain in tandem with Austria could have stopped the solo. However, France was in the difficult position of trying not to thrive, but just survive, from the first turn on. If anyone deserves to be cut slack for taking his eyes off the British ball, it's him.


Jorge




On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 8:00 AM, Warren Ball <warren_k_ball(at)yahoo.com> wrote:
[quote:3b98004bab] Alas, where there is a solo, there is also finger pointing. So & so #1 didn't communicate, so & so #2 played bad tactics that allowed the solo, etc.

As I pointed out b4 the EoG's, Frank won because of 2 reasons. (1) he is the most experienced player in the variant (2) he stabbed people whose "retaliation" was then going back for MORE stabs, over & over. Let me now add a 3rd- Frank's tactics were indeed exemplary.

France was the player who kept going back for more stabs (followed by Spain). But he made clear in his EoG, y he did that. Nobody else was going to give him any kind of deal, so he stuck w/Frank after the initial stab. I don't agree w/that kind of thinking (I always go after the stabber) but I understand. This is a game of alliances & if you're not going to give somebody something reasonable, he's not gonna ally w/u.

So it's easy to criticize France but nobody offered him anything & France was never in position to stop the solo. What happened to all the players who couldn't temporarily put their conflicts on hold, to stop the solo? Everyone else lost, when England won.

So b4 pointing fingers at any individual player, all the other players should stop & think what THEY could have done, to stop the solo.

--- On Tue, 6/9/09, Mark <mdemagogue(at)gmail.com> wrote:

[quote:3b98004bab]
From: Mark <mdemagogue(at)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Ambition & Empire 090205 / DC240: Players & Powers

To: "Jorge Saralegui" <jmsaralegui(at)gmail.com>
Cc: "Nick Higgins" <congressofvienna1814(at)yahoo.com>, frankmartin(at)surewest.net, "Warren Ball" <warren_k_ball(at)yahoo.com>, "to jeffrey kase" <jeffreykase(at)yahoo.com>, nathanbalbright(at)yahoo.com, davidchegould(at)bigpond.com, David.Gould(at)aph.gov.au, kelly058(at)verizon.net, smileyrob68(at)gmail.com, isaac.zinner(at)gmail.com, VonPowell(at)aol.com, "Chris Dziedzic" <dipping_chris(at)yahoo.com>, toosauto(at)gmail.com, dc240(at)diplomaticcorp.com, stevelytton(at)hotmail.com, c.p.mcinerney(at)gmail.com, karsten.nitsch(at)gmx.de, former.trout(at)gmail.com, Sturmkraehe(at)comcast.net, "Michael Norton" <mjn82(at)yahoo.com>
Date: Tuesday, June 9, 2009, 12:46 AM

Since I've been assailed as an uncommunicative player it's time to correct that impression.

In response to Poland, I initially attempted to communicate with you but received no response. I'll forward the emails I sent asking what the army in Lusatia was going to do in fall of 63 to which I got no response. Communication between us at that point would have been vital, as you could have gained a third center in the center instead of holing up in my roach motel. The only other communication I received from you was a truce after you took an SC from me. That truce had no terms, except "that you weren't giving up any of your conquests" and didn't outine any expectations for a working relationship. Don't waste my email space with drivel like that.

There was no substantial attempt by Russia to establish communication, nor, after year one was there much of a point, given that all of your forces were attempting to stop sweden in the north. At that point non existant plans for courland seemed rather pointless. Given that my forces were similarly disposed there wasn't much use in us communicating.

As for Jorge, yeah, I miscued on that move. Also, I'm only human, and I got a little irritated at how your strategies always seemed to benefit everyone else you were in a working relationship with but me, Frank referred to that as "austrian diplomacy" and that was the blowback. In retrospect, it was a mistake, but I didn't really gain much from allying with you did I?

Overall, I was displeased with my choice of power, and how I played the game, but I was not at all surprised by the outcome given that Denmark and Turkey were doing everything they could do to make sure that Britain soloed. I'm not entirely sure why Turkey and Denmark fell for the lame threat construction (OMG AUSTRIA IS GOING TO SOLO) even though he was clearly on the defensive after plateuing at 8 centers, but we all can't be as smart as I am.

As an afterword, it was kind of hard, for me at least, to tell what spaces on the map bordered which (particularly Dre and Lus), and for that matter which units were where.


On Mon, Jun 8, 2009 at 8:55 PM, Jorge Saralegui <jmsaralegui(at)gmail.com> wrote:

[quote:3b98004bab] I would like to thank the academy… I have never made more of an effort, had worse results, or enjoyed a game more than I did this one (well, except for the time I came back from the dead to eliminate board leader Ray Bruce). That is meant to be a high compliment to Jeff and Baron, whose variant is currently my favorite version of Diplomacy, bar none. It’s an even bigger compliment to Nick, who managed this game expertly, offered entertaining public commentary, and engaged in a running dialogue with me that provided welcome A&E history as well as circumspect commentary on my orders (which I explained in detail). Finally I appreciated the dedication of all the players, which resulted in no NMR’s (technically, anyway!) and considered play by just about all.
My game could be divided into two phases. Let’s call the first one:
Why I failed to solo
This was my first time playing A&E. Austria’s advantage was obviously biggest at the start, and I mapped out a strategy to solo in as little as four years. The key was destroying France, which would give me enough access to the central neutrals that I would only need to pick up a center or two from a northern power in order to quickly and inoffensively win. I allied with Britain and Spain, offering them all of the French spoils. My intent was to give each of them exctly what they wanted, while growing faster than either of them could. I made a deal with Turkey that gave me TwS in exchange for not building any fleets, neutrality pacts with Prussia and Poland, and encouraged Denmark and Sweden to ally. 1763 played out like it did on my chalkboard, permanently crippling France.
1764 brought first war with Turkey, who was understandably unhappy over how well I was doing under our agreement, and then with Britain, who made peace with France in order to stop me. My mistake here was to agree to help France survive, with only a vague sense of how that would help me. But the bottom line was that I was still in good shape for a solo, due mainly to the neutrals I had stacked up in reserve.
1765 was my year of frustration. Spain had joined with Britain and Turkey against me and France, but I convinced Spain (correctly) that he would ultimately be sandwiched by Britain and Turkey. We agreed that he would help France (who remained unaware of these plans) and that he could position himself to take Africa by seemingly moving in on me. This could have resulted in a sweep of the Med. Unfortunately, we miscommunicated on an order, and had to wait another year to try again. That chance would never come.
At the same time, I thought I had allied with Prussia, whose uncommunicativeness had left him isolated and in trouble. Thus, when Poland and Turkey made a move on Bud in the spring, I retreated to the west, counting on Prussia to cut any attack on Bud. That fall I orchestrated a complicated set of orders that would have given me a third fleet against Turkey, and victory in the SE while keeping Britain at bay. Only one thing went wrong: Prussia stabbed me, costing me Bud. For no reason, no gain – we were back to cooperating vaguely from then on – and only because of one of several dubious last-minute deadline extensions requested to finalize stabs this game. Those are the breaks, and that was the end of my controlling my own destiny.
Why I couldn’t stop Britain from soloing Having conceded my sprint, I told France – just stabbed by Britain – to retreat into Dre (my SC). The very next turn – spring of 1766 – France joined Britain’s stab of Spain. Ironically, this killed my plan to restore France, and of course did France no good. I rolled with the punch and approached Turkey about allying against the stabbing corner power who had now tied for the lead. After extremely long negotiations, Turkey agreed, if I disbanded one of my fleets. This was fine with me, since my goal was to stop Britain in his tracks. I executed a switch with Spain where he took two of my Italian centers, and we convoyed one of my armies to Spain. If I wasn’t going to solo, then neither was Britain.
Or so I thought. In spring of 1767, Turkey stabbed me. Given our absurdly long negotiations, and how sloppily the stab was executed, I believed his denial. So he stabbed me again in the fall. Imagine my embarrassment. I was essentially no worse off than before, but Spain had been reduced to reliable adjunct status. And Turkey probably felt that he had elevated himself into Contender status, since he was tied for the lead with Britain at 8, while resurgent Denmark and I were at 7.
A word about Contender #3: After David patiently and expertly stabbed his way to viability, I encouraged him to ally with Prussia against Britain, but he chose to stab Prussia and add to his center count. I feel that this is where an excellent, even exemplary, game was lost: Denmark didn’t have the nerve to take on Britain under reasonable conditions, and rationalized it by staying close as he worked with Britain for his own gain while counting on me to slow down the Brits.
And count on me he could. In 1768 I decided not to do the obvious – regroup by retaking Bud or my loaned-out Italian centers – and stay focused on the big picture. I kept applying as much pressure as possible on Britain, and counterattacked Turkey with what was left. Of tremendous help was the game-long DP support I had, which I attributed to diligence, verifiable straightforwardness, and the fact that I needed them to stay afloat in the Med while I tried to stop Britain. I convinced France to rejoin me, and helped him take Brc from Turkey. But to our frustration, we failed to also retake Mar from Britain when Spain couldn’t be reached to change his orders. An effort to go for HeW instead fell short when Britain switched his orders at the last moment. By the end of the year Turkey had lost his gains and I controlled Italy once again, but I had made no progress in slowing Britain.
That winter I built an army instead of a fleet to once again convince Turkey to stop the British solo. But Turkey continued to pressure me in the spring of 1769, and Britain stabbed Denmark, seemingly giving him the game. Surprisingly Britain shifted gears in the fall and spared Denmark to stab Turkey. He would have paid for it had France not lied to me about where he was moving, sparing Britain from losing HeW. France told me he thought I had tipped off Britain about our attack the prior turn – something so nutty that I could explain it only by the fact that France stabbed (and was stabbed by Britain) so often that he saw only subterfuge behind every move. The only thing that could have surprised me more was Turkey refusing yet another offer on my part to stop a 12-dot Britain. Two years after stabbing me in favor of Britain, Britain was up four, I was up one, and he was down two. But to the amusement of all my correspondents, Turkey continued to ignore the big picture, abandoning Mor in order to keep the pressure on me.
A word about Contender #2: Frank stabbed even more frequently than Denmark, with the downside of being board leader, and made it worse by laughing about it in his press (which I found useful because it sometimes revealed that he was allied with someone I hadn’t suspected). I had no doubt that it would all come back to haunt him, if I just stayed the course and played to stop Britain. It took me until almost the end of the game to give him the credit he deserved. His tactical game was flawless; the worst that I could say is that he should have finished off Denmark rather than shifting south, and there’s no way to call that a clear error. Early on he correctly convinced the board that I was a threat to solo. And he played Denmark and Turkey expertly after that, using very different piano keys, so that neither ever did anything to stop him. (I don’t think anyone played France – he played himself.) With as much effort and example as I put into my diplomacy, Frank did a better job – an amazing job - where it counted.
1770 dawned with Denmark making his annual promise that this year he really, really was going to attack Britain, Turkey loading both barrels for Austria, and France on Britain’s side for good. Forget soloing – there was nobody viable willing to stop Britain and play for a draw. I could either accept that, or continue fighting a 360-degree holding action that would possibly give the game to Denmark. I had zero reason to do that for David; his unwillingness to move out from under Britain’s wing, and the constant double-dealing that required, finally came back to bite him. I let Denmark and Turkey know that I would be adopting their strategy. Two turns after the finger was pulled from the dike, Britain had a solo.


Jorge


On Mon, Jun 8, 2009 at 3:00 PM, Michael Norton <mjn82(at)yahoo.com> wrote:
[quote:3b98004bab]
Congratulations Frank,

You definitely the deserved the victory!

Well, I asked for France and certainly made an early game mistake in my dipping. It was minimal the first turn as I was not only busy, but truly wanted a season to get a feel for the players. Big mistake. I had agreements in place with AH and Spain and a non-commital response from England that I thought would be sufficient.

I response I got a three way effort to dissemble France that quickly paired me to two centers. I quickly tried to craft another border agreement with Isaac and support from Austria to help fend off Frank. Isaac, once again violated the agreement immediately and that was pretty much the last time I had any real dipping with Spain.

Too survive I had to walk a fine line between AH and B, managing to get back to 3 centers, but it became obvious Jorge would never provide any help against Spain and I became convinced that S and A were very tight. I also flt A was never going to let me grow beyond 3 centers and that he telegraphed my last stab of Frank that should have brought me to 4 or possibly 5 centers. So I through my lot in with Frank, my goal being to help him solo as possible while surviving at the end of the game.

My most satisfying moment was the attack on Spain netting Barcelona and Madrid and evicting Isaac from Iberia.

So in retrospect, I should have pursued Austria or Britain aggressively early in the game. But i did have great fun playing with both of them.

I did think it was humorous that I got a complaint from a neighbor about being trustworthy when they had already stabbed me in the first year of the game. After a stab, all bets are off.

Enjoyed playing with all of you.

Mike

.

[Reply]

From: VonPowell(at)aol.com <VonPowell(at)aol.com>
Subject: Ambition & Empire: The Relative Merits of the Powers
To: warren_k_ball(at)yahoo.com, jmsaralegui(at)gmail.com, frankmartin(at)surewest.net
Cc: jeffreykase(at)yahoo.com, nathanbalbright(at)yahoo.com, davidchegould(at)bigpond.com, David.Gould(at)aph.gov.au, kelly058(at)verizon.net, mjn82(at)yahoo.com, smileyrob68(at)gmail.com, MDemagogue(at)gmail.com, isaac.zinner(at)gmail.com, congressofvienna1814(at)yahoo.com, dipping_chris(at)yahoo.com, toosauto(at)gmail.com, dc240(at)diplomaticcorp.com, stevelytton(at)hotmail.com, c.p.mcinerney(at)gmail.com, karsten.nitsch(at)gmx.de, former.trout(at)gmail.com, Sturmkraehe(at)comcast.net, kindly_despot(at)yahoo.com
Date: Sunday, June 14, 2009, 12:59 AM

Hey Gang,

I realize I'm late to this discussion and many of you have moved on to other projects, but I still wanted to say a few words about the relative strengths and weaknesses of each of the Powers.

I realize that no one has been calling for the Powers to be exactly equal in strength. If that were our goal, we would all be playing Migraine. Since we are not extolling the virtues of Migraine and we are all fans of Standard Diplomacy, I think we can agree that absolute equality is not a prerequisite for variant design.

The question then becomes this: how much disparity is acceptable in the relative strengths of the Powers before we consider the variant too imbalanced to be enjoyable? Clearly, that disparity cannot be too large or people will shun the variant simply to avoid being stuck with Power X.

Standard Diplomacy's Italy is the one Power that most people complain about as being too weak, yet it is clearly not so badly off that folks have stopped playing Standard.

In 1900, even though only a relatively small sample size was in available (just over 40 games at the time), I was hearing enough negative buzz about Russia's poor play to be convinced that I needed to make a change that strengthened Russia or risk losing my audience. After making that change by introducing the vaunted Steamroller, I again received enough negative feedback to tell me that I had to tone Russia down or again risk having 1900 drift into the category of variants that are imbalanced and unplayable. Hence the Russian Emergency Measures Rule. So far, so good.

The question then must be asked: are the ten Powers in A&E sufficiently viable that a player can be assigned any of them and still have a reasonable expectation of success? While Jeff and I are optimistic, the jury is clearly still out.

Certainly, many of the players that participate in an A&E game do so for reasons that go beyond merely playing diplomacy. I suspect a significant number of A&E players are historians of sorts and that the map/rules of the variant appeal to them in some aesthetic way. If I'm correct, these players are willing to cut the variant some slack, at least initially, because they would be offended on some level by a Poland that could stand toe-to-toe with Russia or a Denmark that could make the Royal Navy tremble in fear. Such circumstances would so violate historical reality that they would seem contrived.

At the same time, even the most ardent supporter of Poland & Saxony as a played Power or the most die-hard fan of Sweden would eventually have to admit that a game where these two Powers are regularly crushed under the heels of more powerful neighbors is simply not that good a game. This being the case, Jeff and I have had to balance at least a semblance of historical accuracy against playability. Over the course of the game's evolution, Jeff and I (and many others) have discussed and implemented several ideas designed to enhance the relative playability of the smaller Powers without completely sacrificing the historical feel of post Seven Years War Europe. These ideas have included establishing buffers where non existed previously (e.g., Dresden initially consisted of all of Saxony...only later did we insert Lusatia), changing the internal configurations of certain Powers (e.g., Spain now is arranged very differently from how it was initially), limiting the number of DPs a power can have, making neutrals more accessible to Powers that otherwise had no access to them (e.g., the addition of Courland and Crimea), and allowing the 2-SC Powers to claim a third home SC.

Are these changes enough? Jeff and I hope so. I think we both have become rather fond of A&E's small children and we cheer for their success. I for one would be devastated to see an A&E map without Poland & Saxony as a played Power (and I couldn't have been happier when it actually won a game some time ago). Only time will tell, however. If, after a significant number of games have been played, we determine that the variant requires tweaking, then you can be assured we will do so. Right now, however, I don't believe we are anywhere close to that point.

BTW... I have been somewhat amused by the general consensus of this group that Britain & Hanover is one of the "Big Boys" of A&E, along with Austria. Curiously, after a recent game in which Russia raced to a solo, the general consensus was that Russia was a monster that was likely to win more games than just about any other Power, with the possible exceptions of Austria and France. After all, four of Russia's neighbors (Denmark-Norway, Sweden, Poland & Saxony, and Prussia) were all "terminally weak," Austria was likely to be preoccupied in Germany and Italy, and the "rational Sultan" would head for the Mediterranean rather than north into Crimea. By the time Austria and Turkey were aware of the danger, Russia would have crushed it Scandinavian and Central European neighbors, and would be cruising to victory. It would be so easy.

Funny... In this game Russia's northern and central neighbors were weak for many of the early years, Austria did focus on Germany and Italy, and Turkey did sail into Mediterranean waters. Despite all of this and a very capable Tsar at the helm, Russia didn't explode to victory. In fact, it was barely a factor in the game's final outcome. How strange.

The fact remains that all of the people who have been following A&E for a while now have seen every Power, to include the supposed weaklings, have fantastic games where they looked absolutely dominant, and horrible games where they struggled to avoid elimination right out of the blocks. Even mighty Austria has been humbled by bad starts.

All this means that I look forward to Nick's next game. I'm eager to see which Powers will exceed expectations and which Powers will look dead in the water after only one bad turn.

Happy Stabbing

Baron


**************
Refinance and lower payments online with Ditech. Visit www.ditech.com Today! (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1221879746x1201405835/aol?redir=http:%2F%2Fclk.atdmt.com%2FDEG%2Fgo%2F155848685%2Fdirect%2F01%2F)

[Reply]

[Reply]

Well, I wasn't privy to the emails obviously but I saw the moves.  I find it very hard to believe that anyone offered France a worse deal than being repeatedly stabbed.  I don't agree w/him allying w/Britain after the 1st stab but I understand that he felt that Britain offered him the best deal he could get.  You may have felt the deals you offered were better but France obviously didn't or he would've accepted them. 

I also doubt that merely Austria & France could have stopped the solo alone, especially when other countries were hitting them.  Everyone shared in the loss no matter how many sc's they had and everyone should've worked together to stop the solo.  Britain didn't gain 10 sc's in the final turn.  Everyone could have saw it coming.

--- On Tue, 6/9/09, Jorge Saralegui <jmsaralegui(at)gmail.com ([email]jmsaralegui(at)gmail.com[/email])> wrote:

[quote:66383fce96]
From: Jorge Saralegui <jmsaralegui(at)gmail.com ([email]jmsaralegui(at)gmail.com[/email])>
Subject: Re: Ambition & Empire 090205 / DC240: Players & Powers

To: "Warren Ball" <warren_k_ball(at)yahoo.com ([email]warren_k_ball(at)yahoo.com[/email])>
Cc: "Mark" <mdemagogue(at)gmail.com ([email]mdemagogue(at)gmail.com[/email])>, "Nick Higgins" <congressofvienna1814(at)yahoo.com ([email]congressofvienna1814(at)yahoo.com[/email])>, frankmartin(at)surewest.net ([email]frankmartin(at)surewest.net[/email]), "to jeffrey kase" <jeffreykase(at)yahoo.com ([email]jeffreykase(at)yahoo.com[/email])>, nathanbalbright(at)yahoo.com ([email]nathanbalbright(at)yahoo.com[/email]), davidchegould(at)bigpond.com ([email]davidchegould(at)bigpond.com[/email]), David.Gould(at)aph.gov.au ([email]David.Gould(at)aph.gov.au[/email]), kelly058(at)verizon.net ([email]kelly058(at)verizon.net[/email]), smileyrob68(at)gmail.com ([email]smileyrob68(at)gmail.com[/email]), isaac.zinner(at)gmail.com ([email]isaac.zinner(at)gmail.com[/email]), VonPowell(at)aol.com ([email]VonPowell(at)aol.com[/email]), "Chris Dziedzic" <dipping_chris(at)yahoo.com ([email]dipping_chris(at)yahoo.com[/email])>, toosauto(at)gmail.com ([email]toosauto(at)gmail.com[/email]), dc240(at)diplomaticcorp.com ([email]dc240(at)diplomaticcorp.com[/email]), stevelytton(at)hotmail.com ([email]stevelytton(at)hotmail.com[/email]), c.p.mcinerney(at)gmail.com ([email]c.p.mcinerney(at)gmail.com[/email]), karsten.nitsch(at)gmx.de ([email]karsten.nitsch(at)gmx.de[/email]), former.trout(at)gmail.com ([email]former.trout(at)gmail.com[/email]), Sturmkraehe(at)comcast.net ([email]Sturmkraehe(at)comcast.net[/email]), "Michael Norton" <mjn82(at)yahoo.com ([email]mjn82(at)yahoo.com[/email])>
Date: Tuesday, June 9, 2009, 11:22 AM


Warren,

Most of your observations are on the money, but you're wrong on two points.


First, Spain never went back to Britain after multiple stabs.  After the French convoy stab, he "intermarried" with Austria and worked in tandem with me for the rest of the game.  It was only five years later, at my request (and trust me, solely to end a game that no longer mattered to him) that he supported Britain into Brc in exchange for support into Alg.  That hardly constitutes "going back for more stabs."


Second, France didn't say that no one else offered him any sort of deal (although I can see why you misread his EOG that way).  I offered him two separate deals - one in winter 1763 and another, better one in 1768 - that France accepted.  France explained why he chose to break those deals: a better offer the first time around, (undeserved) mistrust the second.


In my opinion, a sustained effort by France against Britain in tandem with Austria could have stopped the solo.  However, France was in the difficult position of trying not to thrive, but just survive, from the first turn on.  If anyone deserves to be cut slack for taking his eyes off the British ball, it's him.


Jorge




On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 8:00 AM, Warren Ball <warren_k_ball(at)yahoo.com> wrote:
[quote:66383fce96] Alas, where there is a solo, there is also finger pointing.  So & so #1 didn't communicate, so & so #2 played bad tactics that allowed the solo, etc.
 
As I pointed out b4 the EoG's, Frank won because of 2 reasons.  (1) he is the most experienced player in the variant (2) he stabbed people whose "retaliation" was then going back for MORE stabs, over & over.  Let me now add a 3rd- Frank's tactics were indeed exemplary.
 
France was the player who kept going back for more stabs (followed by Spain).  But he made clear in his EoG, y he did that.  Nobody else was going to give him any kind of deal, so he stuck w/Frank after the initial stab.   I don't agree w/that kind of thinking (I always go after the stabber) but I understand.  This is a game of alliances & if you're not going to give somebody something reasonable, he's not gonna ally w/u.

So it's easy to criticize France but nobody offered him anything & France was never in position to stop the solo.  What happened to all the players who couldn't temporarily put their conflicts on hold, to stop the solo?  Everyone else lost, when England won. 
 
So b4 pointing fingers at any individual player, all the other players should stop & think what THEY could have done, to stop the solo.

--- On Tue, 6/9/09, Mark <mdemagogue(at)gmail.com> wrote:

[quote:66383fce96]
From: Mark <mdemagogue(at)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Ambition & Empire 090205 / DC240: Players & Powers

To: "Jorge Saralegui" <jmsaralegui(at)gmail.com>
Cc: "Nick Higgins" <congressofvienna1814(at)yahoo.com>, frankmartin(at)surewest.net, "Warren Ball" <warren_k_ball(at)yahoo.com>, "to jeffrey kase" <jeffreykase(at)yahoo.com>, nathanbalbright(at)yahoo.com, davidchegould(at)bigpond.com, David.Gould(at)aph.gov.au, kelly058(at)verizon.net, smileyrob68(at)gmail.com, isaac.zinner(at)gmail.com, VonPowell(at)aol.com, "Chris Dziedzic" <dipping_chris(at)yahoo.com>, toosauto(at)gmail.com, dc240(at)diplomaticcorp.com, stevelytton(at)hotmail.com, c.p.mcinerney(at)gmail.com, karsten.nitsch(at)gmx.de, former.trout(at)gmail.com, Sturmkraehe(at)comcast.net, "Michael Norton" <mjn82(at)yahoo.com>
Date: Tuesday, June 9, 2009, 12:46 AM

Since I've been assailed as an uncommunicative player it's time to correct that impression.

In response to Poland, I initially attempted to communicate with you but received no response.  I'll forward the emails I sent asking what the army in Lusatia was going to do in fall of 63 to which I got no response.  Communication between us at that point would have been vital, as you could have gained a third center in the center instead of holing up in my roach motel.  The only other communication I received from you was a truce after you took an SC from me.  That truce had no terms, except "that you weren't giving up any of your conquests" and didn't outine any expectations for a working relationship.  Don't waste my email space with drivel like that.

There was no substantial attempt by Russia to establish communication, nor, after year one was there much of a point, given that all of your forces were attempting to stop sweden in the north.  At that point non existant plans for courland seemed rather pointless.  Given that my forces were similarly disposed there wasn't much use in us communicating.

As for Jorge, yeah, I miscued on that move.  Also, I'm only human, and I got a little irritated at how your strategies always seemed to benefit everyone else you were in a working relationship with but me, Frank referred to that as "austrian diplomacy" and that was the blowback.  In retrospect, it was a mistake, but I didn't really gain much from allying with you did I?

Overall, I was displeased with my choice of power, and how I played the game, but I was not at all surprised by the outcome given that Denmark and Turkey were doing everything they could do to make sure that Britain soloed.  I'm not entirely sure why Turkey and Denmark fell for the lame threat construction (OMG AUSTRIA IS GOING TO SOLO) even though he was clearly on the defensive after plateuing at 8 centers, but we all can't be as smart as I am.

As an afterword, it was kind of hard, for me at least, to tell what spaces on the map bordered which (particularly Dre and Lus), and for that matter which units were where.      


On Mon, Jun 8, 2009 at 8:55 PM, Jorge Saralegui <jmsaralegui(at)gmail.com> wrote:

[quote:66383fce96] I would like to thank the academy… I have never made more of an effort, had worse results, or enjoyed a game more than I did this one (well, except for the time I came back from the dead to eliminate board leader Ray Bruce).  That is meant to be a high compliment to Jeff and Baron, whose variant is currently my favorite version of Diplomacy, bar none.  It’s an even bigger compliment to Nick, who managed this game expertly, offered entertaining public commentary, and engaged in a running dialogue with me that provided welcome A&E history as well as circumspect commentary on my orders (which I explained in detail).  Finally I appreciated the dedication of all the players, which resulted in no NMR’s (technically, anyway!) and considered play by just about all.
My game could be divided into two phases.  Let’s call the first one:
Why I failed to solo
This was my first time playing A&E.  Austria’s advantage was obviously biggest at the start, and I mapped out a strategy to solo in as little as four years.  The key was destroying France,  which would give me enough access to the central neutrals that I would only need to pick up a center or two from a northern power in order to quickly and inoffensively win.  I allied with Britain and Spain, offering them all of the French spoils.  My intent was to give each of them exctly what they wanted, while growing faster than either of them could.  I made a deal with Turkey that gave me TwS in exchange for not building any fleets, neutrality pacts with Prussia and Poland, and encouraged Denmark and Sweden to ally.  1763 played out like it did on my chalkboard, permanently crippling France.
1764 brought first war with Turkey, who was understandably unhappy over how well I was doing under our agreement, and then with Britain, who made peace with France in order to stop me.  My mistake here was to agree to help France survive, with only a vague sense of how that would help me.  But the bottom line was that I was still in good shape for a solo, due mainly to the neutrals I had stacked up in reserve.
1765 was my year of frustration.  Spain had joined with Britain and Turkey against me and France, but I convinced Spain (correctly) that he would ultimately be sandwiched by Britain and Turkey.  We agreed that he would help France (who remained unaware of these plans) and that he could position himself to take Africa by seemingly moving in on me.  This could have resulted in a sweep of the Med.  Unfortunately, we miscommunicated on an order, and had to wait another year to try again.  That chance would never come.
At the same time, I thought I had allied with Prussia, whose uncommunicativeness had left him isolated and in trouble.  Thus, when Poland and Turkey made a move on Bud in the spring, I retreated to the west, counting on Prussia to cut any attack on Bud.  That fall I orchestrated a complicated set of orders that would have given me a third fleet against Turkey, and victory in the SE while keeping Britain at bay.  Only one thing went wrong: Prussia stabbed me, costing me Bud.  For no reason, no gain – we were back to cooperating vaguely from then on – and only because of one of several dubious last-minute deadline extensions requested to finalize stabs this game.  Those are the breaks, and that was the end of my controlling my own destiny.
Why I couldn’t stop Britain from soloing Having conceded my sprint, I told France – just stabbed by Britain – to retreat into Dre (my SC).  The very next turn – spring of 1766 – France joined Britain’s stab of Spain.  Ironically, this killed my plan to restore France, and of course did France no good.  I rolled with the punch and approached Turkey about allying against the stabbing corner power who had now tied for the lead.  After extremely long negotiations, Turkey agreed, if I disbanded one of my fleets.  This was fine with me, since my goal was to stop Britain in his tracks.  I executed a switch with Spain where he took two of my Italian centers, and we convoyed one of my armies to Spain.  If I wasn’t going to solo, then neither was Britain.
Or so I thought.  In spring of 1767, Turkey stabbed me.  Given our absurdly long negotiations, and how sloppily the stab was executed, I believed his denial.  So he stabbed me again in the fall.  Imagine my embarrassment.  I was essentially no worse off than before, but Spain had been reduced to reliable adjunct status.  And Turkey probably felt that he had elevated himself into Contender status, since he was tied for the lead with Britain at 8, while resurgent Denmark and I were at 7.
A word about Contender #3: After David patiently and expertly stabbed his way to viability, I encouraged him to ally with Prussia against Britain, but he chose to stab Prussia and add to his center count.  I feel that this is where an excellent, even exemplary, game was lost: Denmark didn’t have the nerve to take on Britain under reasonable conditions, and rationalized it by staying close as he worked with Britain for his own gain while counting on me to slow down the Brits.
And count on me he could.  In 1768 I decided not to do the obvious – regroup by retaking Bud or my loaned-out Italian centers – and stay focused on the big picture.  I kept applying as much pressure as possible on Britain, and counterattacked Turkey with what was left.  Of tremendous help was the game-long DP support I had, which I attributed to diligence, verifiable straightforwardness, and the fact that I needed them to stay afloat in the Med while I tried to stop Britain.  I convinced France to rejoin me, and helped him take Brc from Turkey.  But to our frustration, we failed to also retake Mar from Britain when Spain couldn’t be reached to change his orders.  An effort to go for HeW instead fell short when Britain switched his orders at the last moment.  By the end of the year Turkey had lost his gains and I controlled Italy once again, but I had made no progress in slowing Britain.
That winter I built an army instead of a fleet to once again convince Turkey to stop the British solo.  But Turkey continued to pressure me in the spring of 1769, and Britain stabbed Denmark, seemingly giving him the game.  Surprisingly Britain shifted gears in the fall and spared Denmark to stab Turkey.  He would have paid for it had France not lied to me about where he was moving, sparing Britain from losing HeW.  France told me he thought I had tipped off Britain about our attack the prior turn – something so nutty that I could explain it only by the fact that France stabbed (and was stabbed by Britain) so often that he saw only subterfuge behind every move.  The only thing that could have surprised me more was Turkey refusing yet another offer on my part to stop a 12-dot Britain.  Two years after stabbing me in favor of Britain, Britain was up four, I was up one, and he was down two.  But to the amusement of all my correspondents, Turkey continued to ignore the big picture, abandoning Mor in order to keep the pressure on me.
A word about Contender #2: Frank stabbed even more frequently than Denmark, with the downside of being board leader, and made it worse by laughing about it in his press (which I found useful because it sometimes revealed that he was allied with someone I hadn’t suspected).  I had no doubt that it would all come back to haunt him, if I just stayed the course and played to stop Britain.  It took me until almost the end of the game to give him the credit he deserved.  His tactical game was flawless; the worst that I could say is that he should have finished off Denmark rather than shifting south, and there’s no way to call that a clear error.  Early on he correctly convinced the board that I was a threat to solo.  And he played Denmark and Turkey expertly after that, using very different piano keys, so that neither ever did anything to stop him.  (I don’t think anyone played France – he played himself.)  With as much effort and example as I put into my diplomacy, Frank did a better job – an amazing job - where it counted.
1770 dawned with Denmark making his annual promise that this year he really, really was going to attack Britain, Turkey loading both barrels for Austria, and France on Britain’s side for good.  Forget soloing – there was nobody viable willing to stop Britain and play for a draw.  I could either accept that, or continue fighting a 360-degree holding action that would possibly give the game to Denmark.  I had zero reason to do that for David; his unwillingness to move out from under Britain’s wing, and the constant double-dealing that required, finally came back to bite him.  I let Denmark and Turkey know that I would be adopting their strategy.  Two turns after the finger was pulled from the dike, Britain had a solo.


Jorge


On Mon, Jun 8, 2009 at 3:00 PM, Michael Norton <mjn82(at)yahoo.com> wrote:
[quote:66383fce96]
Congratulations Frank, 

You definitely the deserved the victory!

Well,  I asked for France and certainly made an early game mistake in my dipping.  It was minimal the first turn as I was not only busy,  but truly wanted a season to get a feel for the players.  Big mistake.  I had agreements in place with AH and Spain and a non-commital response from England that I thought would be sufficient. 

I response I got a three way effort to dissemble France that quickly paired me to two centers.  I quickly tried to craft another border agreement with Isaac and support from Austria to help fend off Frank.  Isaac, once again violated the agreement immediately and that was pretty much the last time I had any real dipping with Spain. 

Too survive I had to walk a fine line between AH and B,  managing to get back to 3 centers, but it became obvious Jorge would never provide any help against Spain and I became convinced that S and A were very tight.  I also flt A was never going to let me grow beyond 3 centers and that he telegraphed my last stab of Frank that should have brought me to 4 or possibly 5 centers.  So I through my lot in with Frank,  my goal being to help him solo as possible while surviving at the end of the game. 

My most satisfying moment was the attack on Spain netting Barcelona and Madrid and evicting Isaac from Iberia.

So in retrospect, I should have pursued Austria or Britain aggressively early in the game.  But i did have great fun playing with both of them.

I did think it was humorous that I got a complaint from a neighbor about being trustworthy when they had already stabbed me in the first year of the game.  After a stab, all bets are off.

Enjoyed playing with all of you.

Mike

. 

[Reply]

From: Jorge Saralegui <jmsaralegui(at)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Ambition & Empire 090205 / DC240: Players & Powers
To: "Warren Ball" <warren_k_ball(at)yahoo.com>
Cc: "Mark" <mdemagogue(at)gmail.com>, "Nick Higgins" <congressofvienna1814(at)yahoo.com>, frankmartin(at)surewest.net, "to jeffrey kase" <jeffreykase(at)yahoo.com>, nathanbalbright(at)yahoo.com, davidchegould(at)bigpond.com, David.Gould(at)aph.gov.au, kelly058(at)verizon.net, smileyrob68(at)gmail.com, isaac.zinner(at)gmail.com, VonPowell(at)aol.com, "Chris Dziedzic" <dipping_chris(at)yahoo.com>, toosauto(at)gmail.com, dc240(at)diplomaticcorp.com, stevelytton(at)hotmail.com, c.p.mcinerney(at)gmail.com, karsten.nitsch(at)gmx.de, former.trout(at)gmail.com, Sturmkraehe(at)comcast.net, "Michael Norton" <mjn82(at)yahoo.com>
Date: Tuesday, June 9, 2009, 11:22 AM

Warren,

Most of your observations are on the money, but you're wrong on two points.


First, Spain never went back to Britain after multiple stabs. After the French convoy stab, he "intermarried" with Austria and worked in tandem with me for the rest of the game. It was only five years later, at my request (and trust me, solely to end a game that no longer mattered to him) that he supported Britain into Brc in exchange for support into Alg. That hardly constitutes "going back for more stabs."


Second, France didn't say that no one else offered him any sort of deal (although I can see why you misread his EOG that way). I offered him two separate deals - one in winter 1763 and another, better one in 1768 - that France accepted. France explained why he chose to break those deals: a better offer the first time around, (undeserved) mistrust the second.


In my opinion, a sustained effort by France against Britain in tandem with Austria could have stopped the solo. However, France was in the difficult position of trying not to thrive, but just survive, from the first turn on. If anyone deserves to be cut slack for taking his eyes off the British ball, it's him.


Jorge




On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 8:00 AM, Warren Ball <warren_k_ball(at)yahoo.com ([email]warren_k_ball(at)yahoo.com[/email])> wrote:
[quote:c6822369a9] Alas, where there is a solo, there is also finger pointing. So & so #1 didn't communicate, so & so #2 played bad tactics that allowed the solo, etc.

As I pointed out b4 the EoG's, Frank won because of 2 reasons. (1) he is the most experienced player in the variant (2) he stabbed people whose "retaliation" was then going back for MORE stabs, over & over. Let me now add a 3rd- Frank's tactics were indeed exemplary.

France was the player who kept going back for more stabs (followed by Spain). But he made clear in his EoG, y he did that. Nobody else was going to give him any kind of deal, so he stuck w/Frank after the initial stab. I don't agree w/that kind of thinking (I always go after the stabber) but I understand. This is a game of alliances & if you're not going to give somebody something reasonable, he's not gonna ally w/u.

So it's easy to criticize France but nobody offered him anything & France was never in position to stop the solo. What happened to all the players who couldn't temporarily put their conflicts on hold, to stop the solo? Everyone else lost, when England won.

So b4 pointing fingers at any individual player, all the other players should stop & think what THEY could have done, to stop the solo.

--- On Tue, 6/9/09, Mark <mdemagogue(at)gmail.com ([email]mdemagogue(at)gmail.com[/email])> wrote:

[quote:c6822369a9]
From: Mark <mdemagogue(at)gmail.com ([email]mdemagogue(at)gmail.com[/email])>
Subject: Re: Ambition & Empire 090205 / DC240: Players & Powers

To: "Jorge Saralegui" <jmsaralegui(at)gmail.com ([email]jmsaralegui(at)gmail.com[/email])>
Cc: "Nick Higgins" <congressofvienna1814(at)yahoo.com ([email]congressofvienna1814(at)yahoo.com[/email])>, frankmartin(at)surewest.net ([email]frankmartin(at)surewest.net[/email]), "Warren Ball" <warren_k_ball(at)yahoo.com ([email]warren_k_ball(at)yahoo.com[/email])>, "to jeffrey kase" <jeffreykase(at)yahoo.com ([email]jeffreykase(at)yahoo.com[/email])>, nathanbalbright(at)yahoo.com ([email]nathanbalbright(at)yahoo.com[/email]), davidchegould(at)bigpond.com ([email]davidchegould(at)bigpond.com[/email]), David.Gould(at)aph.gov.au ([email]David.Gould(at)aph.gov.au[/email]), kelly058(at)verizon.net ([email]kelly058(at)verizon.net[/email]), smileyrob68(at)gmail.com ([email]smileyrob68(at)gmail.com[/email]), isaac.zinner(at)gmail.com ([email]isaac.zinner(at)gmail.com[/email]), VonPowell(at)aol.com ([email]VonPowell(at)aol.com[/email]), "Chris Dziedzic" <dipping_chris(at)yahoo.com ([email]dipping_chris(at)yahoo.com[/email])>, toosauto(at)gmail.com ([email]toosauto(at)gmail.com[/email]), dc240(at)diplomaticcorp.com ([email]dc240(at)diplomaticcorp.com[/email]), stevelytton(at)hotmail.com ([email]stevelytton(at)hotmail.com[/email]), c.p.mcinerney(at)gmail.com ([email]c.p.mcinerney(at)gmail.com[/email]), karsten.nitsch(at)gmx.de ([email]karsten.nitsch(at)gmx.de[/email]), former.trout(at)gmail.com ([email]former.trout(at)gmail.com[/email]), Sturmkraehe(at)comcast.net ([email]Sturmkraehe(at)comcast.net[/email]), "Michael Norton" <mjn82(at)yahoo.com ([email]mjn82(at)yahoo.com[/email])>
Date: Tuesday, June 9, 2009, 12:46 AM

Since I've been assailed as an uncommunicative player it's time to correct that impression.

In response to Poland, I initially attempted to communicate with you but received no response. I'll forward the emails I sent asking what the army in Lusatia was going to do in fall of 63 to which I got no response. Communication between us at that point would have been vital, as you could have gained a third center in the center instead of holing up in my roach motel. The only other communication I received from you was a truce after you took an SC from me. That truce had no terms, except "that you weren't giving up any of your conquests" and didn't outine any expectations for a working relationship. Don't waste my email space with drivel like that.

There was no substantial attempt by Russia to establish communication, nor, after year one was there much of a point, given that all of your forces were attempting to stop sweden in the north. At that point non existant plans for courland seemed rather pointless. Given that my forces were similarly disposed there wasn't much use in us communicating.

As for Jorge, yeah, I miscued on that move. Also, I'm only human, and I got a little irritated at how your strategies always seemed to benefit everyone else you were in a working relationship with but me, Frank referred to that as "austrian diplomacy" and that was the blowback. In retrospect, it was a mistake, but I didn't really gain much from allying with you did I?

Overall, I was displeased with my choice of power, and how I played the game, but I was not at all surprised by the outcome given that Denmark and Turkey were doing everything they could do to make sure that Britain soloed. I'm not entirely sure why Turkey and Denmark fell for the lame threat construction (OMG AUSTRIA IS GOING TO SOLO) even though he was clearly on the defensive after plateuing at 8 centers, but we all can't be as smart as I am.

As an afterword, it was kind of hard, for me at least, to tell what spaces on the map bordered which (particularly Dre and Lus), and for that matter which units were where.


On Mon, Jun 8, 2009 at 8:55 PM, Jorge Saralegui <jmsaralegui(at)gmail.com> wrote:

[quote:c6822369a9] I would like to thank the academy… I have never made more of an effort, had worse results, or enjoyed a game more than I did this one (well, except for the time I came back from the dead to eliminate board leader Ray Bruce). That is meant to be a high compliment to Jeff and Baron, whose variant is currently my favorite version of Diplomacy, bar none. It’s an even bigger compliment to Nick, who managed this game expertly, offered entertaining public commentary, and engaged in a running dialogue with me that provided welcome A&E history as well as circumspect commentary on my orders (which I explained in detail). Finally I appreciated the dedication of all the players, which resulted in no NMR’s (technically, anyway!) and considered play by just about all.
My game could be divided into two phases. Let’s call the first one:
Why I failed to solo
This was my first time playing A&E. Austria’s advantage was obviously biggest at the start, and I mapped out a strategy to solo in as little as four years. The key was destroying France, which would give me enough access to the central neutrals that I would only need to pick up a center or two from a northern power in order to quickly and inoffensively win. I allied with Britain and Spain, offering them all of the French spoils. My intent was to give each of them exctly what they wanted, while growing faster than either of them could. I made a deal with Turkey that gave me TwS in exchange for not building any fleets, neutrality pacts with Prussia and Poland, and encouraged Denmark and Sweden to ally. 1763 played out like it did on my chalkboard, permanently crippling France.
1764 brought first war with Turkey, who was understandably unhappy over how well I was doing under our agreement, and then with Britain, who made peace with France in order to stop me. My mistake here was to agree to help France survive, with only a vague sense of how that would help me. But the bottom line was that I was still in good shape for a solo, due mainly to the neutrals I had stacked up in reserve.
1765 was my year of frustration. Spain had joined with Britain and Turkey against me and France, but I convinced Spain (correctly) that he would ultimately be sandwiched by Britain and Turkey. We agreed that he would help France (who remained unaware of these plans) and that he could position himself to take Africa by seemingly moving in on me. This could have resulted in a sweep of the Med. Unfortunately, we miscommunicated on an order, and had to wait another year to try again. That chance would never come.
At the same time, I thought I had allied with Prussia, whose uncommunicativeness had left him isolated and in trouble. Thus, when Poland and Turkey made a move on Bud in the spring, I retreated to the west, counting on Prussia to cut any attack on Bud. That fall I orchestrated a complicated set of orders that would have given me a third fleet against Turkey, and victory in the SE while keeping Britain at bay. Only one thing went wrong: Prussia stabbed me, costing me Bud. For no reason, no gain – we were back to cooperating vaguely from then on – and only because of one of several dubious last-minute deadline extensions requested to finalize stabs this game. Those are the breaks, and that was the end of my controlling my own destiny.
Why I couldn’t stop Britain from soloing Having conceded my sprint, I told France – just stabbed by Britain – to retreat into Dre (my SC). The very next turn – spring of 1766 – France joined Britain’s stab of Spain. Ironically, this killed my plan to restore France, and of course did France no good. I rolled with the punch and approached Turkey about allying against the stabbing corner power who had now tied for the lead. After extremely long negotiations, Turkey agreed, if I disbanded one of my fleets. This was fine with me, since my goal was to stop Britain in his tracks. I executed a switch with Spain where he took two of my Italian centers, and we convoyed one of my armies to Spain. If I wasn’t going to solo, then neither was Britain.
Or so I thought. In spring of 1767, Turkey stabbed me. Given our absurdly long negotiations, and how sloppily the stab was executed, I believed his denial. So he stabbed me again in the fall. Imagine my embarrassment. I was essentially no worse off than before, but Spain had been reduced to reliable adjunct status. And Turkey probably felt that he had elevated himself into Contender status, since he was tied for the lead with Britain at 8, while resurgent Denmark and I were at 7.
A word about Contender #3: After David patiently and expertly stabbed his way to viability, I encouraged him to ally with Prussia against Britain, but he chose to stab Prussia and add to his center count. I feel that this is where an excellent, even exemplary, game was lost: Denmark didn’t have the nerve to take on Britain under reasonable conditions, and rationalized it by staying close as he worked with Britain for his own gain while counting on me to slow down the Brits.
And count on me he could. In 1768 I decided not to do the obvious – regroup by retaking Bud or my loaned-out Italian centers – and stay focused on the big picture. I kept applying as much pressure as possible on Britain, and counterattacked Turkey with what was left. Of tremendous help was the game-long DP support I had, which I attributed to diligence, verifiable straightforwardness, and the fact that I needed them to stay afloat in the Med while I tried to stop Britain. I convinced France to rejoin me, and helped him take Brc from Turkey. But to our frustration, we failed to also retake Mar from Britain when Spain couldn’t be reached to change his orders. An effort to go for HeW instead fell short when Britain switched his orders at the last moment. By the end of the year Turkey had lost his gains and I controlled Italy once again, but I had made no progress in slowing Britain.
That winter I built an army instead of a fleet to once again convince Turkey to stop the British solo. But Turkey continued to pressure me in the spring of 1769, and Britain stabbed Denmark, seemingly giving him the game. Surprisingly Britain shifted gears in the fall and spared Denmark to stab Turkey. He would have paid for it had France not lied to me about where he was moving, sparing Britain from losing HeW. France told me he thought I had tipped off Britain about our attack the prior turn – something so nutty that I could explain it only by the fact that France stabbed (and was stabbed by Britain) so often that he saw only subterfuge behind every move. The only thing that could have surprised me more was Turkey refusing yet another offer on my part to stop a 12-dot Britain. Two years after stabbing me in favor of Britain, Britain was up four, I was up one, and he was down two. But to the amusement of all my correspondents, Turkey continued to ignore the big picture, abandoning Mor in order to keep the pressure on me.
A word about Contender #2: Frank stabbed even more frequently than Denmark, with the downside of being board leader, and made it worse by laughing about it in his press (which I found useful because it sometimes revealed that he was allied with someone I hadn’t suspected). I had no doubt that it would all come back to haunt him, if I just stayed the course and played to stop Britain. It took me until almost the end of the game to give him the credit he deserved. His tactical game was flawless; the worst that I could say is that he should have finished off Denmark rather than shifting south, and there’s no way to call that a clear error. Early on he correctly convinced the board that I was a threat to solo. And he played Denmark and Turkey expertly after that, using very different piano keys, so that neither ever did anything to stop him. (I don’t think anyone played France – he played himself.) With as much effort and example as I put into my diplomacy, Frank did a better job – an amazing job - where it counted.
1770 dawned with Denmark making his annual promise that this year he really, really was going to attack Britain, Turkey loading both barrels for Austria, and France on Britain’s side for good. Forget soloing – there was nobody viable willing to stop Britain and play for a draw. I could either accept that, or continue fighting a 360-degree holding action that would possibly give the game to Denmark. I had zero reason to do that for David; his unwillingness to move out from under Britain’s wing, and the constant double-dealing that required, finally came back to bite him. I let Denmark and Turkey know that I would be adopting their strategy. Two turns after the finger was pulled from the dike, Britain had a solo.


Jorge


On Mon, Jun 8, 2009 at 3:00 PM, Michael Norton <mjn82(at)yahoo.com> wrote:
[quote:c6822369a9]
Congratulations Frank,

You definitely the deserved the victory!

Well, I asked for France and certainly made an early game mistake in my dipping. It was minimal the first turn as I was not only busy, but truly wanted a season to get a feel for the players. Big mistake. I had agreements in place with AH and Spain and a non-commital response from England that I thought would be sufficient.

I response I got a three way effort to dissemble France that quickly paired me to two centers. I quickly tried to craft another border agreement with Isaac and support from Austria to help fend off Frank. Isaac, once again violated the agreement immediately and that was pretty much the last time I had any real dipping with Spain.

Too survive I had to walk a fine line between AH and B, managing to get back to 3 centers, but it became obvious Jorge would never provide any help against Spain and I became convinced that S and A were very tight. I also flt A was never going to let me grow beyond 3 centers and that he telegraphed my last stab of Frank that should have brought me to 4 or possibly 5 centers. So I through my lot in with Frank, my goal being to help him solo as possible while surviving at the end of the game.

My most satisfying moment was the attack on Spain netting Barcelona and Madrid and evicting Isaac from Iberia.

So in retrospect, I should have pursued Austria or Britain aggressively early in the game. But i did have great fun playing with both of them.

I did think it was humorous that I got a complaint from a neighbor about being trustworthy when they had already stabbed me in the first year of the game. After a stab, all bets are off.

Enjoyed playing with all of you.

Mike

.

[Reply]

Alas, where there is a solo, there is also finger pointing.  So & so #1 didn't communicate, so & so #2 played bad tactics that allowed the solo, etc.
 
As I pointed out b4 the EoG's, Frank won because of 2 reasons.  (1) he is the most experienced player in the variant (2) he stabbed people whose "retaliation" was then going back for MORE stabs, over & over.  Let me now add a 3rd- Frank's tactics were indeed exemplary.
 
France was the player who kept going back for more stabs (followed by Spain).  But he made clear in his EoG, y he did that.  Nobody else was going to give him any kind of deal, so he stuck w/Frank after the initial stab.   I don't agree w/that kind of thinking (I always go after the stabber) but I understand.  This is a game of alliances & if you're not going to give somebody something reasonable, he's not gonna ally w/u.

So it's easy to criticize France but nobody offered him anything & France was never in position to stop the solo.  What happened to all the players who couldn't temporarily put their conflicts on hold, to stop the solo?  Everyone else lost, when England won. 
 
So b4 pointing fingers at any individual player, all the other players should stop & think what THEY could have done, to stop the solo.

--- On Tue, 6/9/09, Mark <mdemagogue(at)gmail.com ([email]mdemagogue(at)gmail.com[/email])> wrote:

[quote:c315c7116a]
From: Mark <mdemagogue(at)gmail.com ([email]mdemagogue(at)gmail.com[/email])>
Subject: Re: Ambition & Empire 090205 / DC240: Players & Powers

To: "Jorge Saralegui" <jmsaralegui(at)gmail.com ([email]jmsaralegui(at)gmail.com[/email])>
Cc: "Nick Higgins" <congressofvienna1814(at)yahoo.com ([email]congressofvienna1814(at)yahoo.com[/email])>, frankmartin(at)surewest.net ([email]frankmartin(at)surewest.net[/email]), "Warren Ball" <warren_k_ball(at)yahoo.com ([email]warren_k_ball(at)yahoo.com[/email])>, "to jeffrey kase" <jeffreykase(at)yahoo.com ([email]jeffreykase(at)yahoo.com[/email])>, nathanbalbright(at)yahoo.com ([email]nathanbalbright(at)yahoo.com[/email]), davidchegould(at)bigpond.com ([email]davidchegould(at)bigpond.com[/email]), David.Gould(at)aph.gov.au ([email]David.Gould(at)aph.gov.au[/email]), kelly058(at)verizon.net ([email]kelly058(at)verizon.net[/email]), smileyrob68(at)gmail.com ([email]smileyrob68(at)gmail.com[/email]), isaac.zinner(at)gmail.com ([email]isaac.zinner(at)gmail.com[/email]), VonPowell(at)aol.com ([email]VonPowell(at)aol.com[/email]), "Chris Dziedzic" <dipping_chris(at)yahoo.com ([email]dipping_chris(at)yahoo.com[/email])>, toosauto(at)gmail.com ([email]toosauto(at)gmail.com[/email]), dc240(at)diplomaticcorp.com ([email]dc240(at)diplomaticcorp.com[/email]), stevelytton(at)hotmail.com ([email]stevelytton(at)hotmail.com[/email]), c.p.mcinerney(at)gmail.com ([email]c.p.mcinerney(at)gmail.com[/email]), karsten.nitsch(at)gmx.de ([email]karsten.nitsch(at)gmx.de[/email]), former.trout(at)gmail.com ([email]former.trout(at)gmail.com[/email]), Sturmkraehe(at)comcast.net ([email]Sturmkraehe(at)comcast.net[/email]), "Michael Norton" <mjn82(at)yahoo.com ([email]mjn82(at)yahoo.com[/email])>
Date: Tuesday, June 9, 2009, 12:46 AM

Since I've been assailed as an uncommunicative player it's time to correct that impression.

In response to Poland, I initially attempted to communicate with you but received no response.  I'll forward the emails I sent asking what the army in Lusatia was going to do in fall of 63 to which I got no response.  Communication between us at that point would have been vital, as you could have gained a third center in the center instead of holing up in my roach motel.  The only other communication I received from you was a truce after you took an SC from me.  That truce had no terms, except "that you weren't giving up any of your conquests" and didn't outine any expectations for a working relationship.  Don't waste my email space with drivel like that.

There was no substantial attempt by Russia to establish communication, nor, after year one was there much of a point, given that all of your forces were attempting to stop sweden in the north.  At that point non existant plans for courland seemed rather pointless.  Given that my forces were similarly disposed there wasn't much use in us communicating.

As for Jorge, yeah, I miscued on that move.  Also, I'm only human, and I got a little irritated at how your strategies always seemed to benefit everyone else you were in a working relationship with but me, Frank referred to that as "austrian diplomacy" and that was the blowback.  In retrospect, it was a mistake, but I didn't really gain much from allying with you did I?

Overall, I was displeased with my choice of power, and how I played the game, but I was not at all surprised by the outcome given that Denmark and Turkey were doing everything they could do to make sure that Britain soloed.  I'm not entirely sure why Turkey and Denmark fell for the lame threat construction (OMG AUSTRIA IS GOING TO SOLO) even though he was clearly on the defensive after plateuing at 8 centers, but we all can't be as smart as I am.

As an afterword, it was kind of hard, for me at least, to tell what spaces on the map bordered which (particularly Dre and Lus), and for that matter which units were where.      


On Mon, Jun 8, 2009 at 8:55 PM, Jorge Saralegui <jmsaralegui(at)gmail.com> wrote:

[quote:c315c7116a] I would like to thank the academy… I have never made more of an effort, had worse results, or enjoyed a game more than I did this one (well, except for the time I came back from the dead to eliminate board leader Ray Bruce).  That is meant to be a high compliment to Jeff and Baron, whose variant is currently my favorite version of Diplomacy, bar none.  It’s an even bigger compliment to Nick, who managed this game expertly, offered entertaining public commentary, and engaged in a running dialogue with me that provided welcome A&E history as well as circumspect commentary on my orders (which I explained in detail).  Finally I appreciated the dedication of all the players, which resulted in no NMR’s (technically, anyway!) and considered play by just about all.
My game could be divided into two phases.  Let’s call the first one:
Why I failed to solo
This was my first time playing A&E.  Austria’s advantage was obviously biggest at the start, and I mapped out a strategy to solo in as little as four years.  The key was destroying France,  which would give me enough access to the central neutrals that I would only need to pick up a center or two from a northern power in order to quickly and inoffensively win.  I allied with Britain and Spain, offering them all of the French spoils.  My intent was to give each of them exctly what they wanted, while growing faster than either of them could.  I made a deal with Turkey that gave me TwS in exchange for not building any fleets, neutrality pacts with Prussia and Poland, and encouraged Denmark and Sweden to ally.  1763 played out like it did on my chalkboard, permanently crippling France.
1764 brought first war with Turkey, who was understandably unhappy over how well I was doing under our agreement, and then with Britain, who made peace with France in order to stop me.  My mistake here was to agree to help France survive, with only a vague sense of how that would help me.  But the bottom line was that I was still in good shape for a solo, due mainly to the neutrals I had stacked up in reserve.
1765 was my year of frustration.  Spain had joined with Britain and Turkey against me and France, but I convinced Spain (correctly) that he would ultimately be sandwiched by Britain and Turkey.  We agreed that he would help France (who remained unaware of these plans) and that he could position himself to take Africa by seemingly moving in on me.  This could have resulted in a sweep of the Med.  Unfortunately, we miscommunicated on an order, and had to wait another year to try again.  That chance would never come.
At the same time, I thought I had allied with Prussia, whose uncommunicativeness had left him isolated and in trouble.  Thus, when Poland and Turkey made a move on Bud in the spring, I retreated to the west, counting on Prussia to cut any attack on Bud.  That fall I orchestrated a complicated set of orders that would have given me a third fleet against Turkey, and victory in the SE while keeping Britain at bay.  Only one thing went wrong: Prussia stabbed me, costing me Bud.  For no reason, no gain – we were back to cooperating vaguely from then on – and only because of one of several dubious last-minute deadline extensions requested to finalize stabs this game.  Those are the breaks, and that was the end of my controlling my own destiny.
Why I couldn’t stop Britain from soloing Having conceded my sprint, I told France – just stabbed by Britain – to retreat into Dre (my SC).  The very next turn – spring of 1766 – France joined Britain’s stab of Spain.  Ironically, this killed my plan to restore France, and of course did France no good.  I rolled with the punch and approached Turkey about allying against the stabbing corner power who had now tied for the lead.  After extremely long negotiations, Turkey agreed, if I disbanded one of my fleets.  This was fine with me, since my goal was to stop Britain in his tracks.  I executed a switch with Spain where he took two of my Italian centers, and we convoyed one of my armies to Spain.  If I wasn’t going to solo, then neither was Britain.
Or so I thought.  In spring of 1767, Turkey stabbed me.  Given our absurdly long negotiations, and how sloppily the stab was executed, I believed his denial.  So he stabbed me again in the fall.  Imagine my embarrassment.  I was essentially no worse off than before, but Spain had been reduced to reliable adjunct status.  And Turkey probably felt that he had elevated himself into Contender status, since he was tied for the lead with Britain at 8, while resurgent Denmark and I were at 7.
A word about Contender #3: After David patiently and expertly stabbed his way to viability, I encouraged him to ally with Prussia against Britain, but he chose to stab Prussia and add to his center count.  I feel that this is where an excellent, even exemplary, game was lost: Denmark didn’t have the nerve to take on Britain under reasonable conditions, and rationalized it by staying close as he worked with Britain for his own gain while counting on me to slow down the Brits.
And count on me he could.  In 1768 I decided not to do the obvious – regroup by retaking Bud or my loaned-out Italian centers – and stay focused on the big picture.  I kept applying as much pressure as possible on Britain, and counterattacked Turkey with what was left.  Of tremendous help was the game-long DP support I had, which I attributed to diligence, verifiable straightforwardness, and the fact that I needed them to stay afloat in the Med while I tried to stop Britain.  I convinced France to rejoin me, and helped him take Brc from Turkey.  But to our frustration, we failed to also retake Mar from Britain when Spain couldn’t be reached to change his orders.  An effort to go for HeW instead fell short when Britain switched his orders at the last moment.  By the end of the year Turkey had lost his gains and I controlled Italy once again, but I had made no progress in slowing Britain.
That winter I built an army instead of a fleet to once again convince Turkey to stop the British solo.  But Turkey continued to pressure me in the spring of 1769, and Britain stabbed Denmark, seemingly giving him the game.  Surprisingly Britain shifted gears in the fall and spared Denmark to stab Turkey.  He would have paid for it had France not lied to me about where he was moving, sparing Britain from losing HeW.  France told me he thought I had tipped off Britain about our attack the prior turn – something so nutty that I could explain it only by the fact that France stabbed (and was stabbed by Britain) so often that he saw only subterfuge behind every move.  The only thing that could have surprised me more was Turkey refusing yet another offer on my part to stop a 12-dot Britain.  Two years after stabbing me in favor of Britain, Britain was up four, I was up one, and he was down two.  But to the amusement of all my correspondents, Turkey continued to ignore the big picture, abandoning Mor in order to keep the pressure on me.
A word about Contender #2: Frank stabbed even more frequently than Denmark, with the downside of being board leader, and made it worse by laughing about it in his press (which I found useful because it sometimes revealed that he was allied with someone I hadn’t suspected).  I had no doubt that it would all come back to haunt him, if I just stayed the course and played to stop Britain.  It took me until almost the end of the game to give him the credit he deserved.  His tactical game was flawless; the worst that I could say is that he should have finished off Denmark rather than shifting south, and there’s no way to call that a clear error.  Early on he correctly convinced the board that I was a threat to solo.  And he played Denmark and Turkey expertly after that, using very different piano keys, so that neither ever did anything to stop him.  (I don’t think anyone played France – he played himself.)  With as much effort and example as I put into my diplomacy, Frank did a better job – an amazing job - where it counted.
1770 dawned with Denmark making his annual promise that this year he really, really was going to attack Britain, Turkey loading both barrels for Austria, and France on Britain’s side for good.  Forget soloing – there was nobody viable willing to stop Britain and play for a draw.  I could either accept that, or continue fighting a 360-degree holding action that would possibly give the game to Denmark.  I had zero reason to do that for David; his unwillingness to move out from under Britain’s wing, and the constant double-dealing that required, finally came back to bite him.  I let Denmark and Turkey know that I would be adopting their strategy.  Two turns after the finger was pulled from the dike, Britain had a solo.


Jorge


On Mon, Jun 8, 2009 at 3:00 PM, Michael Norton <mjn82(at)yahoo.com> wrote:
[quote:c315c7116a]
Congratulations Frank, 

You definitely the deserved the victory!

Well,  I asked for France and certainly made an early game mistake in my dipping.  It was minimal the first turn as I was not only busy,  but truly wanted a season to get a feel for the players.  Big mistake.  I had agreements in place with AH and Spain and a non-commital response from England that I thought would be sufficient. 

I response I got a three way effort to dissemble France that quickly paired me to two centers.  I quickly tried to craft another border agreement with Isaac and support from Austria to help fend off Frank.  Isaac, once again violated the agreement immediately and that was pretty much the last time I had any real dipping with Spain. 

Too survive I had to walk a fine line between AH and B,  managing to get back to 3 centers, but it became obvious Jorge would never provide any help against Spain and I became convinced that S and A were very tight.  I also flt A was never going to let me grow beyond 3 centers and that he telegraphed my last stab of Frank that should have brought me to 4 or possibly 5 centers.  So I through my lot in with Frank,  my goal being to help him solo as possible while surviving at the end of the game. 

My most satisfying moment was the attack on Spain netting Barcelona and Madrid and evicting Isaac from Iberia.

So in retrospect, I should have pursued Austria or Britain aggressively early in the game.  But i did have great fun playing with both of them.

I did think it was humorous that I got a complaint from a neighbor about being trustworthy when they had already stabbed me in the first year of the game.  After a stab, all bets are off.

Enjoyed playing with all of you.

Mike

. 

[Reply]

From: Mark <mdemagogue(at)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Ambition & Empire 090205 / DC240: Players & Powers
To: "Jorge Saralegui" <jmsaralegui(at)gmail.com>
Cc: "Nick Higgins" <congressofvienna1814(at)yahoo.com>, frankmartin(at)surewest.net, "Warren Ball" <warren_k_ball(at)yahoo.com>, "to jeffrey kase" <jeffreykase(at)yahoo.com>, nathanbalbright(at)yahoo.com, davidchegould(at)bigpond.com, David.Gould(at)aph.gov.au, kelly058(at)verizon.net, smileyrob68(at)gmail.com, isaac.zinner(at)gmail.com, VonPowell(at)aol.com, "Chris Dziedzic" <dipping_chris(at)yahoo.com>, toosauto(at)gmail.com, dc240(at)diplomaticcorp.com, stevelytton(at)hotmail.com, c.p.mcinerney(at)gmail.com, karsten.nitsch(at)gmx.de, former.trout(at)gmail.com, Sturmkraehe(at)comcast.net, "Michael Norton" <mjn82(at)yahoo.com>
Date: Tuesday, June 9, 2009, 12:46 AM

Since I've been assailed as an uncommunicative player it's time to correct that impression.

In response to Poland, I initially attempted to communicate with you but received no response. I'll forward the emails I sent asking what the army in Lusatia was going to do in fall of 63 to which I got no response. Communication between us at that point would have been vital, as you could have gained a third center in the center instead of holing up in my roach motel. The only other communication I received from you was a truce after you took an SC from me. That truce had no terms, except "that you weren't giving up any of your conquests" and didn't outine any expectations for a working relationship. Don't waste my email space with drivel like that.

There was no substantial attempt by Russia to establish communication, nor, after year one was there much of a point, given that all of your forces were attempting to stop sweden in the north. At that point non existant plans for courland seemed rather pointless. Given that my forces were similarly disposed there wasn't much use in us communicating.

As for Jorge, yeah, I miscued on that move. Also, I'm only human, and I got a little irritated at how your strategies always seemed to benefit everyone else you were in a working relationship with but me, Frank referred to that as "austrian diplomacy" and that was the blowback. In retrospect, it was a mistake, but I didn't really gain much from allying with you did I?

Overall, I was displeased with my choice of power, and how I played the game, but I was not at all surprised by the outcome given that Denmark and Turkey were doing everything they could do to make sure that Britain soloed. I'm not entirely sure why Turkey and Denmark fell for the lame threat construction (OMG AUSTRIA IS GOING TO SOLO) even though he was clearly on the defensive after plateuing at 8 centers, but we all can't be as smart as I am.

As an afterword, it was kind of hard, for me at least, to tell what spaces on the map bordered which (particularly Dre and Lus), and for that matter which units were where.

On Mon, Jun 8, 2009 at 8:55 PM, Jorge Saralegui <jmsaralegui(at)gmail.com ([email]jmsaralegui(at)gmail.com[/email])> wrote:
[quote:c19a0e632a] I would like to thank the academy… I have never made more of an effort, had worse results, or enjoyed a game more than I did this one (well, except for the time I came back from the dead to eliminate board leader Ray Bruce). That is meant to be a high compliment to Jeff and Baron, whose variant is currently my favorite version of Diplomacy, bar none. It’s an even bigger compliment to Nick, who managed this game expertly, offered entertaining public commentary, and engaged in a running dialogue with me that provided welcome A&E history as well as circumspect commentary on my orders (which I explained in detail). Finally I appreciated the dedication of all the players, which resulted in no NMR’s (technically, anyway!) and considered play by just about all.
My game could be divided into two phases. Let’s call the first one:
Why I failed to solo
This was my first time playing A&E. Austria’s advantage was obviously biggest at the start, and I mapped out a strategy to solo in as little as four years. The key was destroying France, which would give me enough access to the central neutrals that I would only need to pick up a center or two from a northern power in order to quickly and inoffensively win. I allied with Britain and Spain, offering them all of the French spoils. My intent was to give each of them exctly what they wanted, while growing faster than either of them could. I made a deal with Turkey that gave me TwS in exchange for not building any fleets, neutrality pacts with Prussia and Poland, and encouraged Denmark and Sweden to ally. 1763 played out like it did on my chalkboard, permanently crippling France.
1764 brought first war with Turkey, who was understandably unhappy over how well I was doing under our agreement, and then with Britain, who made peace with France in order to stop me. My mistake here was to agree to help France survive, with only a vague sense of how that would help me. But the bottom line was that I was still in good shape for a solo, due mainly to the neutrals I had stacked up in reserve.
1765 was my year of frustration. Spain had joined with Britain and Turkey against me and France, but I convinced Spain (correctly) that he would ultimately be sandwiched by Britain and Turkey. We agreed that he would help France (who remained unaware of these plans) and that he could position himself to take Africa by seemingly moving in on me. This could have resulted in a sweep of the Med. Unfortunately, we miscommunicated on an order, and had to wait another year to try again. That chance would never come.
At the same time, I thought I had allied with Prussia, whose uncommunicativeness had left him isolated and in trouble. Thus, when Poland and Turkey made a move on Bud in the spring, I retreated to the west, counting on Prussia to cut any attack on Bud. That fall I orchestrated a complicated set of orders that would have given me a third fleet against Turkey, and victory in the SE while keeping Britain at bay. Only one thing went wrong: Prussia stabbed me, costing me Bud. For no reason, no gain – we were back to cooperating vaguely from then on – and only because of one of several dubious last-minute deadline extensions requested to finalize stabs this game. Those are the breaks, and that was the end of my controlling my own destiny.
Why I couldn’t stop Britain from soloing Having conceded my sprint, I told France – just stabbed by Britain – to retreat into Dre (my SC). The very next turn – spring of 1766 – France joined Britain’s stab of Spain. Ironically, this killed my plan to restore France, and of course did France no good. I rolled with the punch and approached Turkey about allying against the stabbing corner power who had now tied for the lead. After extremely long negotiations, Turkey agreed, if I disbanded one of my fleets. This was fine with me, since my goal was to stop Britain in his tracks. I executed a switch with Spain where he took two of my Italian centers, and we convoyed one of my armies to Spain. If I wasn’t going to solo, then neither was Britain.
Or so I thought. In spring of 1767, Turkey stabbed me. Given our absurdly long negotiations, and how sloppily the stab was executed, I believed his denial. So he stabbed me again in the fall. Imagine my embarrassment. I was essentially no worse off than before, but Spain had been reduced to reliable adjunct status. And Turkey probably felt that he had elevated himself into Contender status, since he was tied for the lead with Britain at 8, while resurgent Denmark and I were at 7.
A word about Contender #3: After David patiently and expertly stabbed his way to viability, I encouraged him to ally with Prussia against Britain, but he chose to stab Prussia and add to his center count. I feel that this is where an excellent, even exemplary, game was lost: Denmark didn’t have the nerve to take on Britain under reasonable conditions, and rationalized it by staying close as he worked with Britain for his own gain while counting on me to slow down the Brits.
And count on me he could. In 1768 I decided not to do the obvious – regroup by retaking Bud or my loaned-out Italian centers – and stay focused on the big picture. I kept applying as much pressure as possible on Britain, and counterattacked Turkey with what was left. Of tremendous help was the game-long DP support I had, which I attributed to diligence, verifiable straightforwardness, and the fact that I needed them to stay afloat in the Med while I tried to stop Britain. I convinced France to rejoin me, and helped him take Brc from Turkey. But to our frustration, we failed to also retake Mar from Britain when Spain couldn’t be reached to change his orders. An effort to go for HeW instead fell short when Britain switched his orders at the last moment. By the end of the year Turkey had lost his gains and I controlled Italy once again, but I had made no progress in slowing Britain.
That winter I built an army instead of a fleet to once again convince Turkey to stop the British solo. But Turkey continued to pressure me in the spring of 1769, and Britain stabbed Denmark, seemingly giving him the game. Surprisingly Britain shifted gears in the fall and spared Denmark to stab Turkey. He would have paid for it had France not lied to me about where he was moving, sparing Britain from losing HeW. France told me he thought I had tipped off Britain about our attack the prior turn – something so nutty that I could explain it only by the fact that France stabbed (and was stabbed by Britain) so often that he saw only subterfuge behind every move. The only thing that could have surprised me more was Turkey refusing yet another offer on my part to stop a 12-dot Britain. Two years after stabbing me in favor of Britain, Britain was up four, I was up one, and he was down two. But to the amusement of all my correspondents, Turkey continued to ignore the big picture, abandoning Mor in order to keep the pressure on me.
A word about Contender #2: Frank stabbed even more frequently than Denmark, with the downside of being board leader, and made it worse by laughing about it in his press (which I found useful because it sometimes revealed that he was allied with someone I hadn’t suspected). I had no doubt that it would all come back to haunt him, if I just stayed the course and played to stop Britain. It took me until almost the end of the game to give him the credit he deserved. His tactical game was flawless; the worst that I could say is that he should have finished off Denmark rather than shifting south, and there’s no way to call that a clear error. Early on he correctly convinced the board that I was a threat to solo. And he played Denmark and Turkey expertly after that, using very different piano keys, so that neither ever did anything to stop him. (I don’t think anyone played France – he played himself.) With as much effort and example as I put into my diplomacy, Frank did a better job – an amazing job - where it counted.
1770 dawned with Denmark making his annual promise that this year he really, really was going to attack Britain, Turkey loading both barrels for Austria, and France on Britain’s side for good. Forget soloing – there was nobody viable willing to stop Britain and play for a draw. I could either accept that, or continue fighting a 360-degree holding action that would possibly give the game to Denmark. I had zero reason to do that for David; his unwillingness to move out from under Britain’s wing, and the constant double-dealing that required, finally came back to bite him. I let Denmark and Turkey know that I would be adopting their strategy. Two turns after the finger was pulled from the dike, Britain had a solo.

Jorge


On Mon, Jun 8, 2009 at 3:00 PM, Michael Norton <mjn82(at)yahoo.com ([email]mjn82(at)yahoo.com[/email])> wrote:
[quote:c19a0e632a]
Congratulations Frank,

You definitely the deserved the victory!

Well, I asked for France and certainly made an early game mistake in my dipping. It was minimal the first turn as I was not only busy, but truly wanted a season to get a feel for the players. Big mistake. I had agreements in place with AH and Spain and a non-commital response from England that I thought would be sufficient.

I response I got a three way effort to dissemble France that quickly paired me to two centers. I quickly tried to craft another border agreement with Isaac and support from Austria to help fend off Frank. Isaac, once again violated the agreement immediately and that was pretty much the last time I had any real dipping with Spain.

Too survive I had to walk a fine line between AH and B, managing to get back to 3 centers, but it became obvious Jorge would never provide any help against Spain and I became convinced that S and A were very tight. I also flt A was never going to let me grow beyond 3 centers and that he telegraphed my last stab of Frank that should have brought me to 4 or possibly 5 centers. So I through my lot in with Frank, my goal being to help him solo as possible while surviving at the end of the game.

My most satisfying moment was the attack on Spain netting Barcelona and Madrid and evicting Isaac from Iberia.

So in retrospect, I should have pursued Austria or Britain aggressively early in the game. But i did have great fun playing with both of them.

I did think it was humorous that I got a complaint from a neighbor about being trustworthy when they had already stabbed me in the first year of the game. After a stab, all bets are off.

Enjoyed playing with all of you.

Mike

.

[Reply]

I would like to thank the academy…
I have never made more of an effort, had worse results, or enjoyed a game more than I did this one (well, except for the time I came back from the dead to eliminate board leader Ray Bruce).  That is meant to be a high compliment to Jeff and Baron, whose variant is currently my favorite version of Diplomacy, bar none.  It’s an even bigger compliment to Nick, who managed this game expertly, offered entertaining public commentary, and engaged in a running dialogue with me that provided welcome A&E history as well as circumspect commentary on my orders (which I explained in detail).  Finally I appreciated the dedication of all the players, which resulted in no NMR’s (technically, anyway!) and considered play by just about all.
My game could be divided into two phases.  Let’s call the first one:
Why I failed to solo
This was my first time playing A&E.  Austria’s advantage was obviously biggest at the start, and I mapped out a strategy to solo in as little as four years.  The key was destroying France,  which would give me enough access to the central neutrals that I would only need to pick up a center or two from a northern power in order to quickly and inoffensively win.  I allied with Britain and Spain, offering them all of the French spoils.  My intent was to give each of them exctly what they wanted, while growing faster than either of them could.  I made a deal with Turkey that gave me TwS in exchange for not building any fleets, neutrality pacts with Prussia and Poland, and encouraged Denmark and Sweden to ally.  1763 played out like it did on my chalkboard, permanently crippling France.
1764 brought first war with Turkey, who was understandably unhappy over how well I was doing under our agreement, and then with Britain, who made peace with France in order to stop me.  My mistake here was to agree to help France survive, with only a vague sense of how that would help me.  But the bottom line was that I was still in good shape for a solo, due mainly to the neutrals I had stacked up in reserve.
1765 was my year of frustration.  Spain had joined with Britain and Turkey against me and France, but I convinced Spain (correctly) that he would ultimately be sandwiched by Britain and Turkey.  We agreed that he would help France (who remained unaware of these plans) and that he could position himself to take Africa by seemingly moving in on me.  This could have resulted in a sweep of the Med.  Unfortunately, we miscommunicated on an order, and had to wait another year to try again.  That chance would never come.
At the same time, I thought I had allied with Prussia, whose uncommunicativeness had left him isolated and in trouble.  Thus, when Poland and Turkey made a move on Bud in the spring, I retreated to the west, counting on Prussia to cut any attack on Bud.  That fall I orchestrated a complicated set of orders that would have given me a third fleet against Turkey, and victory in the SE while keeping Britain at bay.  Only one thing went wrong: Prussia stabbed me, costing me Bud.  For no reason, no gain – we were back to cooperating vaguely from then on – and only because of one of several dubious last-minute deadline extensions requested to finalize stabs this game.  Those are the breaks, and that was the end of my controlling my own destiny. Why I couldn’t stop Britain from soloing
Having conceded my sprint, I told France – just stabbed by Britain – to retreat into Dre (my SC).  The very next turn – spring of 1766 – France joined Britain’s stab of Spain.  Ironically, this killed my plan to restore France, and of course did France no good.  I rolled with the punch and approached Turkey about allying against the stabbing corner power who had now tied for the lead.  After extremely long negotiations, Turkey agreed, if I disbanded one of my fleets.  This was fine with me, since my goal was to stop Britain in his tracks.  I executed a switch with Spain where he took two of my Italian centers, and we convoyed one of my armies to Spain.  If I wasn’t going to solo, then neither was Britain.
Or so I thought.  In spring of 1767, Turkey stabbed me.  Given our absurdly long negotiations, and how sloppily the stab was executed, I believed his denial.  So he stabbed me again in the fall.  Imagine my embarrassment.  I was essentially no worse off than before, but Spain had been reduced to reliable adjunct status.  And Turkey probably felt that he had elevated himself into Contender status, since he was tied for the lead with Britain at 8, while resurgent Denmark and I were at 7.
A word about Contender #3: After David patiently and expertly stabbed his way to viability, I encouraged him to ally with Prussia against Britain, but he chose to stab Prussia and add to his center count.  I feel that this is where an excellent, even exemplary, game was lost: Denmark didn’t have the nerve to take on Britain under reasonable conditions, and rationalized it by staying close as he worked with Britain for his own gain while counting on me to slow down the Brits.
And count on me he could.  In 1768 I decided not to do the obvious – regroup by retaking Bud or my loaned-out Italian centers – and stay focused on the big picture.  I kept applying as much pressure as possible on Britain, and counterattacked Turkey with what was left.  Of tremendous help was the game-long DP support I had, which I attributed to diligence, verifiable straightforwardness, and the fact that I needed them to stay afloat in the Med while I tried to stop Britain.  I convinced France to rejoin me, and helped him take Brc from Turkey.  But to our frustration, we failed to also retake Mar from Britain when Spain couldn’t be reached to change his orders.  An effort to go for HeW instead fell short when Britain switched his orders at the last moment.  By the end of the year Turkey had lost his gains and I controlled Italy once again, but I had made no progress in slowing Britain.
That winter I built an army instead of a fleet to once again convince Turkey to stop the British solo.  But Turkey continued to pressure me in the spring of 1769, and Britain stabbed Denmark, seemingly giving him the game.  Surprisingly Britain shifted gears in the fall and spared Denmark to stab Turkey.  He would have paid for it had France not lied to me about where he was moving, sparing Britain from losing HeW.  France told me he thought I had tipped off Britain about our attack the prior turn – something so nutty that I could explain it only by the fact that France stabbed (and was stabbed by Britain) so often that he saw only subterfuge behind every move.  The only thing that could have surprised me more was Turkey refusing yet another offer on my part to stop a 12-dot Britain.  Two years after stabbing me in favor of Britain, Britain was up four, I was up one, and he was down two.  But to the amusement of all my correspondents, Turkey continued to ignore the big picture, abandoning Mor in order to keep the pressure on me.
A word about Contender #2: Frank stabbed even more frequently than Denmark, with the downside of being board leader, and made it worse by laughing about it in his press (which I found useful because it sometimes revealed that he was allied with someone I hadn’t suspected).  I had no doubt that it would all come back to haunt him, if I just stayed the course and played to stop Britain.  It took me until almost the end of the game to give him the credit he deserved.  His tactical game was flawless; the worst that I could say is that he should have finished off Denmark rather than shifting south, and there’s no way to call that a clear error.  Early on he correctly convinced the board that I was a threat to solo.  And he played Denmark and Turkey expertly after that, using very different piano keys, so that neither ever did anything to stop him.  (I don’t think anyone played France – he played himself.)  With as much effort and example as I put into my diplomacy, Frank did a better job – an amazing job - where it counted. 1770 dawned with Denmark making his annual promise that this year he really, really was going to attack Britain, Turkey loading both barrels for Austria, and France on Britain’s side for good.  Forget soloing – there was nobody viable willing to stop Britain and play for a draw.  I could either accept that, or continue fighting a 360-degree holding action that would possibly give the game to Denmark.  I had zero reason to do that for David; his unwillingness to move out from under Britain’s wing, and the constant double-dealing that required, finally came back to bite him.  I let Denmark and Turkey know that I would be adopting their strategy.  Two turns after the finger was pulled from the dike, Britain had a solo.

Jorge


On Mon, Jun 8, 2009 at 3:00 PM, Michael Norton <mjn82(at)yahoo.com ([email]mjn82(at)yahoo.com[/email])> wrote:
[quote:cdce18fc06]
Congratulations Frank, 

You definitely the deserved the victory!

Well,  I asked for France and certainly made an early game mistake in my dipping.  It was minimal the first turn as I was not only busy,  but truly wanted a season to get a feel for the players.  Big mistake.  I had agreements in place with AH and Spain and a non-commital response from England that I thought would be sufficient. 

I response I got a three way effort to dissemble France that quickly paired me to two centers.  I quickly tried to craft another border agreement with Isaac and support from Austria to help fend off Frank.  Isaac, once again violated the agreement immediately and that was pretty much the last time I had any real dipping with Spain. 

Too survive I had to walk a fine line between AH and B,  managing to get back to 3 centers, but it became obvious Jorge would never provide any help against Spain and I became convinced that S and A were very tight.  I also flt A was never going to let me grow beyond 3 centers and that he telegraphed my last stab of Frank that should have brought me to 4 or possibly 5 centers.  So I through my lot in with Frank,  my goal being to help him solo as possible while surviving at the end of the game. 

My most satisfying moment was the attack on Spain netting Barcelona and Madrid and evicting Isaac from Iberia.

So in retrospect, I should have pursued Austria or Britain aggressively early in the game.  But i did have great fun playing with both of them.

I did think it was humorous that I got a complaint from a neighbor about being trustworthy when they had already stabbed me in the first year of the game.  After a stab, all bets are off.

Enjoyed playing with all of you.

Mike

. 

[Reply]

Congratulations Frank, 

You definitely the deserved the victory!

Well,  I asked for France and certainly made an early game mistake in my dipping.  It was minimal the first turn as I was not only busy,  but truly wanted a season to get a feel for the players.  Big mistake.  I had agreements in place with AH and Spain and a non-commital response from England that I thought would be sufficient. 

I response I got a three way effort to dissemble France that quickly paired me to two centers.  I quickly tried to craft another border agreement with Isaac and support from Austria to help fend off Frank.  Isaac, once again violated the agreement immediately and that was pretty much the last time I had any real dipping with Spain. 

Too survive I had to walk a fine line between AH and B,  managing to get back to 3 centers, but it became obvious Jorge would never provide any help against Spain and I became convinced that S and A were very tight.  I also flt A was never going to let me grow beyond 3 centers and that he telegraphed my last stab of Frank that should have brought me to 4 or possibly 5 centers.  So I through my lot in with Frank,  my goal being to help him solo as possible while surviving at the end of the game. 

My most satisfying moment was the attack on Spain netting Barcelona and Madrid and evicting Isaac from Iberia.

So in retrospect, I should have pursued Austria or Britain aggressively early in the game.  But i did have great fun playing with both of them.

I did think it was humorous that I got a complaint from a neighbor about being trustworthy when they had already stabbed me in the first year of the game.  After a stab, all bets are off.

Enjoyed playing with all of you.

Mike

. 

[Reply]

[Reply]

From: frankmartin(at)surewest.net <frankmartin(at)surewest.net>
Subject: Re: Ambition & Empire 090205 / DC240: Players & Powers
To: "Warren Ball" <warren_k_ball(at)yahoo.com>, "Jorge Saralegui" <jmsaralegui(at)gmail.com>
Cc: "to jeffrey kase" <jeffreykase(at)yahoo.com>, nathanbalbright(at)yahoo.com, davidchegould(at)bigpond.com, David.Gould(at)aph.gov.au, kelly058(at)verizon.net, mjn82(at)yahoo.com, smileyrob68(at)gmail.com, MDemagogue(at)gmail.com, isaac.zinner(at)gmail.com, congressofvienna1814(at)yahoo.com, VonPowell(at)aol.com, "Chris Dziedzic" <dipping_chris(at)yahoo.com>, toosauto(at)gmail.com, dc240(at)diplomaticcorp.com, stevelytton(at)hotmail.com, c.p.mcinerney(at)gmail.com, karsten.nitsch(at)gmx.de, former.trout(at)gmail.com, Sturmkraehe(at)comcast.net
Date: Monday, June 8, 2009, 4:32 PM

The advantage of Austria and England is their superiority at the outset. But they both have challenges.

England has to do something productive with Gib, and must protect against having Hanover popped in the first season. If England does not get off to a good start diplomatically, they are in BIG trouble.

Austria almost gets a pass in year one. But Austria must secure a relationship or two with countries that are bound to be much smaller after year one, and must be able to convince those countries to stick with them when he/she is four centers stronger. I have a strategy for playing Austria, but I won't talk about it until after I get a chance to employ it. : )

I would take Turkey or Spain over the three center powers. Russia has too much ground to cover. France has to worry about England and Spanish expansion avenues.

Frank

[Reply]

The advantage of Austria and England is their superiority at the outset. But they both have challenges.

England has to do something productive with Gib, and must protect against having Hanover popped in the first season. If England does not get off to a good start diplomatically, they are in BIG trouble.

Austria almost gets a pass in year one. But Austria must secure a relationship or two with countries that are bound to be much smaller after year one, and must be able to convince those countries to stick with them when he/she is four centers stronger. I have a strategy for playing Austria, but I won't talk about it until after I get a chance to employ it.  : )

I would take Turkey or Spain over the three center powers. Russia has too much ground to cover. France has to worry about England and Spanish expansion avenues.

Frank

[Reply]

[Reply]

From: Jorge Saralegui <jmsaralegui(at)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Ambition & Empire 090205 / DC240: Players & Powers
To: "Warren Ball" <warren_k_ball(at)yahoo.com>
Cc: "to jeffrey kase" <jeffreykase(at)yahoo.com>, nathanbalbright(at)yahoo.com, davidchegould(at)bigpond.com, David.Gould(at)aph.gov.au, kelly058(at)verizon.net, mjn82(at)yahoo.com, jmsaralegui(at)gmail.com, smileyrob68(at)gmail.com, MDemagogue(at)gmail.com, isaac.zinner(at)gmail.com, congressofvienna1814(at)yahoo.com, VonPowell(at)aol.com, "Chris Dziedzic" <dipping_chris(at)yahoo.com>, frankmartin(at)surewest.net, toosauto(at)gmail.com, dc240(at)diplomaticcorp.com, stevelytton(at)hotmail.com, c.p.mcinerney(at)gmail.com, karsten.nitsch(at)gmx.de, former.trout(at)gmail.com, Sturmkraehe(at)comcast.net
Date: Monday, June 8, 2009, 3:09 PM

I listed Austria first and Britain second, but I had Spain over all the 3-SC powers. (Not that I'd keep that order now, necessarily.) Something else that would affect my choices is the fun factor. I figured Austria was in the middle of things, and thus have a maximum amount of diplomacy.

Jorge

On Mon, Jun 8, 2009 at 10:40 AM, Warren Ball <warren_k_ball(at)yahoo.com ([email]warren_k_ball(at)yahoo.com[/email])> wrote:
[quote:8e19d08454] IIRC, there was a game in which I played & Baron GM'd, where a 2-sc player was eliminated in the very 1st year or 2nd year. With all due respect, that is virtually impossible to do w/a larger power. It is certainly impossible w/England.

England's struggles (and Austria's?) to date are merely due to a small statistical sample size. And I doubt any player who is as experienced in this variant as Frank, has ever played England.

Does anyone seriously maintain that they would rather have 1 of the 2-sc powers, than England or Austria?

--- On Mon, 6/8/09, Jorge Saralegui <jmsaralegui(at)gmail.com ([email]jmsaralegui(at)gmail.com[/email])> wrote:

[quote:8e19d08454]
From: Jorge Saralegui <jmsaralegui(at)gmail.com ([email]jmsaralegui(at)gmail.com[/email])>
Subject: Re: Ambition & Empire 090205 / DC240: Players & Powers
To: "Warren Ball" <warren_k_ball(at)yahoo.com ([email]warren_k_ball(at)yahoo.com[/email])>

Date: Monday, June 8, 2009, 1:17 PM


To jump into this conversation from the extremely objective perspective of little Austria, the performances of the 2-SC powers vs that of the 3-SC powers indicates that the former need no help at all. If you factor in Britain's lousy performance and Audtria's non-domination in past games, you could say that at this point in its testing, A&E looks as balanced as possible.

Jorge

On Mon, Jun 8, 2009 at 9:35 AM, Warren Ball <warren_k_ball(at)yahoo.com> wrote:
[quote:8e19d08454] It has been many years since I played the game. IIRC, there was a "half strength" naval move in it.

It seemed to me that perhaps helping out the 2 SC powers might take the route of "half strength" SC's. That is, 2 specific sc's would both have to be in the countries possession for him to build 1 unit.

--- On Mon, 6/8/09, Jeff Hall <hall.jeff(at)gmail.com> wrote:


[quote:8e19d08454]
From: Jeff Hall <hall.jeff(at)gmail.com>

Subject: Re: Ambition & Empire 090205 / DC240: Players & Powers
To: "Warren Ball" <warren_k_ball(at)yahoo.com>

Cc: nathanbalbright(at)yahoo.com, davidchegould(at)bigpond.com, David.Gould(at)aph.gov.au, kelly058(at)verizon.net, frankmartin(at)surewest.net, mjn82(at)yahoo.com, jmsaralegui(at)gmail.com, smileyrob68(at)gmail.com, MDemagogue(at)gmail.com, isaac.zinner(at)gmail.com, congressofvienna1814(at)yahoo.com, jeffreykase(at)yahoo.com, VonPowell(at)aol.com, "Chris Dziedzic" <dipping_chris(at)yahoo.com>, toosauto(at)gmail.com, dc240(at)diplomaticcorp.com, stevelytton(at)hotmail.com, c.p.mcinerney(at)gmail.com, karsten.nitsch(at)gmx.de, former.trout(at)gmail.com, Sturmkraehe(at)comcast.net
Date: Monday, June 8, 2009, 11:23 AM

I would agree... More than most, this variant (with 10 powers, unknown information of DPs and variable home SCs) requires you to know what your opponent wants. In normal diplomacy, England and Austria can have a perfectly civil relationship without really interacting in a meaningful, tactical way. In this version that is not the case. They interact on day 1. More over, the England player may ask for help from Austria in a way that is detrimental to Austria's interests without even being aware of it thus souring the relationship. (For example, asking for HEW in exchange for helping him into UP may look perfectly reasonable for the brit but may appear to be irrational or a trap to the austrian).

That's one of the things I like about this variant. It seems to be enormously skill testing relative to other variants without mangling the rules.

On a separate note, have the architects reached a decision on a "final" rule for deciding the third home SC for the 2 SC powers? I know there were some discussions being bandied about (possibly making the decision to build the trigger for turning it into a home SC?)

[Reply]

IIRC, there was a game in which I played & Baron GM'd, where a 2-sc player was eliminated in the very 1st year or 2nd year.  With all due respect, that is virtually impossible to do w/a larger power.   It is certainly impossible w/England.
 
England's struggles (and Austria's?) to date are merely due to a small statistical sample size.  And I doubt any player who is as experienced in this variant as Frank, has ever played England. 
 
Does anyone seriously maintain that they would rather have 1 of the 2-sc powers, than England or Austria?

--- On Mon, 6/8/09, Jorge Saralegui <jmsaralegui(at)gmail.com ([email]jmsaralegui(at)gmail.com[/email])> wrote:

[quote:bd4b243d7c]
From: Jorge Saralegui <jmsaralegui(at)gmail.com ([email]jmsaralegui(at)gmail.com[/email])>
Subject: Re: Ambition & Empire 090205 / DC240: Players & Powers
To: "Warren Ball" <warren_k_ball(at)yahoo.com ([email]warren_k_ball(at)yahoo.com[/email])>

Date: Monday, June 8, 2009, 1:17 PM


To jump into this conversation from the extremely objective perspective of little Austria, the performances of the 2-SC powers vs that of the 3-SC powers indicates that the former need no help at all.  If you factor in Britain's lousy performance and Audtria's non-domination in past games, you could say that at this point in its testing, A&E looks as balanced as possible.

Jorge

On Mon, Jun 8, 2009 at 9:35 AM, Warren Ball <warren_k_ball(at)yahoo.com> wrote:
[quote:bd4b243d7c] It has been many years since I played the game.  IIRC, there was a "half strength" naval move in it.
 
It seemed to me that perhaps helping out the 2 SC powers might take the route of "half strength" SC's.  That is, 2 specific sc's would both have to be in the countries possession for him to build 1 unit.
 
--- On Mon, 6/8/09, Jeff Hall <hall.jeff(at)gmail.com> wrote:


[quote:bd4b243d7c]
From: Jeff Hall <hall.jeff(at)gmail.com>

Subject: Re: Ambition & Empire 090205 / DC240: Players & Powers
To: "Warren Ball" <warren_k_ball(at)yahoo.com>

Cc: nathanbalbright(at)yahoo.com, davidchegould(at)bigpond.com, David.Gould(at)aph.gov.au, kelly058(at)verizon.net, frankmartin(at)surewest.net, mjn82(at)yahoo.com, jmsaralegui(at)gmail.com, smileyrob68(at)gmail.com, MDemagogue(at)gmail.com, isaac.zinner(at)gmail.com, congressofvienna1814(at)yahoo.com, jeffreykase(at)yahoo.com, VonPowell(at)aol.com, "Chris Dziedzic" <dipping_chris(at)yahoo.com>, toosauto(at)gmail.com, dc240(at)diplomaticcorp.com, stevelytton(at)hotmail.com, c.p.mcinerney(at)gmail.com, karsten.nitsch(at)gmx.de, former.trout(at)gmail.com, Sturmkraehe(at)comcast.net
Date: Monday, June 8, 2009, 11:23 AM

I would agree... More than most, this variant (with 10 powers, unknown information of DPs and variable home SCs) requires you to know what your opponent wants. In normal diplomacy, England and Austria can have a perfectly civil relationship without really interacting in a meaningful, tactical way. In this version that is not the case. They interact on day 1. More over, the England player may ask for help from Austria in a way that is detrimental to Austria's interests without even being aware of it thus souring the relationship. (For example, asking for HEW in exchange for helping him into UP may look perfectly reasonable for the brit but may appear to be irrational or a trap to the austrian).

That's one of the things I like about this variant. It seems to be enormously skill testing relative to other variants without mangling the rules.

On a separate note, have the architects reached a decision on a "final" rule for deciding the third home SC for the 2 SC powers? I know there were some discussions being bandied about (possibly making the decision to build the trigger for turning it into a home SC?)

[Reply]

[Reply]

[Reply]

[Reply]

From: Jeff Hall <hall.jeff(at)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Ambition & Empire 090205 / DC240: Players & Powers
To: "Warren Ball" <warren_k_ball(at)yahoo.com>
Cc: nathanbalbright(at)yahoo.com, davidchegould(at)bigpond.com, David.Gould(at)aph.gov.au, kelly058(at)verizon.net, frankmartin(at)surewest.net, mjn82(at)yahoo.com, jmsaralegui(at)gmail.com, smileyrob68(at)gmail.com, MDemagogue(at)gmail.com, isaac.zinner(at)gmail.com, congressofvienna1814(at)yahoo.com, jeffreykase(at)yahoo.com, VonPowell(at)aol.com, "Chris Dziedzic" <dipping_chris(at)yahoo.com>, toosauto(at)gmail.com, dc240(at)diplomaticcorp.com, stevelytton(at)hotmail.com, c.p.mcinerney(at)gmail.com, karsten.nitsch(at)gmx.de, former.trout(at)gmail.com, Sturmkraehe(at)comcast.net
Date: Monday, June 8, 2009, 11:23 AM

I would agree... More than most, this variant (with 10 powers, unknown information of DPs and variable home SCs) requires you to know what your opponent wants. In normal diplomacy, England and Austria can have a perfectly civil relationship without really interacting in a meaningful, tactical way. In this version that is not the case. They interact on day 1. More over, the England player may ask for help from Austria in a way that is detrimental to Austria's interests without even being aware of it thus souring the relationship. (For example, asking for HEW in exchange for helping him into UP may look perfectly reasonable for the brit but may appear to be irrational or a trap to the austrian).

That's one of the things I like about this variant. It seems to be enormously skill testing relative to other variants without mangling the rules.

On a separate note, have the architects reached a decision on a "final" rule for deciding the third home SC for the 2 SC powers? I know there were some discussions being bandied about (possibly making the decision to build the trigger for turning it into a home SC?)

[Reply]

From: frankmartin(at)surewest.net <frankmartin(at)surewest.net>
Subject: Re: Ambition & Empire 090205 / DC240: Players & Powers
To: "Warren Ball" <warren_k_ball(at)yahoo.com>, nathanbalbright(at)yahoo.com, davidchegould(at)bigpond.com, David.Gould(at)aph.gov.au, kelly058(at)verizon.net, mjn82(at)yahoo.com, jmsaralegui(at)gmail.com, smileyrob68(at)gmail.com, MDemagogue(at)gmail.com, isaac.zinner(at)gmail.com, congressofvienna1814(at)yahoo.com, jeffreykase(at)yahoo.com, VonPowell(at)aol.com, "Chris Dziedzic" <dipping_chris(at)yahoo.com>
Cc: toosauto(at)gmail.com, dc240(at)diplomaticcorp.com, hall.jeff(at)gmail.com, stevelytton(at)hotmail.com, c.p.mcinerney(at)gmail.com, karsten.nitsch(at)gmx.de, former.trout(at)gmail.com, Sturmkraehe(at)comcast.net
Date: Monday, June 8, 2009, 11:19 AM

Gentlemen.

This is not my EOG, but a response to the running thread about England and playability.

Warren brought up a good point...that being that I've played in several games. And in those games, I've felt hamstrung at the start in most of them, playing Sweden (twice), Prussia, and Poland/Saxony. I have also played Russia, but I've been dreaming of the chance to play Austria, Turkey, France, or especially England. Throw out the records, and I think England is the strongest starting country on the board.

Yes, Austria almost always jumps out big, but being centralized, if Austria doesn't take out Turkey or Russia, it perpetually has a thorn in its side at best. If England can secure ANY alliance at the outset, I don't see how it can be stopped from a slow growth scenario. This doesn't translate to a win, but I've been shocked by the number of times that England has slowly been reduced to nothing or almost nothing.

So, I'll jump to my eog comments in a separate e-mail now.

Frank

[Reply]