| Current A&E Map & Rules - vonpowell (Nov 25, 2011, 11:09 pm) |
Mike,
I'm not sure where Dirk found the old A&E map that is shown on his game
announcement, but when I clicked on the "Ambition & Empire Info" link,
I went to a page that has the current map and rules.
Baron
In a message dated 11/25/2011 10:57:10 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
mike(at)fuzzylogicllc.com writes:
Wow,
huge discussion??? cliff notes version, did you need anything from
me? If it???s just fixing the wiki writeup just send me the new
image???
New
RP variant too if we need to update the files that are on
dc.
-mike
From: VonPowell(at)aol.com
[mailto:VonPowell(at)aol.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 24, 2011 2:27
PM
To: Dirk Knemeyer; nick.s.powell(at)gmail.com
Cc:
arandia.t(at)gmail.com; sun.chung(at)gmail.com; wmysonski(at)gmail.com;
smileyrob68(at)gmail.com; alwayshunted(at)hotmail.com; Raybrucea(at)aol.com;
psychosis(at)sky.com; aislattery(at)aol.com; josiah.henderson(at)gmail.com;
aldous(at)xtra.co.nz; jeffreykase(at)yahoo.com; dipping_chris(at)yahoo.com; dc386;
Michael Sims
Subject: Upcoming A&E
Game
Dirk,
Thanks.
If Mike or someone else needs a copy of the current map to post to Dipwiki,
please let me know.
Baron
In a
message dated 11/24/2011 12:25:06 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
dirk(at)knemeyer.com writes:
Yes,
Nick is correct. I'm copying Mike Sims to see how this can be
fixed.
Dirk
Sent
from my iPhone
On
Nov 24, 2011, at 3:19 PM, Nick Powell <nick.s.powell(at)gmail.com>
wrote:
I
think it's simply that the map in the Dipwiki is out of
date.
-Nick
On
Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 12:17 PM, <VonPowell(at)aol.com>
wrote:
Dirk,
Outstanding!
I'm looking forward to the upcoming contest.
One
question... I notice the map associated with the link below is an
old version. Is it possible to replace that map with the current map
(i.e., the same map you recently soloed on)?
Baron
In
a message dated 11/23/2011 10:32:49 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, dirk(at)knemeyer.com writes:
Hi
Friends,
In
appreciation of Baron's support of his variants, and fulfilling my
promise to Robert to GM an advanced variant for him, I have just posted
a new game of Ambition and Empire on DC that I shall be GM'ing. I hope
to see many of you there! 
http://diplomaticcorp.com/game_page.php?game_id=re002
Dirk
On
Nov 24, 2011, at 12:24 AM, VonPowell(at)aol.com
wrote:
Adriaan,
A
very entertaining read.
I
don't disagree at all that Denmark-Norway and Poland & Saxony
are challenging (to put it kindly) to play. They are, indeed,
extremely challenging. The key question is are they
viable. By viable I mean that the a DN or PS player should
have a "reasonable expectation" of success if he or she plays
well. I think this is the case. The proof is that I've seen
both positions enjoy tremendous success. Of course I've also seen
plenty of spectacular failure. The true weakness in these
positions, in my opinion, is that they have virtually no margin for
error in the early going. Most of the other nations have at
least some wiggle room to work with should they guess incorrectly or be
on the wrong side of a coalition. This wiggle room might not be
enough to overcome a poor start and early elimination, but there is a
"chance" to recover. DN and PS cannot really afford a misstep
until they have gained some traction. They MUST start the game
with at least one and preferably more reliable allies so that they can
initially leave a flank unprotected while focusing their forces on the
first objective. Good diplomacy should see DN and PS as
integral parts of coalitions that win the DP battle each turn and
isolate their enemies. If DN and PS can avoid the early
elimination and gain a SC or two, then their prospects start to
look bright.
You
are correct. Austria often gets to 8 SCs with little trouble at
all. Getting to 15 SCs is another matter. No power suffers
from ELS more than the Habsburg Empire. Easy early growth
frequently turns into mid-game stagnation. Decline and elimination
often follow. I'm not convinced that trying to avoid looking big
is the answer to the Austrian conundrum. Instead, I think the key
for Austrian success is to be a member in good standing
of a successful coalition. This can be achieved through active
diplomacy (no surprise there), largesse with DPs, open military
support to a partner fighting a common or potential enemy, and
judicious sharing of the spoils of victory. Growth within the
coalition does not necessarily need to be equal,
however. Austria has no interest in creating a powerful
rival. Instead, growth simply needs to be "fair enough" that
partners believe they benefit from being Austria's
friend. Austrian math should go as follows: one for ally A
and one for ally B and two for me. Austria can probably keep
its allies happy in this manner without too much difficulty until it
reaches 11 or 12 SCs. At that point, the dynamics get
trickier. Unless Austria wishes to hold hands with its partners
all the way to a draw, it will need to be ruthless to get those last few
SCs. Setting up and timing the rush to victory is a challenge, but
that is what makes the game interesting.
I
do believe a correction is in order... I think the article
about A&E's Austria that mentions the Sultan Slayer was written
by our friend Nick Higgens rather than Chris. If I'm mistaken
Chris, please correct me.
I'm
looking forward to the next A&E game. Until
then...
Happy
Stabbing,
Baron
In
a message dated 11/21/2011 11:00:44 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, arandia.t(at)gmail.com
writes:
Austria
post-game - Adriaan (1763-1766):
It
has been many turns since I passed control of the Hapsburg Empire to
the capable hands of Sun Chung. Since inheriting control, he has
brought Austria to new heights of glory and accomplished many great
things. But as I sit here writing my memoirs, I hope you can spare a
thought for Austria before she was great. Indeed, there was a
time when there were ten kingdoms seeking to dominate Europe, and
Austria was but one of them...
Anyways,
so to cut the crap - well, it appears that I am totally incapable of
completing anything if I don't have a looming deadline to pressure me.
Believe it or not, I actually started writing this EOG before the game
even finished! Well, look where I ended up with that... better late
than never?
First
off - Robert. A great deal of thanks to you for running such an
organized and professional game. I have previously played a few games
with lackluster GMs, and it makes a huge difference - it is a lot of
work for modest reward, and I hope I can someday repay the
favour.
Secondly,
congratulations to Dirk, on a well-deserved victory. It is a sign of a
game well-played that even in the last few years, as you approached
that magic number, your allies still saw it as in their interest to
work with you rather than against you. This is no easy feat against
what is clearly a strong table!
Strategy.
Well, we may as well begin at the beginning: power selections. As
Robert mentioned in that initial email, the two counties to receive
the highest bids (by a large margin!) were Turkey and Spain. I must
own up to contributing my fair share to those two averages, as I only
saved a measly '2' for Austria. I suppose that, all things considered,
there are worse countries to start with than Austria - I consider it
good fortune that I didn't end up with Saxony or Norway. That is, of
course, not to say that there is anything wrong with either of
those countries (Baron), merely that they force a play style that I
don't personally enjoy.
I
had done a little reading on A&E prior to this game, and from what
I could tell, Austria tends to suffer from the curse of being the
early leader. Not only does she start with four units, but she is
square in the middle of the most SC-rich part of the board. Austria
expands almost involuntarily, at least at first. Of course, the
trade-off for this early success seems to be middle-game stagnation.
Perhaps Baron could shed some light/numbers on this, but I hoped to
try and take a different course in this game. My initial expansion in
Italy was deliberately slower than it could have been (at times
requiring great amounts of willpower), in an attempt to follow this
path. However, beyond this rough outline, I had relatively little in
the way of a long-term plan - too much depends, of course, on the
other players involved.
Chris
Dziedzic, in his article on A&E in Diplomacy World, suggests that
Austria's relationship with Turkey is her defining feature; that the
Archduke must play either the Sultan-slayer or the Sultan's best
friend. I'm not convinced that those are the only two options
available, but it seemed like as decent a place as any to start. My
initial negotiations with Aidan had been mostly positive, and I
certainly didn't want to commit to an early and potentially costly war
that could limit my other choices. Thus I figured I would try to work
with him, and see if he wouldn't be more interested sailing ships to
Spain than marching armies to Vienna. Over the course of the four
years in which I played, Aidan and I managed to develop a very good
rapport. He struck me as being a very capable and resourceful
diplomat, and he was one of the players I had on my personal
short-list if and when it came down to figuring out who to include in
a draw. Perhaps we'll never know just how successful I was in
this (unless Aidan cares to share in *his* EOG), but at least I
think that I left the game with an ally to the south. I only
hope that I wasn't merely playing the sucker who escaped a stabbing,
through an abdication in the nick of time...
Speaking
of Nick: early-game Germany. In my initial view, the only real
short-term threat to Austria in the opening year comes from an allied
Prussia and Poland/Saxony. I therefore did what I could to create
tensions between them, with the view to also picking up a few extra
cities beyond Austria's traditional 8-centre Alpine plateau. As it
happened, tensions weren't too hard to achieve - both Nick and Ray
seemed to distrust each other from the start. Overtly I sided with
Nick, but as things got more complicated in Germany I'll admit to
ending up with a few mixed motives of my own. While I never directly
attacked Nick, I will admit to not being the best possible ally,
either. For instance, those "crossed wires" in 1764 that resulted in
the western Saxon army surviving a four-unit attack were
completely accidental, and the fact that the surviving Saxon
army proceeded to stymie French growth in the Alps was most
unfortunate, and totally coincidental. Nick, given how fluid things
were at the beginning of the game, I only hope that you can forgive
these trespasses.
Nick
is obviously a very good player, because he managed to scare everyone
else into a stampede into Germany in short order; that's the most
logical conclusion I can come to. What began as a Prussian-Russian war
to the east took on more ominous tones for Nick once Dirk leveraged
Ray to gain the upper hand. And, of course, nothing brings further
attacks like a perceived weakness. Soon France and Britain were
snapping at the Kaiser's heels. Nick and I had always gotten along
very well, but when push came to shove I realized that I couldn't keep
him afloat by myself - I had little choice but to try and find other
players to work with.
My
relationship with Dirk is perhaps proof of the old Diplomacy maxim
that if you talk enough, it almost doesn't matter what you're saying.
After an initial slow start, my alliance with Dirk developed into what
as probably my closest in the game. Of course, this belies the fact
that our first diplomatic conversation of much substance was a
*colossal* disagreement (something on the subject of Germany, it went
on for pages and caused a few headaches for him too, I'm sure)! He has
since sung me some very high praises in his EOG, so I imagine that
that has been forgiven and forgotten. I'm very glad that I was able to
convince Dirk to not push through central Europe; even if this was
rather self-serving at first, it clearly worked to Dirk's interest as
well. Overall, I found Dirk to be a very reasonable and very canny
player, with whom it was a pleasure to work, and who played the board
very well. At one point, I think he was juggling two, maybe even three
vassals - not an easy feat. Congratulations again, Dirk, on a game
well-played.
Mixed
in between Nick, Dirk and myself, there was Ray. Now I know there may
be a numerical argument somewhere saying that Poland and Saxony isn't
really all that bad, but I think that it has to be, at the very least,
the most precarious position on the board (whether or not it
does decently in the long run). I found my interactions with Ray to be
a little clipped, but all the same constructive and not unreasonable.
Perhaps the brevity can be excused by the game of 1900 he was also
involved in. In a critique of his play style, I really can't say too
much; I initially chose to work with Nick against Ray mostly on the
basis of starting position and rumour (cheering for the same team as
Nick in the Stanly Cup finals probably influenced my position more
than I'd care to admit). Ray, let me assure you - I never intended to
execute the stab that befell you.
I've
always felt that Diplomacy is best played when the map does not force
the players into any particular course of action. Thus, I prefer 1900
over Standard partly because in 1900, Turkey need not fight Austria.
In A&E, I think that the relationship between Austria and France
may not approach the same level of predestination, but it is
definitely not a stress-free border. That is not to say, of course,
that France and Austria *need* to fight; merely that it is easy. I
tried to structure my relationship with Warren on the basis that most
of the other players would expect some hostility between the two of
us, and that we could therefore both have an advantage if our borders
stayed unexpectedly calm. Of course, aiding this was the fact that
Warren was a good player and a reasonable person, with whom I saw a
fair bit of common interest (is it ever possible to have a good player
that is not reasonable?). I found our relationship to be
cordial, if perhaps a little wary - though perhaps wariness was
warranted, given what happened during my last move. Rest assured,
Warren, I never intended on continuing my cooperation with Ray beyond
that one turn that saw the Saxons march to
Burgundy.
Michael,
Josiah, Richard, and Wladimir - it was good to meet you all. Some time
I hope to meet you in another game, where we might be located somewhat
closer together, and have somewhat greater interactions. As it was, I
hope that you all got as much enjoyment out of this game as I
did.
Finally,
the highly-appreciated replacement, Sun Chung. Many thanks, of course,
for taking over my position on such short notice; real life can be
such a pesky thing to have to deal with. The rest of you probably know
him better than I do, as we only had a few short emails between us at
the tail end of my tenure. Nevertheless, as he mentions we did have a
few discussions of some weight - in particular one concerning whether
Austria should make a break for a solo, or risk enmeshed borders with
Saxony. Sun has said that I provided him with council on this; I will
admit to sending him a detailed multi-page discussion and risk
assessment outlining how an Archduke might strike for a solo
from eight centres few suggestions, but in my
defense I also made it clear that I had made no decision whether
or not I would actually go about implementing this plan. All said, I
was actually rather glad when Sun agreed to be my replacement, as he
signed on just in time to save me from having to make this very
hard choice. From an outside perspective, I think that there was
likely very little that Sun could have done differently to convert his
inherited position into a solo - changing players is always going to
make your neighbours rather wary. I think he handled the chaos
following his run admirably, and he certainly kept Austria abreast the
future of Europe. Well-played Sun, and thanks
again.
In
closing, I have to thank you all for what was a tremendously fun game.
I hope to get an opportunity to play with you all again sometime; it
is always a pleasure to find a group of players who are not only
committed to playing Diplomacy, but who play it well. I hope to see
you all in future games.
Best
regards,
Adriaan
Tichler
P.S.
I've uploaded photos of a few of my reasons for abdication, for your
interest.
https://plus.google.com/u/0/photos/101141162735761025862/albums/5677699991823577681
On
7 October 2011 15:21, Sun Chung <sun.chung(at)gmail.com> wrote:
Thanks
Robert for GMing ??? it???s a pleasure playing in a game that you run.
Also, thanks to everyone on the board for a good game.
And for Adriaan for his thoughts/guidance/recommendations early
on in the game. Kudos to him for getting Austria to a great
stage in the game. My big regret is that I was unable to fulfill
Austria???s opportunity that Adriaan set up.
For me, the mark of
a good game is when the players are committed and are willing to
accept the game for what it is ??? a shifting swirl of deals, broken
deals, and new deals being created. It was interesting to see
how the dynamics of the game were able to shift, although I probably
contributed to less of that towards the end of the game. I
appreciated that most on the board were open to thinking about
shifting their alliance and at least listened to new deals.
I
missed the early stages of the game, so I can???t really comment much on
how the armed neutrals dynamic shaped the early portion of the game.
When Robert asked me to replace Adriaan, I came into the game
thinking 1) what a great opportunity ??? this power is strong and has a
good lead but 2) Austria???s completely surrounded I don't have enough
armies to plug in all the gaps - the lead can fall really
quickly.
My first focus on the game was the complex
relationship Austria had with Saxony. There wasn???t a good
defensive line set up, and our armies were all intermixed
together. Not a situation I liked. Elsewhere on the map,
it didn???t seem like there was strong cooperation between
France/Britain/Spain. Russia was friendly and was trying to
build upon the work that Adriaan had done. Unfortunately for me,
I didn???t have much contact with Turkey at the start.
The first
order of business was how to get involved in the game and unwind the
tie-up of Austria and Saxony. I did not feel comfortable with
the situation (esp since it wasn???t of my doing!). As Dirk
mentioned in his EOG statement, I typically like strong stable
borders. It really bothered me that I couldn???t count on a stable
front in any direction. Plus, Saxony was looking to regain his
strength and was pushing to recover some of his home centers.
Adriaan and I agreed that a re-emergence of Saxony would be a threat
to Austria. So my first major decision was that I would not
support Saxony and stab him. That would prevent a rebirth of
Saxony and give me a stable front to work from.
But this
created another problem. It would undoubtedly raise solo alarm
bells across the board. And mark a significant shift in the
Austrian??? strategy at this point. Now, my natural desire was to
start out slowly, play defensively, and get my feet wet in the game.
I didn???t want to be viewed as a loose cannon coming in brand
new. However, being able to discuss strategy and tactics with
Adriaan eased the transition quite a bit. I know that Ray
probably views my stab as a direct consequence of a new replacement
player dropping old agreements, but I was able to get Adriaan???s consul
on my first initial moves.
From there, once I determined that
Saxony would be stabbed, and I knew that it would cause alarms on the
board, I pushed full ahead on going for the solo. I probably
shouldn???t speak for Adriaan as this is my EOG statement, and not his,
but the push for an early Austrian solo was not created in a vacuum.
My first mistake in the game was not securing my
relationship with Turkey. I think had I been able to pickup four
builds in the first season (that I played) I may have been able to get
enough push to really threaten for a solo. But for either
nervousness with a new player, or I rubbed him the wrong way,
something lead to Turkey taking a center from me, and I only got 3
plus centers in the first turn.
I didn???t think it was the end
of the game, and in some ways, I liked this position much better.
I was able to get a nice stable line against France, I thought I
could secure a line against Turkey and was hoping that Russia wouldn???t
view me as a long term threat. But my dreams of an Austria solo
were crushed. I tried my best to say that my push was really
only to secure myself against Saxony and not reach for a solo.
It probably fell on deaf ears, but I thought I would have a
chance since it was at least partially true.
From there, the
game switched to survival. I thought I built an okay line of
communication with France (I told him I had to take Savoy since it was
there for the taking in the first year, but I didn???t want it to set in
stone the Austrian/French relationship), thought that I could get
Turkey to lay off by letting him keep what he took (Turkey had a good
relationship with the prior Austria), and I thought I could convince
Russia that my swing for a solo was a one and done deal and that I
could be a reasonable partner. All three powers attacked
me.
Once Turkey got into the Adriatic Sea, I was at his mercy.
Side note observation - this map creates a lot of defensive
issues for Austria, in particular the way I was set up when I entered
the game. Austria is a land power, but with a home center in
Milan and the host of supply centers in Italy, Austria???s sphere of
influence gravitates around the Adriatic. With the Turkish fleet
there, I was forced to keep units bottled up on my southern front.
That one fleet tied up a huge number of my armies. This
drove me crazy.
My next course of action was to work on France
and/or Russia into attack Turkey. While trying to cut a deal
with Aiden in any fashion as long as he left ADR. Deals with
Turkey fell apart multiple times, but I fared better on the diplomatic
front. Getting Russia to favor me, while getting France to
cooperate for awhile and attack Turkey.
The end game stage
really boiled down to trying to figure out a way to end the game
without it being a DIAS. I tried really hard to make it a France
??? Austria ??? Russia triple, but neither France nor Russia seemed to
trust the other. What may have worked against me was that I also
played up the potential solo threat that they both presented.
Russia could (and did) have the numbers to sweep across northern
Germany and get a solo. France for a while was a couple of
centers lower, but if Turkey got crippled (and I had a bear of a time
trying to get a deal done where we trusted each other), and Britain
got stabbed by France, then no one could really threaten the French
navy. I felt that Austria was the only credible counter to
either solo threats.
For awhile, it worked. France agreed
to not aid Turkey any more, and Russia allowed me to rush my armies to
the west and defend against France???s superior land position over me.
Eventually it boiled down to keeping what I had, while trying
diplomatically getting into the three way draw.
At one point,
Russia had the necessary centers at his reach where he could easily
have gone for the solo. I panicked and hedged myself and move
some units, but not all, to cover the open centers. Dirk was
surprised but took it rather well that I tactically split myself.
Since he didn???t stab me nor went for a solo directly, I was
lulled into thinking that maybe Russia wasn???t in it for a solo at this
stage. I had even asked Sweden (given how close Wladimir was
coordinating with Dirk for the bulk of the game) for advice to get his
read on Russia???s plans. Whether Wladimir was equally convinced
of Dirk not attempting a solo or was part of the Russian PR campaign I
don???t know.
From a tactical stand point, I was then
doomed. I didn???t have enough armies to cover all of my holes, I
was at the mercy of Russia not pushing for a solo. And I felt
that I couldn???t react too strong or else I would push Russia into
thinking I was an untrustworthy ally and by my preventative action,
get Dirk to order to secure a solo.
In hind-sight, I should???ve
committed one way or the other. I felt that I was constantly
moving my armies east and then west. I could never build a
fleet, which crippled me against Turkey. And at some point, I
should???ve made a more tactical retreat to shore up my defensive line
against Turkey/France/or Russia.
This has been a long winded
rambling, so apologies for that. And apologies for any typos in
this - trying to do this quickly, across small breaks during my work
day.
Thoughts on the players:
Russia: Good
job. Played skillfully, and got me suckered into thinking you'd
be committed to the draw. Not much I could've done about it even
if I knew about your intentions though. Always enjoyed our
conversations and your willingness to work out deals. Your solo was
well deserved.
France: Enjoyed our conversations,
and the fact that we were able to keep up a dialogue even with
disagreements. I wonder if we could've set up a different
outcome had we had a chance to work together from the beginning.
Your warning bells should've been heeded more in Vienna. I blame
the Turks for drowning out your message!
Ottoman
Empire: We got off on the wrong foot and then continued to
break our agreements. I wish we could've some out untangled the
complex tactical mess we were in, but alas, I think our in-fighting
created the biggest opportunity for Russia to solo. You had me
in a difficult spot the entire game, and I don't really blame you for
keeping that dang fleet parked in the Adriatic. Makes sense, but
created all sorts of issues for me. If we cross paths again, I
promise to try harder to get diplomacy working between
us.
Poland Saxony: I do apologize for starting out
the game with a stab. I really felt uncomfortable with the way
our units/centers were intertwined. This is one of those, it's
all business, message. I appreciate your attempts to get back
into the game and your willingness to stick with the game and not drop
off.
Britain: We didn't have a lot of interaction
- another hindsight thing where I should've tried harder.
Perhaps the make up of the game would've been
different?
Spain/Prussia/Denmark/Sweden:
Unfortunately, I don't have a lot of comments. I came in at
a time where I think your fates may have already been
decided.
All in all, thank you for giving me this
opportunity to play Ambition and Empire. I???ve been interested in
playing this variant for awhile and would love another opportunity to
play (esp from the beginning). It's been a pleasure playing with
you all.
Thanks.
=
=[Reply] |
| Upcoming A&E Game - FuzzyLogic (Nov 25, 2011, 12:57 pm) |
[Reply] |
| Upcoming A&E Game - vonpowell (Nov 24, 2011, 2:27 pm) |
Dirk,
Thanks. If Mike or someone else needs a copy of the current map to
post to Dipwiki, please let me know.
Baron
In a message dated 11/24/2011 12:25:06 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
dirk(at)knemeyer.com writes:
Yes, Nick is correct. I'm copying Mike Sims to see how this can be
fixed.
Dirk
Sent from my iPhone
On Nov 24, 2011, at 3:19 PM, Nick Powell <nick.s.powell(at)gmail.com>
wrote:
I think it's simply that the map in the Dipwiki is out of
date.
-Nick
On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 12:17 PM, <VonPowell(at)aol.com> wrote:
Dirk,
Outstanding! I'm looking forward to the upcoming contest.
One question... I notice the map associated with the link below
is an old version. Is it possible to replace that map with the
current map (i.e., the same map you recently soloed on)?
Baron
In a message dated 11/23/2011 10:32:49 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, dirk(at)knemeyer.com writes:
Hi
Friends,
In appreciation of Baron's support of his variants, and fulfilling
my promise to Robert to GM an advanced variant for him, I have just
posted a new game of Ambition and Empire on DC that I shall be GM'ing. I
hope to see many of you there!
http://diplomaticcorp.com/game_page.php?game_id=re002
Dirk
On Nov 24, 2011, at 12:24 AM, VonPowell(at)aol.com
wrote:
Adriaan,
A very entertaining read.
I don't disagree at all that Denmark-Norway and Poland &
Saxony are challenging (to put it kindly) to play. They are,
indeed, extremely challenging. The key question is are they
viable. By viable I mean that the a DN or PS player should
have a "reasonable expectation" of success if he or she plays
well. I think this is the case. The proof is that I've
seen both positions enjoy tremendous success. Of course I've
also seen plenty of spectacular failure. The true weakness in
these positions, in my opinion, is that they have virtually no margin
for error in the early going. Most of the other nations
have at least some wiggle room to work with should they guess
incorrectly or be on the wrong side of a coalition. This wiggle
room might not be enough to overcome a poor start and early
elimination, but there is a "chance" to recover. DN and PS
cannot really afford a misstep until they have gained some
traction. They MUST start the game with at least one and
preferably more reliable allies so that they can initially leave a
flank unprotected while focusing their forces on the first
objective. Good diplomacy should see DN and PS as integral
parts of coalitions that win the DP battle each turn and isolate
their enemies. If DN and PS can avoid the early elimination
and gain a SC or two, then their prospects start to look
bright.
You are correct. Austria often gets to 8 SCs with little
trouble at all. Getting to 15 SCs is another matter. No
power suffers from ELS more than the Habsburg Empire. Easy early
growth frequently turns into mid-game stagnation. Decline and
elimination often follow. I'm not convinced that trying to avoid
looking big is the answer to the Austrian conundrum. Instead, I
think the key for Austrian success is to be a member in
good standing of a successful coalition. This can be achieved
through active diplomacy (no surprise there), largesse with
DPs, open military support to a partner fighting a common or
potential enemy, and judicious sharing of the spoils of victory.
Growth within the coalition does not necessarily need to be equal,
however. Austria has no interest in creating a powerful
rival. Instead, growth simply needs to be "fair enough" that
partners believe they benefit from being Austria's
friend. Austrian math should go as follows: one for ally A
and one for ally B and two for me. Austria can
probably keep its allies happy in this manner without too much
difficulty until it reaches 11 or 12 SCs. At that point,
the dynamics get trickier. Unless Austria wishes to hold hands
with its partners all the way to a draw, it will need to be ruthless
to get those last few SCs. Setting up and timing the rush to
victory is a challenge, but that is what makes the game
interesting.
I do believe a correction is in order... I think the
article about A&E's Austria that mentions the Sultan Slayer
was written by our friend Nick Higgens rather than Chris. If I'm
mistaken Chris, please correct me.
I'm looking forward to the next A&E game. Until
then...
Happy Stabbing,
Baron
In a message dated 11/21/2011 11:00:44 P.M. Pacific Standard
Time, arandia.t(at)gmail.com writes:
Austria post-game - Adriaan (1763-1766):
It has been many turns since I passed control of the Hapsburg
Empire to the capable hands of Sun Chung. Since inheriting control,
he has brought Austria to new heights of glory and accomplished many
great things. But as I sit here writing my memoirs, I hope you can
spare a thought for Austria before she was great. Indeed,
there was a time when there were ten kingdoms seeking to dominate
Europe, and Austria was but one of them...
Anyways, so to cut the crap - well, it appears that I am totally
incapable of completing anything if I don't have a looming deadline
to pressure me. Believe it or not, I actually started writing this
EOG before the game even finished! Well, look where I ended up with
that... better late than never?
First off - Robert. A great deal of thanks to you for running
such an organized and professional game. I have previously played a
few games with lackluster GMs, and it makes a huge difference - it
is a lot of work for modest reward, and I hope I can someday repay
the favour.
Secondly, congratulations to Dirk, on a well-deserved victory. It
is a sign of a game well-played that even in the last few years, as
you approached that magic number, your allies still saw it as in
their interest to work with you rather than against you. This is no
easy feat against what is clearly a strong table!
Strategy. Well, we may as well begin at the beginning: power
selections. As Robert mentioned in that initial email, the two
counties to receive the highest bids (by a large margin!) were
Turkey and Spain. I must own up to contributing my fair share to
those two averages, as I only saved a measly '2' for Austria. I
suppose that, all things considered, there are worse countries to
start with than Austria - I consider it good fortune that I didn't
end up with Saxony or Norway. That is, of course, not to say that
there is anything wrong with either of those countries
(Baron), merely that they force a play style that I don't personally
enjoy.
I had done a little reading on A&E prior to this game, and
from what I could tell, Austria tends to suffer from the curse of
being the early leader. Not only does she start with four units, but
she is square in the middle of the most SC-rich part of the board.
Austria expands almost involuntarily, at least at first. Of course,
the trade-off for this early success seems to be middle-game
stagnation. Perhaps Baron could shed some light/numbers on this, but
I hoped to try and take a different course in this game. My initial
expansion in Italy was deliberately slower than it could have been
(at times requiring great amounts of willpower), in an attempt to
follow this path. However, beyond this rough outline, I had
relatively little in the way of a long-term plan - too much depends,
of course, on the other players involved.
Chris Dziedzic, in his article on A&E in Diplomacy World,
suggests that Austria's relationship with Turkey is her defining
feature; that the Archduke must play either the Sultan-slayer or the
Sultan's best friend. I'm not convinced that those are the only two
options available, but it seemed like as decent a place as any to
start. My initial negotiations with Aidan had been mostly positive,
and I certainly didn't want to commit to an early and potentially
costly war that could limit my other choices. Thus I figured I would
try to work with him, and see if he wouldn't be more interested
sailing ships to Spain than marching armies to Vienna. Over the
course of the four years in which I played, Aidan and I managed to
develop a very good rapport. He struck me as being a very capable
and resourceful diplomat, and he was one of the players I had on my
personal short-list if and when it came down to figuring out who to
include in a draw. Perhaps we'll never know just how successful
I was in this (unless Aidan cares to share in *his* EOG), but at
least I think that I left the game with an ally to the south.
I only hope that I wasn't merely playing the sucker who escaped a
stabbing, through an abdication in the nick of time...
Speaking of Nick: early-game Germany. In my initial view, the
only real short-term threat to Austria in the opening year comes
from an allied Prussia and Poland/Saxony. I therefore did what I
could to create tensions between them, with the view to also picking
up a few extra cities beyond Austria's traditional 8-centre Alpine
plateau. As it happened, tensions weren't too hard to achieve - both
Nick and Ray seemed to distrust each other from the start. Overtly I
sided with Nick, but as things got more complicated in Germany I'll
admit to ending up with a few mixed motives of my own. While I never
directly attacked Nick, I will admit to not being the best possible
ally, either. For instance, those "crossed wires" in 1764 that
resulted in the western Saxon army surviving a four-unit attack were
completely accidental, and the fact that the surviving Saxon
army proceeded to stymie French growth in the Alps was most
unfortunate, and totally coincidental. Nick, given how fluid things
were at the beginning of the game, I only hope that you can forgive
these trespasses.
Nick is obviously a very good player, because he managed to scare
everyone else into a stampede into Germany in short order; that's
the most logical conclusion I can come to. What began as a
Prussian-Russian war to the east took on more ominous tones for Nick
once Dirk leveraged Ray to gain the upper hand. And, of course,
nothing brings further attacks like a perceived weakness. Soon
France and Britain were snapping at the Kaiser's heels. Nick and I
had always gotten along very well, but when push came to shove I
realized that I couldn't keep him afloat by myself - I had little
choice but to try and find other players to work with.
My relationship with Dirk is perhaps proof of the old Diplomacy
maxim that if you talk enough, it almost doesn't matter what you're
saying. After an initial slow start, my alliance with Dirk developed
into what as probably my closest in the game. Of course, this belies
the fact that our first diplomatic conversation of much substance
was a *colossal* disagreement (something on the subject of Germany,
it went on for pages and caused a few headaches for him too, I'm
sure)! He has since sung me some very high praises in his EOG, so I
imagine that that has been forgiven and forgotten. I'm very glad
that I was able to convince Dirk to not push through central Europe;
even if this was rather self-serving at first, it clearly worked to
Dirk's interest as well. Overall, I found Dirk to be a very
reasonable and very canny player, with whom it was a pleasure to
work, and who played the board very well. At one point, I think he
was juggling two, maybe even three vassals - not an easy feat.
Congratulations again, Dirk, on a game well-played.
Mixed in between Nick, Dirk and myself, there was Ray. Now I know
there may be a numerical argument somewhere saying that Poland and
Saxony isn't really all that bad, but I think that it has to be, at
the very least, the most precarious position on the board
(whether or not it does decently in the long run). I found my
interactions with Ray to be a little clipped, but all the same
constructive and not unreasonable. Perhaps the brevity can be
excused by the game of 1900 he was also involved in. In a critique
of his play style, I really can't say too much; I initially chose to
work with Nick against Ray mostly on the basis of starting position
and rumour (cheering for the same team as Nick in the Stanly Cup
finals probably influenced my position more than I'd care to admit).
Ray, let me assure you - I never intended to execute the stab that
befell you.
I've always felt that Diplomacy is best played when the map does
not force the players into any particular course of action. Thus, I
prefer 1900 over Standard partly because in 1900, Turkey need not
fight Austria. In A&E, I think that the relationship between
Austria and France may not approach the same level of
predestination, but it is definitely not a stress-free border. That
is not to say, of course, that France and Austria *need* to fight;
merely that it is easy. I tried to structure my relationship with
Warren on the basis that most of the other players would expect some
hostility between the two of us, and that we could therefore both
have an advantage if our borders stayed unexpectedly calm. Of
course, aiding this was the fact that Warren was a good player and a
reasonable person, with whom I saw a fair bit of common interest (is
it ever possible to have a good player that is not
reasonable?). I found our relationship to be cordial, if perhaps a
little wary - though perhaps wariness was warranted, given what
happened during my last move. Rest assured, Warren, I never intended
on continuing my cooperation with Ray beyond that one turn that saw
the Saxons march to Burgundy.
Michael, Josiah, Richard, and Wladimir - it was good to meet you
all. Some time I hope to meet you in another game, where we might be
located somewhat closer together, and have somewhat greater
interactions. As it was, I hope that you all got as much enjoyment
out of this game as I did.
Finally, the highly-appreciated replacement, Sun Chung. Many
thanks, of course, for taking over my position on such short notice;
real life can be such a pesky thing to have to deal with. The rest
of you probably know him better than I do, as we only had a few
short emails between us at the tail end of my tenure. Nevertheless,
as he mentions we did have a few discussions of some weight - in
particular one concerning whether Austria should make a break for a
solo, or risk enmeshed borders with Saxony. Sun has said that I
provided him with council on this; I will admit to sending him a
detailed multi-page discussion and risk assessment outlining
how an Archduke might strike for a solo from eight
centres few suggestions, but in my defense I
also made it clear that I had made no decision whether or not I
would actually go about implementing this plan. All said, I was
actually rather glad when Sun agreed to be my replacement, as he
signed on just in time to save me from having to make this very
hard choice. From an outside perspective, I think that there was
likely very little that Sun could have done differently to convert
his inherited position into a solo - changing players is always
going to make your neighbours rather wary. I think he handled the
chaos following his run admirably, and he certainly kept Austria
abreast the future of Europe. Well-played Sun, and thanks
again.
In closing, I have to thank you all for what was a tremendously
fun game. I hope to get an opportunity to play with you all again
sometime; it is always a pleasure to find a group of players who are
not only committed to playing Diplomacy, but who play it well. I
hope to see you all in future games.
Best regards,
Adriaan Tichler
P.S. I've uploaded photos of a few of my reasons for abdication,
for your interest.
https://plus.google.com/u/0/photos/101141162735761025862/albums/5677699991823577681
On 7 October 2011 15:21, Sun Chung <sun.chung(at)gmail.com> wrote:
Thanks Robert for GMing ??? it???s a pleasure
playing in a game that you run.
Also, thanks to
everyone on the board for a good game. And for Adriaan for
his thoughts/guidance/recommendations early on in the game.
Kudos to him for getting Austria to a great stage in the
game. My big regret is that I was unable to fulfill
Austria???s opportunity that Adriaan set up.
For me, the mark
of a good game is when the players are committed and are willing
to accept the game for what it is ??? a shifting swirl of deals,
broken deals, and new deals being created. It was
interesting to see how the dynamics of the game were able to
shift, although I probably contributed to less of that towards the
end of the game. I appreciated that most on the board were
open to thinking about shifting their alliance and at least
listened to new deals.
I missed the early stages of the
game, so I can???t really comment much on how the armed neutrals
dynamic shaped the early portion of the game. When Robert
asked me to replace Adriaan, I came into the game thinking 1) what
a great opportunity ??? this power is strong and has a good lead but
2) Austria???s completely surrounded I don't have enough armies to
plug in all the gaps - the lead can fall really quickly.
My
first focus on the game was the complex relationship Austria had
with Saxony. There wasn???t a good defensive line set up, and
our armies were all intermixed together. Not a situation I
liked. Elsewhere on the map, it didn???t seem like there was
strong cooperation between France/Britain/Spain. Russia was
friendly and was trying to build upon the work that Adriaan had
done. Unfortunately for me, I didn???t have much contact with
Turkey at the start.
The first order of business was how to
get involved in the game and unwind the tie-up of Austria and
Saxony. I did not feel comfortable with the situation (esp
since it wasn???t of my doing!). As Dirk mentioned in his EOG
statement, I typically like strong stable borders. It really
bothered me that I couldn???t count on a stable front in any
direction. Plus, Saxony was looking to regain his strength
and was pushing to recover some of his home centers. Adriaan
and I agreed that a re-emergence of Saxony would be a threat to
Austria. So my first major decision was that I would not
support Saxony and stab him. That would prevent a rebirth of
Saxony and give me a stable front to work from.
But this
created another problem. It would undoubtedly raise solo
alarm bells across the board. And mark a significant shift
in the Austrian??? strategy at this point. Now, my natural
desire was to start out slowly, play defensively, and get my feet
wet in the game. I didn???t want to be viewed as a loose
cannon coming in brand new. However, being able to discuss
strategy and tactics with Adriaan eased the transition quite a
bit. I know that Ray probably views my stab as a direct
consequence of a new replacement player dropping old agreements,
but I was able to get Adriaan???s consul on my first initial
moves.
From there, once I determined that Saxony would be
stabbed, and I knew that it would cause alarms on the board, I
pushed full ahead on going for the solo. I probably
shouldn???t speak for Adriaan as this is my EOG statement, and not
his, but the push for an early Austrian solo was not created in a
vacuum.
My first mistake in the game was not
securing my relationship with Turkey. I think had I been
able to pickup four builds in the first season (that I played) I
may have been able to get enough push to really threaten for a
solo. But for either nervousness with a new player, or I
rubbed him the wrong way, something lead to Turkey taking a center
from me, and I only got 3 plus centers in the first turn.
I
didn???t think it was the end of the game, and in some ways, I liked
this position much better. I was able to get a nice stable
line against France, I thought I could secure a line against
Turkey and was hoping that Russia wouldn???t view me as a long term
threat. But my dreams of an Austria solo were crushed.
I tried my best to say that my push was really only to secure
myself against Saxony and not reach for a solo. It probably
fell on deaf ears, but I thought I would have a chance since it
was at least partially true.
From there, the game switched
to survival. I thought I built an okay line of communication
with France (I told him I had to take Savoy since it was there for
the taking in the first year, but I didn???t want it to set in stone
the Austrian/French relationship), thought that I could get Turkey
to lay off by letting him keep what he took (Turkey had a good
relationship with the prior Austria), and I thought I could
convince Russia that my swing for a solo was a one and done deal
and that I could be a reasonable partner. All three powers
attacked me.
Once Turkey got into the Adriatic Sea, I was
at his mercy. Side note observation - this map creates a lot
of defensive issues for Austria, in particular the way I was set
up when I entered the game. Austria is a land power, but
with a home center in Milan and the host of supply centers in
Italy, Austria???s sphere of influence gravitates around the
Adriatic. With the Turkish fleet there, I was forced to keep
units bottled up on my southern front. That one fleet tied
up a huge number of my armies. This drove me crazy.
My
next course of action was to work on France and/or Russia into
attack Turkey. While trying to cut a deal with Aiden in any
fashion as long as he left ADR. Deals with Turkey fell apart
multiple times, but I fared better on the diplomatic front.
Getting Russia to favor me, while getting France to
cooperate for awhile and attack Turkey.
The end game stage
really boiled down to trying to figure out a way to end the game
without it being a DIAS. I tried really hard to make it a
France ??? Austria ??? Russia triple, but neither France nor Russia
seemed to trust the other. What may have worked against me
was that I also played up the potential solo threat that they both
presented. Russia could (and did) have the numbers to sweep
across northern Germany and get a solo. France for a while
was a couple of centers lower, but if Turkey got crippled (and I
had a bear of a time trying to get a deal done where we trusted
each other), and Britain got stabbed by France, then no one could
really threaten the French navy. I felt that Austria was the
only credible counter to either solo threats.
For awhile,
it worked. France agreed to not aid Turkey any more, and
Russia allowed me to rush my armies to the west and defend against
France???s superior land position over me. Eventually it
boiled down to keeping what I had, while trying diplomatically
getting into the three way draw.
At one point, Russia had
the necessary centers at his reach where he could easily have gone
for the solo. I panicked and hedged myself and move some
units, but not all, to cover the open centers. Dirk was
surprised but took it rather well that I tactically split myself.
Since he didn???t stab me nor went for a solo directly, I was
lulled into thinking that maybe Russia wasn???t in it for a solo at
this stage. I had even asked Sweden (given how close
Wladimir was coordinating with Dirk for the bulk of the game) for
advice to get his read on Russia???s plans. Whether Wladimir
was equally convinced of Dirk not attempting a solo or was part of
the Russian PR campaign I don???t know.
From a
tactical stand point, I was then doomed. I didn???t have
enough armies to cover all of my holes, I was at the mercy of
Russia not pushing for a solo. And I felt that I couldn???t
react too strong or else I would push Russia into thinking I was
an untrustworthy ally and by my preventative action, get Dirk to
order to secure a solo.
In hind-sight, I should???ve
committed one way or the other. I felt that I was constantly
moving my armies east and then west. I could never build a
fleet, which crippled me against Turkey. And at some point,
I should???ve made a more tactical retreat to shore up my defensive
line against Turkey/France/or Russia.
This has been a long
winded rambling, so apologies for that. And apologies for
any typos in this - trying to do this quickly, across small breaks
during my work day.
Thoughts on the
players:
Russia: Good job. Played
skillfully, and got me suckered into thinking you'd be committed
to the draw. Not much I could've done about it even if I
knew about your intentions though. Always enjoyed our
conversations and your willingness to work out deals. Your solo
was well deserved.
France: Enjoyed our
conversations, and the fact that we were able to keep up a
dialogue even with disagreements. I wonder if we could've
set up a different outcome had we had a chance to work together
from the beginning. Your warning bells should've been heeded
more in Vienna. I blame the Turks for drowning out your
message!
Ottoman Empire: We got off on the
wrong foot and then continued to break our agreements. I
wish we could've some out untangled the complex tactical mess we
were in, but alas, I think our in-fighting created the biggest
opportunity for Russia to solo. You had me in a difficult
spot the entire game, and I don't really blame you for keeping
that dang fleet parked in the Adriatic. Makes sense, but
created all sorts of issues for me. If we cross paths again,
I promise to try harder to get diplomacy working between
us.
Poland Saxony: I do apologize for starting
out the game with a stab. I really felt uncomfortable with
the way our units/centers were intertwined. This is one of
those, it's all business, message. I appreciate your
attempts to get back into the game and your willingness to stick
with the game and not drop off.
Britain: We
didn't have a lot of interaction - another hindsight thing where I
should've tried harder. Perhaps the make up of the game
would've been
different?
Spain/Prussia/Denmark/Sweden:
Unfortunately, I don't have a lot of comments. I came in
at a time where I think your fates may have already been
decided.
All in all, thank you for giving me this
opportunity to play Ambition and Empire. I???ve been
interested in playing this variant for awhile and would love
another opportunity to play (esp from the beginning). It's
been a pleasure playing with you
all.
Thanks.
=
=[Reply] |
| Upcoming A&E Game - dknemeyer (Nov 24, 2011, 2:24 pm) |
Yes, Nick is correct. I'm copying Mike Sims to see how this can be fixed.
Dirk
Sent from my iPhone
On Nov 24, 2011, at 3:19 PM, Nick Powell <nick.s.powell(at)gmail.com> wrote:
I think it's simply that the map in the Dipwiki is out of date.
-Nick
On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 12:17 PM, <VonPowell(at)aol.com> wrote:
Dirk,
Outstanding! I'm looking forward to the upcoming contest.
One question... I notice the map associated with the link below is an
old version. Is it possible to replace that map with the current map
(i.e., the same map you recently soloed on)?
Baron
In a message dated 11/23/2011 10:32:49 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
dirk(at)knemeyer.com writes:
Hi
Friends,
In appreciation of Baron's support of his variants, and fulfilling my
promise to Robert to GM an advanced variant for him, I have just posted a new
game of Ambition and Empire on DC that I shall be GM'ing. I hope to see many
of you there!
http://diplomaticcorp.com/game_page.php?game_id=re002
Dirk
On Nov 24, 2011, at 12:24 AM, VonPowell(at)aol.com wrote:
Adriaan,
A very entertaining read.
I don't disagree at all that Denmark-Norway and Poland &
Saxony are challenging (to put it kindly) to play. They are, indeed,
extremely challenging. The key question is are they viable.
By viable I mean that the a DN or PS player should have a "reasonable
expectation" of success if he or she plays well. I think this is
the case. The proof is that I've seen both positions enjoy tremendous
success. Of course I've also seen plenty of spectacular failure.
The true weakness in these positions, in my opinion, is that they have
virtually no margin for error in the early going. Most of the
other nations have at least some wiggle room to work with should they guess
incorrectly or be on the wrong side of a coalition. This wiggle room
might not be enough to overcome a poor start and early elimination, but
there is a "chance" to recover. DN and PS cannot really afford a
misstep until they have gained some traction. They MUST start the game
with at least one and preferably more reliable allies so that they can
initially leave a flank unprotected while focusing their forces on the first
objective. Good diplomacy should see DN and PS as integral parts
of coalitions that win the DP battle each turn and isolate their
enemies. If DN and PS can avoid the early elimination and gain a
SC or two, then their prospects start to look bright.
You are correct. Austria often gets to 8 SCs with little trouble
at all. Getting to 15 SCs is another matter. No power suffers
from ELS more than the Habsburg Empire. Easy early growth frequently
turns into mid-game stagnation. Decline and elimination often
follow. I'm not convinced that trying to avoid looking big is the
answer to the Austrian conundrum. Instead, I think the key
for Austrian success is to be a member in good standing of a
successful coalition. This can be achieved through active diplomacy
(no surprise there), largesse with DPs, open military support to a
partner fighting a common or potential enemy, and judicious sharing of
the spoils of victory. Growth within the coalition does not
necessarily need to be equal, however. Austria has no interest in
creating a powerful rival. Instead, growth simply needs to be "fair
enough" that partners believe they benefit from being Austria's
friend. Austrian math should go as follows: one for ally A and
one for ally B and two for me. Austria can probably keep its
allies happy in this manner without too much difficulty until it reaches 11
or 12 SCs. At that point, the dynamics get trickier.
Unless Austria wishes to hold hands with its partners all the way to a draw,
it will need to be ruthless to get those last few SCs. Setting up and
timing the rush to victory is a challenge, but that is what makes the game
interesting.
I do believe a correction is in order... I think the article
about A&E's Austria that mentions the Sultan Slayer was written by
our friend Nick Higgens rather than Chris. If I'm mistaken Chris,
please correct me.
I'm looking forward to the next A&E game. Until then...
Happy Stabbing,
Baron
In a message dated 11/21/2011 11:00:44 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, arandia.t(at)gmail.com writes:
Austria post-game - Adriaan (1763-1766):
It has been many turns since I passed control of the Hapsburg Empire to
the capable hands of Sun Chung. Since inheriting control, he has brought
Austria to new heights of glory and accomplished many great things. But as
I sit here writing my memoirs, I hope you can spare a thought for Austria
before she was great. Indeed, there was a time when there were ten
kingdoms seeking to dominate Europe, and Austria was but one of
them...
Anyways, so to cut the crap - well, it appears that I am totally
incapable of completing anything if I don't have a looming deadline to
pressure me. Believe it or not, I actually started writing this EOG before
the game even finished! Well, look where I ended up with that... better
late than never?
First off - Robert. A great deal of thanks to you for running such an
organized and professional game. I have previously played a few games with
lackluster GMs, and it makes a huge difference - it is a lot of work for
modest reward, and I hope I can someday repay the favour.
Secondly, congratulations to Dirk, on a well-deserved victory. It is a
sign of a game well-played that even in the last few years, as you
approached that magic number, your allies still saw it as in their
interest to work with you rather than against you. This is no easy feat
against what is clearly a strong table!
Strategy. Well, we may as well begin at the beginning: power
selections. As Robert mentioned in that initial email, the two counties to
receive the highest bids (by a large margin!) were Turkey and Spain. I
must own up to contributing my fair share to those two averages, as I only
saved a measly '2' for Austria. I suppose that, all things considered,
there are worse countries to start with than Austria - I consider it good
fortune that I didn't end up with Saxony or Norway. That is, of course,
not to say that there is anything wrong with either of those
countries (Baron), merely that they force a play style that I don't
personally enjoy.
I had done a little reading on A&E prior to this game, and from
what I could tell, Austria tends to suffer from the curse of being the
early leader. Not only does she start with four units, but she is square
in the middle of the most SC-rich part of the board. Austria expands
almost involuntarily, at least at first. Of course, the trade-off for this
early success seems to be middle-game stagnation. Perhaps Baron could shed
some light/numbers on this, but I hoped to try and take a different course
in this game. My initial expansion in Italy was deliberately slower than
it could have been (at times requiring great amounts of willpower), in an
attempt to follow this path. However, beyond this rough outline, I had
relatively little in the way of a long-term plan - too much depends, of
course, on the other players involved.
Chris Dziedzic, in his article on A&E in Diplomacy World, suggests
that Austria's relationship with Turkey is her defining feature; that the
Archduke must play either the Sultan-slayer or the Sultan's best friend.
I'm not convinced that those are the only two options available, but it
seemed like as decent a place as any to start. My initial negotiations
with Aidan had been mostly positive, and I certainly didn't want to commit
to an early and potentially costly war that could limit my other choices.
Thus I figured I would try to work with him, and see if he wouldn't be
more interested sailing ships to Spain than marching armies to Vienna.
Over the course of the four years in which I played, Aidan and I managed
to develop a very good rapport. He struck me as being a very capable and
resourceful diplomat, and he was one of the players I had on my personal
short-list if and when it came down to figuring out who to include in a
draw. Perhaps we'll never know just how successful I was in this
(unless Aidan cares to share in *his* EOG), but at least I think
that I left the game with an ally to the south. I only hope that I
wasn't merely playing the sucker who escaped a stabbing, through an
abdication in the nick of time...
Speaking of Nick: early-game Germany. In my initial view, the only real
short-term threat to Austria in the opening year comes from an allied
Prussia and Poland/Saxony. I therefore did what I could to create tensions
between them, with the view to also picking up a few extra cities beyond
Austria's traditional 8-centre Alpine plateau. As it happened, tensions
weren't too hard to achieve - both Nick and Ray seemed to distrust each
other from the start. Overtly I sided with Nick, but as things got more
complicated in Germany I'll admit to ending up with a few mixed motives of
my own. While I never directly attacked Nick, I will admit to not being
the best possible ally, either. For instance, those "crossed wires" in
1764 that resulted in the western Saxon army surviving a four-unit attack
were completely accidental, and the fact that the surviving Saxon
army proceeded to stymie French growth in the Alps was most unfortunate,
and totally coincidental. Nick, given how fluid things were at the
beginning of the game, I only hope that you can forgive these
trespasses.
Nick is obviously a very good player, because he managed to scare
everyone else into a stampede into Germany in short order; that's the most
logical conclusion I can come to. What began as a Prussian-Russian war to
the east took on more ominous tones for Nick once Dirk leveraged Ray to
gain the upper hand. And, of course, nothing brings further attacks like a
perceived weakness. Soon France and Britain were snapping at the Kaiser's
heels. Nick and I had always gotten along very well, but when push came to
shove I realized that I couldn't keep him afloat by myself - I had little
choice but to try and find other players to work with.
My relationship with Dirk is perhaps proof of the old Diplomacy maxim
that if you talk enough, it almost doesn't matter what you're saying.
After an initial slow start, my alliance with Dirk developed into what as
probably my closest in the game. Of course, this belies the fact that our
first diplomatic conversation of much substance was a *colossal*
disagreement (something on the subject of Germany, it went on for pages
and caused a few headaches for him too, I'm sure)! He has since sung me
some very high praises in his EOG, so I imagine that that has been
forgiven and forgotten. I'm very glad that I was able to convince Dirk to
not push through central Europe; even if this was rather self-serving at
first, it clearly worked to Dirk's interest as well. Overall, I found Dirk
to be a very reasonable and very canny player, with whom it was a pleasure
to work, and who played the board very well. At one point, I think he was
juggling two, maybe even three vassals - not an easy feat. Congratulations
again, Dirk, on a game well-played.
Mixed in between Nick, Dirk and myself, there was Ray. Now I know there
may be a numerical argument somewhere saying that Poland and Saxony isn't
really all that bad, but I think that it has to be, at the very least, the
most precarious position on the board (whether or not it does
decently in the long run). I found my interactions with Ray to be a little
clipped, but all the same constructive and not unreasonable. Perhaps the
brevity can be excused by the game of 1900 he was also involved in. In a
critique of his play style, I really can't say too much; I initially chose
to work with Nick against Ray mostly on the basis of starting position and
rumour (cheering for the same team as Nick in the Stanly Cup finals
probably influenced my position more than I'd care to admit). Ray, let me
assure you - I never intended to execute the stab that befell you.
I've always felt that Diplomacy is best played when the map does not
force the players into any particular course of action. Thus, I prefer
1900 over Standard partly because in 1900, Turkey need not fight Austria.
In A&E, I think that the relationship between Austria and France may
not approach the same level of predestination, but it is definitely not a
stress-free border. That is not to say, of course, that France and Austria
*need* to fight; merely that it is easy. I tried to structure my
relationship with Warren on the basis that most of the other players would
expect some hostility between the two of us, and that we could therefore
both have an advantage if our borders stayed unexpectedly calm. Of course,
aiding this was the fact that Warren was a good player and a reasonable
person, with whom I saw a fair bit of common interest (is it ever possible
to have a good player that is not reasonable?). I found our
relationship to be cordial, if perhaps a little wary - though perhaps
wariness was warranted, given what happened during my last move. Rest
assured, Warren, I never intended on continuing my cooperation with Ray
beyond that one turn that saw the Saxons march to Burgundy.
Michael, Josiah, Richard, and Wladimir - it was good to meet you all.
Some time I hope to meet you in another game, where we might be located
somewhat closer together, and have somewhat greater interactions. As it
was, I hope that you all got as much enjoyment out of this game as I
did.
Finally, the highly-appreciated replacement, Sun Chung. Many thanks, of
course, for taking over my position on such short notice; real life can be
such a pesky thing to have to deal with. The rest of you probably know him
better than I do, as we only had a few short emails between us at the tail
end of my tenure. Nevertheless, as he mentions we did have a few
discussions of some weight - in particular one concerning whether Austria
should make a break for a solo, or risk enmeshed borders with Saxony. Sun
has said that I provided him with council on this; I will admit to sending
him a detailed multi-page discussion and risk assessment outlining
how an Archduke might strike for a solo from eight centres
few suggestions, but in my defense I also made it clear that
I had made no decision whether or not I would actually go about
implementing this plan. All said, I was actually rather glad when Sun
agreed to be my replacement, as he signed on just in time to save me from
having to make this very hard choice. From an outside perspective,
I think that there was likely very little that Sun could have done
differently to convert his inherited position into a solo - changing
players is always going to make your neighbours rather wary. I think he
handled the chaos following his run admirably, and he certainly kept
Austria abreast the future of Europe. Well-played Sun, and thanks
again.
In closing, I have to thank you all for what was a tremendously fun
game. I hope to get an opportunity to play with you all again sometime; it
is always a pleasure to find a group of players who are not only committed
to playing Diplomacy, but who play it well. I hope to see you all in
future games.
Best regards,
Adriaan Tichler
P.S. I've uploaded photos of a few of my reasons for abdication, for
your interest.
https://plus.google.com/u/0/photos/101141162735761025862/albums/5677699991823577681
On 7 October 2011 15:21, Sun Chung <sun.chung(at)gmail.com> wrote:
Thanks Robert for GMing ??? it???s a pleasure playing in a
game that you run.
Also, thanks to everyone on the board
for a good game. And for Adriaan for his
thoughts/guidance/recommendations early on in the game. Kudos to
him for getting Austria to a great stage in the game. My big
regret is that I was unable to fulfill Austria???s opportunity that
Adriaan set up.
For me, the mark of a good game is when the
players are committed and are willing to accept the game for what it is
??? a shifting swirl of deals, broken deals, and new deals being created.
It was interesting to see how the dynamics of the game were able
to shift, although I probably contributed to less of that towards the
end of the game. I appreciated that most on the board were open to
thinking about shifting their alliance and at least listened to new
deals.
I missed the early stages of the game, so I can???t really
comment much on how the armed neutrals dynamic shaped the early portion
of the game. When Robert asked me to replace Adriaan, I came into
the game thinking 1) what a great opportunity ??? this power is strong and
has a good lead but 2) Austria???s completely surrounded I don't have
enough armies to plug in all the gaps - the lead can fall really
quickly.
My first focus on the game was the complex relationship
Austria had with Saxony. There wasn???t a good defensive line set
up, and our armies were all intermixed together. Not a situation I
liked. Elsewhere on the map, it didn???t seem like there was strong
cooperation between France/Britain/Spain. Russia was friendly and
was trying to build upon the work that Adriaan had done.
Unfortunately for me, I didn???t have much contact with Turkey at the
start.
The first order of business was how to get involved in the
game and unwind the tie-up of Austria and Saxony. I did not feel
comfortable with the situation (esp since it wasn???t of my doing!).
As Dirk mentioned in his EOG statement, I typically like strong
stable borders. It really bothered me that I couldn???t count on a
stable front in any direction. Plus, Saxony was looking to regain
his strength and was pushing to recover some of his home centers.
Adriaan and I agreed that a re-emergence of Saxony would be a threat to
Austria. So my first major decision was that I would not support
Saxony and stab him. That would prevent a rebirth of Saxony and
give me a stable front to work from.
But this created another
problem. It would undoubtedly raise solo alarm bells across the
board. And mark a significant shift in the Austrian??? strategy at
this point. Now, my natural desire was to start out slowly, play
defensively, and get my feet wet in the game. I didn???t want to be
viewed as a loose cannon coming in brand new. However, being able
to discuss strategy and tactics with Adriaan eased the transition quite
a bit. I know that Ray probably views my stab as a direct
consequence of a new replacement player dropping old agreements, but I
was able to get Adriaan???s consul on my first initial moves.
From
there, once I determined that Saxony would be stabbed, and I knew that
it would cause alarms on the board, I pushed full ahead on going for the
solo. I probably shouldn???t speak for Adriaan as this is my EOG
statement, and not his, but the push for an early Austrian solo was not
created in a vacuum.
My first mistake in the game was not
securing my relationship with Turkey. I think had I been able to
pickup four builds in the first season (that I played) I may have been
able to get enough push to really threaten for a solo. But for
either nervousness with a new player, or I rubbed him the wrong way,
something lead to Turkey taking a center from me, and I only got 3 plus
centers in the first turn.
I didn???t think it was the end of the
game, and in some ways, I liked this position much better. I was
able to get a nice stable line against France, I thought I could secure
a line against Turkey and was hoping that Russia wouldn???t view me as a
long term threat. But my dreams of an Austria solo were
crushed. I tried my best to say that my push was really only to
secure myself against Saxony and not reach for a solo. It probably
fell on deaf ears, but I thought I would have a chance since it was at
least partially true.
From there, the game switched to survival.
I thought I built an okay line of communication with France (I
told him I had to take Savoy since it was there for the taking in the
first year, but I didn???t want it to set in stone the Austrian/French
relationship), thought that I could get Turkey to lay off by letting him
keep what he took (Turkey had a good relationship with the prior
Austria), and I thought I could convince Russia that my swing for a solo
was a one and done deal and that I could be a reasonable partner.
All three powers attacked me.
Once Turkey got into the
Adriatic Sea, I was at his mercy. Side note observation - this map
creates a lot of defensive issues for Austria, in particular the way I
was set up when I entered the game. Austria is a land power, but
with a home center in Milan and the host of supply centers in Italy,
Austria???s sphere of influence gravitates around the Adriatic. With
the Turkish fleet there, I was forced to keep units bottled up on my
southern front. That one fleet tied up a huge number of my armies.
This drove me crazy.
My next course of action was to work on
France and/or Russia into attack Turkey. While trying to cut a
deal with Aiden in any fashion as long as he left ADR. Deals with
Turkey fell apart multiple times, but I fared better on the diplomatic
front. Getting Russia to favor me, while getting France to
cooperate for awhile and attack Turkey.
The end game stage really
boiled down to trying to figure out a way to end the game without it
being a DIAS. I tried really hard to make it a France ??? Austria ???
Russia triple, but neither France nor Russia seemed to trust the other.
What may have worked against me was that I also played up the
potential solo threat that they both presented. Russia could (and
did) have the numbers to sweep across northern Germany and get a solo.
France for a while was a couple of centers lower, but if Turkey
got crippled (and I had a bear of a time trying to get a deal done where
we trusted each other), and Britain got stabbed by France, then no one
could really threaten the French navy. I felt that Austria was the
only credible counter to either solo threats.
For awhile, it
worked. France agreed to not aid Turkey any more, and Russia
allowed me to rush my armies to the west and defend against France???s
superior land position over me. Eventually it boiled down to
keeping what I had, while trying diplomatically getting into the three
way draw.
At one point, Russia had the necessary centers at his
reach where he could easily have gone for the solo. I panicked and
hedged myself and move some units, but not all, to cover the open
centers. Dirk was surprised but took it rather well that I
tactically split myself. Since he didn???t stab me nor went for a
solo directly, I was lulled into thinking that maybe Russia wasn???t in it
for a solo at this stage. I had even asked Sweden (given how close
Wladimir was coordinating with Dirk for the bulk of the game) for advice
to get his read on Russia???s plans. Whether Wladimir was equally
convinced of Dirk not attempting a solo or was part of the Russian PR
campaign I don???t know.
From a tactical stand point, I was
then doomed. I didn???t have enough armies to cover all of my holes,
I was at the mercy of Russia not pushing for a solo. And I felt
that I couldn???t react too strong or else I would push Russia into
thinking I was an untrustworthy ally and by my preventative action, get
Dirk to order to secure a solo.
In hind-sight, I should???ve
committed one way or the other. I felt that I was constantly
moving my armies east and then west. I could never build a fleet,
which crippled me against Turkey. And at some point, I should???ve
made a more tactical retreat to shore up my defensive line against
Turkey/France/or Russia.
This has been a long winded rambling, so
apologies for that. And apologies for any typos in this - trying
to do this quickly, across small breaks during my work
day.
Thoughts on the players:
Russia: Good
job. Played skillfully, and got me suckered into thinking you'd be
committed to the draw. Not much I could've done about it even if I
knew about your intentions though. Always enjoyed our
conversations and your willingness to work out deals. Your solo was well
deserved.
France: Enjoyed our conversations, and the
fact that we were able to keep up a dialogue even with
disagreements. I wonder if we could've set up a different outcome
had we had a chance to work together from the beginning. Your
warning bells should've been heeded more in Vienna. I blame the
Turks for drowning out your message!
Ottoman Empire:
We got off on the wrong foot and then continued to break our
agreements. I wish we could've some out untangled the complex
tactical mess we were in, but alas, I think our in-fighting created the
biggest opportunity for Russia to solo. You had me in a difficult
spot the entire game, and I don't really blame you for keeping that dang
fleet parked in the Adriatic. Makes sense, but created all sorts
of issues for me. If we cross paths again, I promise to try harder
to get diplomacy working between us.
Poland Saxony:
I do apologize for starting out the game with a stab. I really
felt uncomfortable with the way our units/centers were
intertwined. This is one of those, it's all business,
message. I appreciate your attempts to get back into the game and
your willingness to stick with the game and not drop
off.
Britain: We didn't have a lot of interaction -
another hindsight thing where I should've tried harder. Perhaps
the make up of the game would've been
different?
Spain/Prussia/Denmark/Sweden:
Unfortunately, I don't have a lot of comments. I came in at a
time where I think your fates may have already been
decided.
All in all, thank you for giving me this opportunity
to play Ambition and Empire. I???ve been interested in playing this
variant for awhile and would love another opportunity to play (esp from
the beginning). It's been a pleasure playing with you
all.
Thanks.
=[Reply] |
| Upcoming A&E Game - DrSwordopolis (Nov 24, 2011, 2:19 pm) |
[Reply] |
| Upcoming A&E Game - vonpowell (Nov 24, 2011, 2:17 pm) |
Dirk,
Outstanding! I'm looking forward to the upcoming contest.
One question... I notice the map associated with the link below is an
old version. Is it possible to replace that map with the current map
(i.e., the same map you recently soloed on)?
Baron
In a message dated 11/23/2011 10:32:49 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
dirk(at)knemeyer.com writes:
Hi
Friends,
In appreciation of Baron's support of his variants, and fulfilling my
promise to Robert to GM an advanced variant for him, I have just posted a new
game of Ambition and Empire on DC that I shall be GM'ing. I hope to see many
of you there!
http://diplomaticcorp.com/game_page.php?game_id=re002
Dirk
On Nov 24, 2011, at 12:24 AM, VonPowell(at)aol.com wrote:
Adriaan,
A very entertaining read.
I don't disagree at all that Denmark-Norway and Poland &
Saxony are challenging (to put it kindly) to play. They are, indeed,
extremely challenging. The key question is are they viable.
By viable I mean that the a DN or PS player should have a "reasonable
expectation" of success if he or she plays well. I think this is
the case. The proof is that I've seen both positions enjoy tremendous
success. Of course I've also seen plenty of spectacular failure.
The true weakness in these positions, in my opinion, is that they have
virtually no margin for error in the early going. Most of the
other nations have at least some wiggle room to work with should they guess
incorrectly or be on the wrong side of a coalition. This wiggle room
might not be enough to overcome a poor start and early elimination, but
there is a "chance" to recover. DN and PS cannot really afford a
misstep until they have gained some traction. They MUST start the game
with at least one and preferably more reliable allies so that they can
initially leave a flank unprotected while focusing their forces on the first
objective. Good diplomacy should see DN and PS as integral parts
of coalitions that win the DP battle each turn and isolate their
enemies. If DN and PS can avoid the early elimination and gain a
SC or two, then their prospects start to look bright.
You are correct. Austria often gets to 8 SCs with little trouble
at all. Getting to 15 SCs is another matter. No power suffers
from ELS more than the Habsburg Empire. Easy early growth frequently
turns into mid-game stagnation. Decline and elimination often
follow. I'm not convinced that trying to avoid looking big is the
answer to the Austrian conundrum. Instead, I think the key
for Austrian success is to be a member in good standing of a
successful coalition. This can be achieved through active diplomacy
(no surprise there), largesse with DPs, open military support to a
partner fighting a common or potential enemy, and judicious sharing of
the spoils of victory. Growth within the coalition does not
necessarily need to be equal, however. Austria has no interest in
creating a powerful rival. Instead, growth simply needs to be "fair
enough" that partners believe they benefit from being Austria's
friend. Austrian math should go as follows: one for ally A and
one for ally B and two for me. Austria can probably keep its
allies happy in this manner without too much difficulty until it reaches 11
or 12 SCs. At that point, the dynamics get trickier.
Unless Austria wishes to hold hands with its partners all the way to a draw,
it will need to be ruthless to get those last few SCs. Setting up and
timing the rush to victory is a challenge, but that is what makes the game
interesting.
I do believe a correction is in order... I think the article
about A&E's Austria that mentions the Sultan Slayer was written by
our friend Nick Higgens rather than Chris. If I'm mistaken Chris,
please correct me.
I'm looking forward to the next A&E game. Until then...
Happy Stabbing,
Baron
In a message dated 11/21/2011 11:00:44 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, arandia.t(at)gmail.com writes:
Austria post-game - Adriaan (1763-1766):
It has been many turns since I passed control of the Hapsburg Empire to
the capable hands of Sun Chung. Since inheriting control, he has brought
Austria to new heights of glory and accomplished many great things. But as
I sit here writing my memoirs, I hope you can spare a thought for Austria
before she was great. Indeed, there was a time when there were ten
kingdoms seeking to dominate Europe, and Austria was but one of
them...
Anyways, so to cut the crap - well, it appears that I am totally
incapable of completing anything if I don't have a looming deadline to
pressure me. Believe it or not, I actually started writing this EOG before
the game even finished! Well, look where I ended up with that... better
late than never?
First off - Robert. A great deal of thanks to you for running such an
organized and professional game. I have previously played a few games with
lackluster GMs, and it makes a huge difference - it is a lot of work for
modest reward, and I hope I can someday repay the favour.
Secondly, congratulations to Dirk, on a well-deserved victory. It is a
sign of a game well-played that even in the last few years, as you
approached that magic number, your allies still saw it as in their
interest to work with you rather than against you. This is no easy feat
against what is clearly a strong table!
Strategy. Well, we may as well begin at the beginning: power
selections. As Robert mentioned in that initial email, the two counties to
receive the highest bids (by a large margin!) were Turkey and Spain. I
must own up to contributing my fair share to those two averages, as I only
saved a measly '2' for Austria. I suppose that, all things considered,
there are worse countries to start with than Austria - I consider it good
fortune that I didn't end up with Saxony or Norway. That is, of course,
not to say that there is anything wrong with either of those
countries (Baron), merely that they force a play style that I don't
personally enjoy.
I had done a little reading on A&E prior to this game, and from
what I could tell, Austria tends to suffer from the curse of being the
early leader. Not only does she start with four units, but she is square
in the middle of the most SC-rich part of the board. Austria expands
almost involuntarily, at least at first. Of course, the trade-off for this
early success seems to be middle-game stagnation. Perhaps Baron could shed
some light/numbers on this, but I hoped to try and take a different course
in this game. My initial expansion in Italy was deliberately slower than
it could have been (at times requiring great amounts of willpower), in an
attempt to follow this path. However, beyond this rough outline, I had
relatively little in the way of a long-term plan - too much depends, of
course, on the other players involved.
Chris Dziedzic, in his article on A&E in Diplomacy World, suggests
that Austria's relationship with Turkey is her defining feature; that the
Archduke must play either the Sultan-slayer or the Sultan's best friend.
I'm not convinced that those are the only two options available, but it
seemed like as decent a place as any to start. My initial negotiations
with Aidan had been mostly positive, and I certainly didn't want to commit
to an early and potentially costly war that could limit my other choices.
Thus I figured I would try to work with him, and see if he wouldn't be
more interested sailing ships to Spain than marching armies to Vienna.
Over the course of the four years in which I played, Aidan and I managed
to develop a very good rapport. He struck me as being a very capable and
resourceful diplomat, and he was one of the players I had on my personal
short-list if and when it came down to figuring out who to include in a
draw. Perhaps we'll never know just how successful I was in this
(unless Aidan cares to share in *his* EOG), but at least I think
that I left the game with an ally to the south. I only hope that I
wasn't merely playing the sucker who escaped a stabbing, through an
abdication in the nick of time...
Speaking of Nick: early-game Germany. In my initial view, the only real
short-term threat to Austria in the opening year comes from an allied
Prussia and Poland/Saxony. I therefore did what I could to create tensions
between them, with the view to also picking up a few extra cities beyond
Austria's traditional 8-centre Alpine plateau. As it happened, tensions
weren't too hard to achieve - both Nick and Ray seemed to distrust each
other from the start. Overtly I sided with Nick, but as things got more
complicated in Germany I'll admit to ending up with a few mixed motives of
my own. While I never directly attacked Nick, I will admit to not being
the best possible ally, either. For instance, those "crossed wires" in
1764 that resulted in the western Saxon army surviving a four-unit attack
were completely accidental, and the fact that the surviving Saxon
army proceeded to stymie French growth in the Alps was most unfortunate,
and totally coincidental. Nick, given how fluid things were at the
beginning of the game, I only hope that you can forgive these
trespasses.
Nick is obviously a very good player, because he managed to scare
everyone else into a stampede into Germany in short order; that's the most
logical conclusion I can come to. What began as a Prussian-Russian war to
the east took on more ominous tones for Nick once Dirk leveraged Ray to
gain the upper hand. And, of course, nothing brings further attacks like a
perceived weakness. Soon France and Britain were snapping at the Kaiser's
heels. Nick and I had always gotten along very well, but when push came to
shove I realized that I couldn't keep him afloat by myself - I had little
choice but to try and find other players to work with.
My relationship with Dirk is perhaps proof of the old Diplomacy maxim
that if you talk enough, it almost doesn't matter what you're saying.
After an initial slow start, my alliance with Dirk developed into what as
probably my closest in the game. Of course, this belies the fact that our
first diplomatic conversation of much substance was a *colossal*
disagreement (something on the subject of Germany, it went on for pages
and caused a few headaches for him too, I'm sure)! He has since sung me
some very high praises in his EOG, so I imagine that that has been
forgiven and forgotten. I'm very glad that I was able to convince Dirk to
not push through central Europe; even if this was rather self-serving at
first, it clearly worked to Dirk's interest as well. Overall, I found Dirk
to be a very reasonable and very canny player, with whom it was a pleasure
to work, and who played the board very well. At one point, I think he was
juggling two, maybe even three vassals - not an easy feat. Congratulations
again, Dirk, on a game well-played.
Mixed in between Nick, Dirk and myself, there was Ray. Now I know there
may be a numerical argument somewhere saying that Poland and Saxony isn't
really all that bad, but I think that it has to be, at the very least, the
most precarious position on the board (whether or not it does
decently in the long run). I found my interactions with Ray to be a little
clipped, but all the same constructive and not unreasonable. Perhaps the
brevity can be excused by the game of 1900 he was also involved in. In a
critique of his play style, I really can't say too much; I initially chose
to work with Nick against Ray mostly on the basis of starting position and
rumour (cheering for the same team as Nick in the Stanly Cup finals
probably influenced my position more than I'd care to admit). Ray, let me
assure you - I never intended to execute the stab that befell you.
I've always felt that Diplomacy is best played when the map does not
force the players into any particular course of action. Thus, I prefer
1900 over Standard partly because in 1900, Turkey need not fight Austria.
In A&E, I think that the relationship between Austria and France may
not approach the same level of predestination, but it is definitely not a
stress-free border. That is not to say, of course, that France and Austria
*need* to fight; merely that it is easy. I tried to structure my
relationship with Warren on the basis that most of the other players would
expect some hostility between the two of us, and that we could therefore
both have an advantage if our borders stayed unexpectedly calm. Of course,
aiding this was the fact that Warren was a good player and a reasonable
person, with whom I saw a fair bit of common interest (is it ever possible
to have a good player that is not reasonable?). I found our
relationship to be cordial, if perhaps a little wary - though perhaps
wariness was warranted, given what happened during my last move. Rest
assured, Warren, I never intended on continuing my cooperation with Ray
beyond that one turn that saw the Saxons march to Burgundy.
Michael, Josiah, Richard, and Wladimir - it was good to meet you all.
Some time I hope to meet you in another game, where we might be located
somewhat closer together, and have somewhat greater interactions. As it
was, I hope that you all got as much enjoyment out of this game as I
did.
Finally, the highly-appreciated replacement, Sun Chung. Many thanks, of
course, for taking over my position on such short notice; real life can be
such a pesky thing to have to deal with. The rest of you probably know him
better than I do, as we only had a few short emails between us at the tail
end of my tenure. Nevertheless, as he mentions we did have a few
discussions of some weight - in particular one concerning whether Austria
should make a break for a solo, or risk enmeshed borders with Saxony. Sun
has said that I provided him with council on this; I will admit to sending
him a detailed multi-page discussion and risk assessment outlining
how an Archduke might strike for a solo from eight centres
few suggestions, but in my defense I also made it clear that
I had made no decision whether or not I would actually go about
implementing this plan. All said, I was actually rather glad when Sun
agreed to be my replacement, as he signed on just in time to save me from
having to make this very hard choice. From an outside perspective,
I think that there was likely very little that Sun could have done
differently to convert his inherited position into a solo - changing
players is always going to make your neighbours rather wary. I think he
handled the chaos following his run admirably, and he certainly kept
Austria abreast the future of Europe. Well-played Sun, and thanks
again.
In closing, I have to thank you all for what was a tremendously fun
game. I hope to get an opportunity to play with you all again sometime; it
is always a pleasure to find a group of players who are not only committed
to playing Diplomacy, but who play it well. I hope to see you all in
future games.
Best regards,
Adriaan Tichler
P.S. I've uploaded photos of a few of my reasons for abdication, for
your interest.
https://plus.google.com/u/0/photos/101141162735761025862/albums/5677699991823577681
On 7 October 2011 15:21, Sun Chung <sun.chung(at)gmail.com> wrote:
Thanks Robert for GMing ??? it???s a pleasure playing in a
game that you run.
Also, thanks to everyone on the board
for a good game. And for Adriaan for his
thoughts/guidance/recommendations early on in the game. Kudos to
him for getting Austria to a great stage in the game. My big
regret is that I was unable to fulfill Austria???s opportunity that
Adriaan set up.
For me, the mark of a good game is when the
players are committed and are willing to accept the game for what it is
??? a shifting swirl of deals, broken deals, and new deals being created.
It was interesting to see how the dynamics of the game were able
to shift, although I probably contributed to less of that towards the
end of the game. I appreciated that most on the board were open to
thinking about shifting their alliance and at least listened to new
deals.
I missed the early stages of the game, so I can???t really
comment much on how the armed neutrals dynamic shaped the early portion
of the game. When Robert asked me to replace Adriaan, I came into
the game thinking 1) what a great opportunity ??? this power is strong and
has a good lead but 2) Austria???s completely surrounded I don't have
enough armies to plug in all the gaps - the lead can fall really
quickly.
My first focus on the game was the complex relationship
Austria had with Saxony. There wasn???t a good defensive line set
up, and our armies were all intermixed together. Not a situation I
liked. Elsewhere on the map, it didn???t seem like there was strong
cooperation between France/Britain/Spain. Russia was friendly and
was trying to build upon the work that Adriaan had done.
Unfortunately for me, I didn???t have much contact with Turkey at the
start.
The first order of business was how to get involved in the
game and unwind the tie-up of Austria and Saxony. I did not feel
comfortable with the situation (esp since it wasn???t of my doing!).
As Dirk mentioned in his EOG statement, I typically like strong
stable borders. It really bothered me that I couldn???t count on a
stable front in any direction. Plus, Saxony was looking to regain
his strength and was pushing to recover some of his home centers.
Adriaan and I agreed that a re-emergence of Saxony would be a threat to
Austria. So my first major decision was that I would not support
Saxony and stab him. That would prevent a rebirth of Saxony and
give me a stable front to work from.
But this created another
problem. It would undoubtedly raise solo alarm bells across the
board. And mark a significant shift in the Austrian??? strategy at
this point. Now, my natural desire was to start out slowly, play
defensively, and get my feet wet in the game. I didn???t want to be
viewed as a loose cannon coming in brand new. However, being able
to discuss strategy and tactics with Adriaan eased the transition quite
a bit. I know that Ray probably views my stab as a direct
consequence of a new replacement player dropping old agreements, but I
was able to get Adriaan???s consul on my first initial moves.
From
there, once I determined that Saxony would be stabbed, and I knew that
it would cause alarms on the board, I pushed full ahead on going for the
solo. I probably shouldn???t speak for Adriaan as this is my EOG
statement, and not his, but the push for an early Austrian solo was not
created in a vacuum.
My first mistake in the game was not
securing my relationship with Turkey. I think had I been able to
pickup four builds in the first season (that I played) I may have been
able to get enough push to really threaten for a solo. But for
either nervousness with a new player, or I rubbed him the wrong way,
something lead to Turkey taking a center from me, and I only got 3 plus
centers in the first turn.
I didn???t think it was the end of the
game, and in some ways, I liked this position much better. I was
able to get a nice stable line against France, I thought I could secure
a line against Turkey and was hoping that Russia wouldn???t view me as a
long term threat. But my dreams of an Austria solo were
crushed. I tried my best to say that my push was really only to
secure myself against Saxony and not reach for a solo. It probably
fell on deaf ears, but I thought I would have a chance since it was at
least partially true.
From there, the game switched to survival.
I thought I built an okay line of communication with France (I
told him I had to take Savoy since it was there for the taking in the
first year, but I didn???t want it to set in stone the Austrian/French
relationship), thought that I could get Turkey to lay off by letting him
keep what he took (Turkey had a good relationship with the prior
Austria), and I thought I could convince Russia that my swing for a solo
was a one and done deal and that I could be a reasonable partner.
All three powers attacked me.
Once Turkey got into the
Adriatic Sea, I was at his mercy. Side note observation - this map
creates a lot of defensive issues for Austria, in particular the way I
was set up when I entered the game. Austria is a land power, but
with a home center in Milan and the host of supply centers in Italy,
Austria???s sphere of influence gravitates around the Adriatic. With
the Turkish fleet there, I was forced to keep units bottled up on my
southern front. That one fleet tied up a huge number of my armies.
This drove me crazy.
My next course of action was to work on
France and/or Russia into attack Turkey. While trying to cut a
deal with Aiden in any fashion as long as he left ADR. Deals with
Turkey fell apart multiple times, but I fared better on the diplomatic
front. Getting Russia to favor me, while getting France to
cooperate for awhile and attack Turkey.
The end game stage really
boiled down to trying to figure out a way to end the game without it
being a DIAS. I tried really hard to make it a France ??? Austria ???
Russia triple, but neither France nor Russia seemed to trust the other.
What may have worked against me was that I also played up the
potential solo threat that they both presented. Russia could (and
did) have the numbers to sweep across northern Germany and get a solo.
France for a while was a couple of centers lower, but if Turkey
got crippled (and I had a bear of a time trying to get a deal done where
we trusted each other), and Britain got stabbed by France, then no one
could really threaten the French navy. I felt that Austria was the
only credible counter to either solo threats.
For awhile, it
worked. France agreed to not aid Turkey any more, and Russia
allowed me to rush my armies to the west and defend against France???s
superior land position over me. Eventually it boiled down to
keeping what I had, while trying diplomatically getting into the three
way draw.
At one point, Russia had the necessary centers at his
reach where he could easily have gone for the solo. I panicked and
hedged myself and move some units, but not all, to cover the open
centers. Dirk was surprised but took it rather well that I
tactically split myself. Since he didn???t stab me nor went for a
solo directly, I was lulled into thinking that maybe Russia wasn???t in it
for a solo at this stage. I had even asked Sweden (given how close
Wladimir was coordinating with Dirk for the bulk of the game) for advice
to get his read on Russia???s plans. Whether Wladimir was equally
convinced of Dirk not attempting a solo or was part of the Russian PR
campaign I don???t know.
From a tactical stand point, I was
then doomed. I didn???t have enough armies to cover all of my holes,
I was at the mercy of Russia not pushing for a solo. And I felt
that I couldn???t react too strong or else I would push Russia into
thinking I was an untrustworthy ally and by my preventative action, get
Dirk to order to secure a solo.
In hind-sight, I should???ve
committed one way or the other. I felt that I was constantly
moving my armies east and then west. I could never build a fleet,
which crippled me against Turkey. And at some point, I should???ve
made a more tactical retreat to shore up my defensive line against
Turkey/France/or Russia.
This has been a long winded rambling, so
apologies for that. And apologies for any typos in this - trying
to do this quickly, across small breaks during my work
day.
Thoughts on the players:
Russia: Good
job. Played skillfully, and got me suckered into thinking you'd be
committed to the draw. Not much I could've done about it even if I
knew about your intentions though. Always enjoyed our
conversations and your willingness to work out deals. Your solo was well
deserved.
France: Enjoyed our conversations, and the
fact that we were able to keep up a dialogue even with
disagreements. I wonder if we could've set up a different outcome
had we had a chance to work together from the beginning. Your
warning bells should've been heeded more in Vienna. I blame the
Turks for drowning out your message!
Ottoman Empire:
We got off on the wrong foot and then continued to break our
agreements. I wish we could've some out untangled the complex
tactical mess we were in, but alas, I think our in-fighting created the
biggest opportunity for Russia to solo. You had me in a difficult
spot the entire game, and I don't really blame you for keeping that dang
fleet parked in the Adriatic. Makes sense, but created all sorts
of issues for me. If we cross paths again, I promise to try harder
to get diplomacy working between us.
Poland Saxony:
I do apologize for starting out the game with a stab. I really
felt uncomfortable with the way our units/centers were
intertwined. This is one of those, it's all business,
message. I appreciate your attempts to get back into the game and
your willingness to stick with the game and not drop
off.
Britain: We didn't have a lot of interaction -
another hindsight thing where I should've tried harder. Perhaps
the make up of the game would've been
different?
Spain/Prussia/Denmark/Sweden:
Unfortunately, I don't have a lot of comments. I came in at a
time where I think your fates may have already been
decided.
All in all, thank you for giving me this opportunity
to play Ambition and Empire. I???ve been interested in playing this
variant for awhile and would love another opportunity to play (esp from
the beginning). It's been a pleasure playing with you
all.
Thanks.
=[Reply] |
| Upcoming A&E Game (dc386) DrSwordopolis Nov 24, 02:19 pm |
|
| Upcoming A&E Game (dc386) dknemeyer Nov 24, 02:24 pm |
Yes, Nick is correct. I'm copying Mike Sims to see how this can be fixed.
Dirk
Sent from my iPhone
On Nov 24, 2011, at 3:19 PM, Nick Powell <nick.s.powell(at)gmail.com> wrote:
I think it's simply that the map in the Dipwiki is out of date.
-Nick
On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 12:17 PM, <VonPowell(at)aol.com> wrote:
Dirk,
Outstanding! I'm looking forward to the upcoming contest.
One question... I notice the map associated with the link below is an
old version. Is it possible to replace that map with the current map
(i.e., the same map you recently soloed on)?
Baron
In a message dated 11/23/2011 10:32:49 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
dirk(at)knemeyer.com writes:
Hi
Friends,
In appreciation of Baron's support of his variants, and fulfilling my
promise to Robert to GM an advanced variant for him, I have just posted a new
game of Ambition and Empire on DC that I shall be GM'ing. I hope to see many
of you there!
http://diplomaticcorp.com/game_page.php?game_id=re002
Dirk
On Nov 24, 2011, at 12:24 AM, VonPowell(at)aol.com wrote:
Adriaan,
A very entertaining read.
I don't disagree at all that Denmark-Norway and Poland &
Saxony are challenging (to put it kindly) to play. They are, indeed,
extremely challenging. The key question is are they viable.
By viable I mean that the a DN or PS player should have a "reasonable
expectation" of success if he or she plays well. I think this is
the case. The proof is that I've seen both positions enjoy tremendous
success. Of course I've also seen plenty of spectacular failure.
The true weakness in these positions, in my opinion, is that they have
virtually no margin for error in the early going. Most of the
other nations have at least some wiggle room to work with should they guess
incorrectly or be on the wrong side of a coalition. This wiggle room
might not be enough to overcome a poor start and early elimination, but
there is a "chance" to recover. DN and PS cannot really afford a
misstep until they have gained some traction. They MUST start the game
with at least one and preferably more reliable allies so that they can
initially leave a flank unprotected while focusing their forces on the first
objective. Good diplomacy should see DN and PS as integral parts
of coalitions that win the DP battle each turn and isolate their
enemies. If DN and PS can avoid the early elimination and gain a
SC or two, then their prospects start to look bright.
You are correct. Austria often gets to 8 SCs with little trouble
at all. Getting to 15 SCs is another matter. No power suffers
from ELS more than the Habsburg Empire. Easy early growth frequently
turns into mid-game stagnation. Decline and elimination often
follow. I'm not convinced that trying to avoid looking big is the
answer to the Austrian conundrum. Instead, I think the key
for Austrian success is to be a member in good standing of a
successful coalition. This can be achieved through active diplomacy
(no surprise there), largesse with DPs, open military support to a
partner fighting a common or potential enemy, and judicious sharing of
the spoils of victory. Growth within the coalition does not
necessarily need to be equal, however. Austria has no interest in
creating a powerful rival. Instead, growth simply needs to be "fair
enough" that partners believe they benefit from being Austria's
friend. Austrian math should go as follows: one for ally A and
one for ally B and two for me. Austria can probably keep its
allies happy in this manner without too much difficulty until it reaches 11
or 12 SCs. At that point, the dynamics get trickier.
Unless Austria wishes to hold hands with its partners all the way to a draw,
it will need to be ruthless to get those last few SCs. Setting up and
timing the rush to victory is a challenge, but that is what makes the game
interesting.
I do believe a correction is in order... I think the article
about A&E's Austria that mentions the Sultan Slayer was written by
our friend Nick Higgens rather than Chris. If I'm mistaken Chris,
please correct me.
I'm looking forward to the next A&E game. Until then...
Happy Stabbing,
Baron
In a message dated 11/21/2011 11:00:44 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, arandia.t(at)gmail.com writes:
Austria post-game - Adriaan (1763-1766):
It has been many turns since I passed control of the Hapsburg Empire to
the capable hands of Sun Chung. Since inheriting control, he has brought
Austria to new heights of glory and accomplished many great things. But as
I sit here writing my memoirs, I hope you can spare a thought for Austria
before she was great. Indeed, there was a time when there were ten
kingdoms seeking to dominate Europe, and Austria was but one of
them...
Anyways, so to cut the crap - well, it appears that I am totally
incapable of completing anything if I don't have a looming deadline to
pressure me. Believe it or not, I actually started writing this EOG before
the game even finished! Well, look where I ended up with that... better
late than never?
First off - Robert. A great deal of thanks to you for running such an
organized and professional game. I have previously played a few games with
lackluster GMs, and it makes a huge difference - it is a lot of work for
modest reward, and I hope I can someday repay the favour.
Secondly, congratulations to Dirk, on a well-deserved victory. It is a
sign of a game well-played that even in the last few years, as you
approached that magic number, your allies still saw it as in their
interest to work with you rather than against you. This is no easy feat
against what is clearly a strong table!
Strategy. Well, we may as well begin at the beginning: power
selections. As Robert mentioned in that initial email, the two counties to
receive the highest bids (by a large margin!) were Turkey and Spain. I
must own up to contributing my fair share to those two averages, as I only
saved a measly '2' for Austria. I suppose that, all things considered,
there are worse countries to start with than Austria - I consider it good
fortune that I didn't end up with Saxony or Norway. That is, of course,
not to say that there is anything wrong with either of those
countries (Baron), merely that they force a play style that I don't
personally enjoy.
I had done a little reading on A&E prior to this game, and from
what I could tell, Austria tends to suffer from the curse of being the
early leader. Not only does she start with four units, but she is square
in the middle of the most SC-rich part of the board. Austria expands
almost involuntarily, at least at first. Of course, the trade-off for this
early success seems to be middle-game stagnation. Perhaps Baron could shed
some light/numbers on this, but I hoped to try and take a different course
in this game. My initial expansion in Italy was deliberately slower than
it could have been (at times requiring great amounts of willpower), in an
attempt to follow this path. However, beyond this rough outline, I had
relatively little in the way of a long-term plan - too much depends, of
course, on the other players involved.
Chris Dziedzic, in his article on A&E in Diplomacy World, suggests
that Austria's relationship with Turkey is her defining feature; that the
Archduke must play either the Sultan-slayer or the Sultan's best friend.
I'm not convinced that those are the only two options available, but it
seemed like as decent a place as any to start. My initial negotiations
with Aidan had been mostly positive, and I certainly didn't want to commit
to an early and potentially costly war that could limit my other choices.
Thus I figured I would try to work with him, and see if he wouldn't be
more interested sailing ships to Spain than marching armies to Vienna.
Over the course of the four years in which I played, Aidan and I managed
to develop a very good rapport. He struck me as being a very capable and
resourceful diplomat, and he was one of the players I had on my personal
short-list if and when it came down to figuring out who to include in a
draw. Perhaps we'll never know just how successful I was in this
(unless Aidan cares to share in *his* EOG), but at least I think
that I left the game with an ally to the south. I only hope that I
wasn't merely playing the sucker who escaped a stabbing, through an
abdication in the nick of time...
Speaking of Nick: early-game Germany. In my initial view, the only real
short-term threat to Austria in the opening year comes from an allied
Prussia and Poland/Saxony. I therefore did what I could to create tensions
between them, with the view to also picking up a few extra cities beyond
Austria's traditional 8-centre Alpine plateau. As it happened, tensions
weren't too hard to achieve - both Nick and Ray seemed to distrust each
other from the start. Overtly I sided with Nick, but as things got more
complicated in Germany I'll admit to ending up with a few mixed motives of
my own. While I never directly attacked Nick, I will admit to not being
the best possible ally, either. For instance, those "crossed wires" in
1764 that resulted in the western Saxon army surviving a four-unit attack
were completely accidental, and the fact that the surviving Saxon
army proceeded to stymie French growth in the Alps was most unfortunate,
and totally coincidental. Nick, given how fluid things were at the
beginning of the game, I only hope that you can forgive these
trespasses.
Nick is obviously a very good player, because he managed to scare
everyone else into a stampede into Germany in short order; that's the most
logical conclusion I can come to. What began as a Prussian-Russian war to
the east took on more ominous tones for Nick once Dirk leveraged Ray to
gain the upper hand. And, of course, nothing brings further attacks like a
perceived weakness. Soon France and Britain were snapping at the Kaiser's
heels. Nick and I had always gotten along very well, but when push came to
shove I realized that I couldn't keep him afloat by myself - I had little
choice but to try and find other players to work with.
My relationship with Dirk is perhaps proof of the old Diplomacy maxim
that if you talk enough, it almost doesn't matter what you're saying.
After an initial slow start, my alliance with Dirk developed into what as
probably my closest in the game. Of course, this belies the fact that our
first diplomatic conversation of much substance was a *colossal*
disagreement (something on the subject of Germany, it went on for pages
and caused a few headaches for him too, I'm sure)! He has since sung me
some very high praises in his EOG, so I imagine that that has been
forgiven and forgotten. I'm very glad that I was able to convince Dirk to
not push through central Europe; even if this was rather self-serving at
first, it clearly worked to Dirk's interest as well. Overall, I found Dirk
to be a very reasonable and very canny player, with whom it was a pleasure
to work, and who played the board very well. At one point, I think he was
juggling two, maybe even three vassals - not an easy feat. Congratulations
again, Dirk, on a game well-played.
Mixed in between Nick, Dirk and myself, there was Ray. Now I know there
may be a numerical argument somewhere saying that Poland and Saxony isn't
really all that bad, but I think that it has to be, at the very least, the
most precarious position on the board (whether or not it does
decently in the long run). I found my interactions with Ray to be a little
clipped, but all the same constructive and not unreasonable. Perhaps the
brevity can be excused by the game of 1900 he was also involved in. In a
critique of his play style, I really can't say too much; I initially chose
to work with Nick against Ray mostly on the basis of starting position and
rumour (cheering for the same team as Nick in the Stanly Cup finals
probably influenced my position more than I'd care to admit). Ray, let me
assure you - I never intended to execute the stab that befell you.
I've always felt that Diplomacy is best played when the map does not
force the players into any particular course of action. Thus, I prefer
1900 over Standard partly because in 1900, Turkey need not fight Austria.
In A&E, I think that the relationship between Austria and France may
not approach the same level of predestination, but it is definitely not a
stress-free border. That is not to say, of course, that France and Austria
*need* to fight; merely that it is easy. I tried to structure my
relationship with Warren on the basis that most of the other players would
expect some hostility between the two of us, and that we could therefore
both have an advantage if our borders stayed unexpectedly calm. Of course,
aiding this was the fact that Warren was a good player and a reasonable
person, with whom I saw a fair bit of common interest (is it ever possible
to have a good player that is not reasonable?). I found our
relationship to be cordial, if perhaps a little wary - though perhaps
wariness was warranted, given what happened during my last move. Rest
assured, Warren, I never intended on continuing my cooperation with Ray
beyond that one turn that saw the Saxons march to Burgundy.
Michael, Josiah, Richard, and Wladimir - it was good to meet you all.
Some time I hope to meet you in another game, where we might be located
somewhat closer together, and have somewhat greater interactions. As it
was, I hope that you all got as much enjoyment out of this game as I
did.
Finally, the highly-appreciated replacement, Sun Chung. Many thanks, of
course, for taking over my position on such short notice; real life can be
such a pesky thing to have to deal with. The rest of you probably know him
better than I do, as we only had a few short emails between us at the tail
end of my tenure. Nevertheless, as he mentions we did have a few
discussions of some weight - in particular one concerning whether Austria
should make a break for a solo, or risk enmeshed borders with Saxony. Sun
has said that I provided him with council on this; I will admit to sending
him a detailed multi-page discussion and risk assessment outlining
how an Archduke might strike for a solo from eight centres
few suggestions, but in my defense I also made it clear that
I had made no decision whether or not I would actually go about
implementing this plan. All said, I was actually rather glad when Sun
agreed to be my replacement, as he signed on just in time to save me from
having to make this very hard choice. From an outside perspective,
I think that there was likely very little that Sun could have done
differently to convert his inherited position into a solo - changing
players is always going to make your neighbours rather wary. I think he
handled the chaos following his run admirably, and he certainly kept
Austria abreast the future of Europe. Well-played Sun, and thanks
again.
In closing, I have to thank you all for what was a tremendously fun
game. I hope to get an opportunity to play with you all again sometime; it
is always a pleasure to find a group of players who are not only committed
to playing Diplomacy, but who play it well. I hope to see you all in
future games.
Best regards,
Adriaan Tichler
P.S. I've uploaded photos of a few of my reasons for abdication, for
your interest.
https://plus.google.com/u/0/photos/101141162735761025862/albums/5677699991823577681
On 7 October 2011 15:21, Sun Chung <sun.chung(at)gmail.com> wrote:
Thanks Robert for GMing ??? it???s a pleasure playing in a
game that you run.
Also, thanks to everyone on the board
for a good game. And for Adriaan for his
thoughts/guidance/recommendations early on in the game. Kudos to
him for getting Austria to a great stage in the game. My big
regret is that I was unable to fulfill Austria???s opportunity that
Adriaan set up.
For me, the mark of a good game is when the
players are committed and are willing to accept the game for what it is
??? a shifting swirl of deals, broken deals, and new deals being created.
It was interesting to see how the dynamics of the game were able
to shift, although I probably contributed to less of that towards the
end of the game. I appreciated that most on the board were open to
thinking about shifting their alliance and at least listened to new
deals.
I missed the early stages of the game, so I can???t really
comment much on how the armed neutrals dynamic shaped the early portion
of the game. When Robert asked me to replace Adriaan, I came into
the game thinking 1) what a great opportunity ??? this power is strong and
has a good lead but 2) Austria???s completely surrounded I don't have
enough armies to plug in all the gaps - the lead can fall really
quickly.
My first focus on the game was the complex relationship
Austria had with Saxony. There wasn???t a good defensive line set
up, and our armies were all intermixed together. Not a situation I
liked. Elsewhere on the map, it didn???t seem like there was strong
cooperation between France/Britain/Spain. Russia was friendly and
was trying to build upon the work that Adriaan had done.
Unfortunately for me, I didn???t have much contact with Turkey at the
start.
The first order of business was how to get involved in the
game and unwind the tie-up of Austria and Saxony. I did not feel
comfortable with the situation (esp since it wasn???t of my doing!).
As Dirk mentioned in his EOG statement, I typically like strong
stable borders. It really bothered me that I couldn???t count on a
stable front in any direction. Plus, Saxony was looking to regain
his strength and was pushing to recover some of his home centers.
Adriaan and I agreed that a re-emergence of Saxony would be a threat to
Austria. So my first major decision was that I would not support
Saxony and stab him. That would prevent a rebirth of Saxony and
give me a stable front to work from.
But this created another
problem. It would undoubtedly raise solo alarm bells across the
board. And mark a significant shift in the Austrian??? strategy at
this point. Now, my natural desire was to start out slowly, play
defensively, and get my feet wet in the game. I didn???t want to be
viewed as a loose cannon coming in brand new. However, being able
to discuss strategy and tactics with Adriaan eased the transition quite
a bit. I know that Ray probably views my stab as a direct
consequence of a new replacement player dropping old agreements, but I
was able to get Adriaan???s consul on my first initial moves.
From
there, once I determined that Saxony would be stabbed, and I knew that
it would cause alarms on the board, I pushed full ahead on going for the
solo. I probably shouldn???t speak for Adriaan as this is my EOG
statement, and not his, but the push for an early Austrian solo was not
created in a vacuum.
My first mistake in the game was not
securing my relationship with Turkey. I think had I been able to
pickup four builds in the first season (that I played) I may have been
able to get enough push to really threaten for a solo. But for
either nervousness with a new player, or I rubbed him the wrong way,
something lead to Turkey taking a center from me, and I only got 3 plus
centers in the first turn.
I didn???t think it was the end of the
game, and in some ways, I liked this position much better. I was
able to get a nice stable line against France, I thought I could secure
a line against Turkey and was hoping that Russia wouldn???t view me as a
long term threat. But my dreams of an Austria solo were
crushed. I tried my best to say that my push was really only to
secure myself against Saxony and not reach for a solo. It probably
fell on deaf ears, but I thought I would have a chance since it was at
least partially true.
From there, the game switched to survival.
I thought I built an okay line of communication with France (I
told him I had to take Savoy since it was there for the taking in the
first year, but I didn???t want it to set in stone the Austrian/French
relationship), thought that I could get Turkey to lay off by letting him
keep what he took (Turkey had a good relationship with the prior
Austria), and I thought I could convince Russia that my swing for a solo
was a one and done deal and that I could be a reasonable partner.
All three powers attacked me.
Once Turkey got into the
Adriatic Sea, I was at his mercy. Side note observation - this map
creates a lot of defensive issues for Austria, in particular the way I
was set up when I entered the game. Austria is a land power, but
with a home center in Milan and the host of supply centers in Italy,
Austria???s sphere of influence gravitates around the Adriatic. With
the Turkish fleet there, I was forced to keep units bottled up on my
southern front. That one fleet tied up a huge number of my armies.
This drove me crazy.
My next course of action was to work on
France and/or Russia into attack Turkey. While trying to cut a
deal with Aiden in any fashion as long as he left ADR. Deals with
Turkey fell apart multiple times, but I fared better on the diplomatic
front. Getting Russia to favor me, while getting France to
cooperate for awhile and attack Turkey.
The end game stage really
boiled down to trying to figure out a way to end the game without it
being a DIAS. I tried really hard to make it a France ??? Austria ???
Russia triple, but neither France nor Russia seemed to trust the other.
What may have worked against me was that I also played up the
potential solo threat that they both presented. Russia could (and
did) have the numbers to sweep across northern Germany and get a solo.
France for a while was a couple of centers lower, but if Turkey
got crippled (and I had a bear of a time trying to get a deal done where
we trusted each other), and Britain got stabbed by France, then no one
could really threaten the French navy. I felt that Austria was the
only credible counter to either solo threats.
For awhile, it
worked. France agreed to not aid Turkey any more, and Russia
allowed me to rush my armies to the west and defend against France???s
superior land position over me. Eventually it boiled down to
keeping what I had, while trying diplomatically getting into the three
way draw.
At one point, Russia had the necessary centers at his
reach where he could easily have gone for the solo. I panicked and
hedged myself and move some units, but not all, to cover the open
centers. Dirk was surprised but took it rather well that I
tactically split myself. Since he didn???t stab me nor went for a
solo directly, I was lulled into thinking that maybe Russia wasn???t in it
for a solo at this stage. I had even asked Sweden (given how close
Wladimir was coordinating with Dirk for the bulk of the game) for advice
to get his read on Russia???s plans. Whether Wladimir was equally
convinced of Dirk not attempting a solo or was part of the Russian PR
campaign I don???t know.
From a tactical stand point, I was
then doomed. I didn???t have enough armies to cover all of my holes,
I was at the mercy of Russia not pushing for a solo. And I felt
that I couldn???t react too strong or else I would push Russia into
thinking I was an untrustworthy ally and by my preventative action, get
Dirk to order to secure a solo.
In hind-sight, I should???ve
committed one way or the other. I felt that I was constantly
moving my armies east and then west. I could never build a fleet,
which crippled me against Turkey. And at some point, I should???ve
made a more tactical retreat to shore up my defensive line against
Turkey/France/or Russia.
This has been a long winded rambling, so
apologies for that. And apologies for any typos in this - trying
to do this quickly, across small breaks during my work
day.
Thoughts on the players:
Russia: Good
job. Played skillfully, and got me suckered into thinking you'd be
committed to the draw. Not much I could've done about it even if I
knew about your intentions though. Always enjoyed our
conversations and your willingness to work out deals. Your solo was well
deserved.
France: Enjoyed our conversations, and the
fact that we were able to keep up a dialogue even with
disagreements. I wonder if we could've set up a different outcome
had we had a chance to work together from the beginning. Your
warning bells should've been heeded more in Vienna. I blame the
Turks for drowning out your message!
Ottoman Empire:
We got off on the wrong foot and then continued to break our
agreements. I wish we could've some out untangled the complex
tactical mess we were in, but alas, I think our in-fighting created the
biggest opportunity for Russia to solo. You had me in a difficult
spot the entire game, and I don't really blame you for keeping that dang
fleet parked in the Adriatic. Makes sense, but created all sorts
of issues for me. If we cross paths again, I promise to try harder
to get diplomacy working between us.
Poland Saxony:
I do apologize for starting out the game with a stab. I really
felt uncomfortable with the way our units/centers were
intertwined. This is one of those, it's all business,
message. I appreciate your attempts to get back into the game and
your willingness to stick with the game and not drop
off.
Britain: We didn't have a lot of interaction -
another hindsight thing where I should've tried harder. Perhaps
the make up of the game would've been
different?
Spain/Prussia/Denmark/Sweden:
Unfortunately, I don't have a lot of comments. I came in at a
time where I think your fates may have already been
decided.
All in all, thank you for giving me this opportunity
to play Ambition and Empire. I???ve been interested in playing this
variant for awhile and would love another opportunity to play (esp from
the beginning). It's been a pleasure playing with you
all.
Thanks.
= |
| Upcoming A&E Game (dc386) vonpowell Nov 24, 02:27 pm |
Dirk,
Thanks. If Mike or someone else needs a copy of the current map to
post to Dipwiki, please let me know.
Baron
In a message dated 11/24/2011 12:25:06 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
dirk(at)knemeyer.com writes:
Yes, Nick is correct. I'm copying Mike Sims to see how this can be
fixed.
Dirk
Sent from my iPhone
On Nov 24, 2011, at 3:19 PM, Nick Powell <nick.s.powell(at)gmail.com>
wrote:
I think it's simply that the map in the Dipwiki is out of
date.
-Nick
On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 12:17 PM, <VonPowell(at)aol.com> wrote:
Dirk,
Outstanding! I'm looking forward to the upcoming contest.
One question... I notice the map associated with the link below
is an old version. Is it possible to replace that map with the
current map (i.e., the same map you recently soloed on)?
Baron
In a message dated 11/23/2011 10:32:49 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, dirk(at)knemeyer.com writes:
Hi
Friends,
In appreciation of Baron's support of his variants, and fulfilling
my promise to Robert to GM an advanced variant for him, I have just
posted a new game of Ambition and Empire on DC that I shall be GM'ing. I
hope to see many of you there!
http://diplomaticcorp.com/game_page.php?game_id=re002
Dirk
On Nov 24, 2011, at 12:24 AM, VonPowell(at)aol.com
wrote:
Adriaan,
A very entertaining read.
I don't disagree at all that Denmark-Norway and Poland &
Saxony are challenging (to put it kindly) to play. They are,
indeed, extremely challenging. The key question is are they
viable. By viable I mean that the a DN or PS player should
have a "reasonable expectation" of success if he or she plays
well. I think this is the case. The proof is that I've
seen both positions enjoy tremendous success. Of course I've
also seen plenty of spectacular failure. The true weakness in
these positions, in my opinion, is that they have virtually no margin
for error in the early going. Most of the other nations
have at least some wiggle room to work with should they guess
incorrectly or be on the wrong side of a coalition. This wiggle
room might not be enough to overcome a poor start and early
elimination, but there is a "chance" to recover. DN and PS
cannot really afford a misstep until they have gained some
traction. They MUST start the game with at least one and
preferably more reliable allies so that they can initially leave a
flank unprotected while focusing their forces on the first
objective. Good diplomacy should see DN and PS as integral
parts of coalitions that win the DP battle each turn and isolate
their enemies. If DN and PS can avoid the early elimination
and gain a SC or two, then their prospects start to look
bright.
You are correct. Austria often gets to 8 SCs with little
trouble at all. Getting to 15 SCs is another matter. No
power suffers from ELS more than the Habsburg Empire. Easy early
growth frequently turns into mid-game stagnation. Decline and
elimination often follow. I'm not convinced that trying to avoid
looking big is the answer to the Austrian conundrum. Instead, I
think the key for Austrian success is to be a member in
good standing of a successful coalition. This can be achieved
through active diplomacy (no surprise there), largesse with
DPs, open military support to a partner fighting a common or
potential enemy, and judicious sharing of the spoils of victory.
Growth within the coalition does not necessarily need to be equal,
however. Austria has no interest in creating a powerful
rival. Instead, growth simply needs to be "fair enough" that
partners believe they benefit from being Austria's
friend. Austrian math should go as follows: one for ally A
and one for ally B and two for me. Austria can
probably keep its allies happy in this manner without too much
difficulty until it reaches 11 or 12 SCs. At that point,
the dynamics get trickier. Unless Austria wishes to hold hands
with its partners all the way to a draw, it will need to be ruthless
to get those last few SCs. Setting up and timing the rush to
victory is a challenge, but that is what makes the game
interesting.
I do believe a correction is in order... I think the
article about A&E's Austria that mentions the Sultan Slayer
was written by our friend Nick Higgens rather than Chris. If I'm
mistaken Chris, please correct me.
I'm looking forward to the next A&E game. Until
then...
Happy Stabbing,
Baron
In a message dated 11/21/2011 11:00:44 P.M. Pacific Standard
Time, arandia.t(at)gmail.com writes:
Austria post-game - Adriaan (1763-1766):
It has been many turns since I passed control of the Hapsburg
Empire to the capable hands of Sun Chung. Since inheriting control,
he has brought Austria to new heights of glory and accomplished many
great things. But as I sit here writing my memoirs, I hope you can
spare a thought for Austria before she was great. Indeed,
there was a time when there were ten kingdoms seeking to dominate
Europe, and Austria was but one of them...
Anyways, so to cut the crap - well, it appears that I am totally
incapable of completing anything if I don't have a looming deadline
to pressure me. Believe it or not, I actually started writing this
EOG before the game even finished! Well, look where I ended up with
that... better late than never?
First off - Robert. A great deal of thanks to you for running
such an organized and professional game. I have previously played a
few games with lackluster GMs, and it makes a huge difference - it
is a lot of work for modest reward, and I hope I can someday repay
the favour.
Secondly, congratulations to Dirk, on a well-deserved victory. It
is a sign of a game well-played that even in the last few years, as
you approached that magic number, your allies still saw it as in
their interest to work with you rather than against you. This is no
easy feat against what is clearly a strong table!
Strategy. Well, we may as well begin at the beginning: power
selections. As Robert mentioned in that initial email, the two
counties to receive the highest bids (by a large margin!) were
Turkey and Spain. I must own up to contributing my fair share to
those two averages, as I only saved a measly '2' for Austria. I
suppose that, all things considered, there are worse countries to
start with than Austria - I consider it good fortune that I didn't
end up with Saxony or Norway. That is, of course, not to say that
there is anything wrong with either of those countries
(Baron), merely that they force a play style that I don't personally
enjoy.
I had done a little reading on A&E prior to this game, and
from what I could tell, Austria tends to suffer from the curse of
being the early leader. Not only does she start with four units, but
she is square in the middle of the most SC-rich part of the board.
Austria expands almost involuntarily, at least at first. Of course,
the trade-off for this early success seems to be middle-game
stagnation. Perhaps Baron could shed some light/numbers on this, but
I hoped to try and take a different course in this game. My initial
expansion in Italy was deliberately slower than it could have been
(at times requiring great amounts of willpower), in an attempt to
follow this path. However, beyond this rough outline, I had
relatively little in the way of a long-term plan - too much depends,
of course, on the other players involved.
Chris Dziedzic, in his article on A&E in Diplomacy World,
suggests that Austria's relationship with Turkey is her defining
feature; that the Archduke must play either the Sultan-slayer or the
Sultan's best friend. I'm not convinced that those are the only two
options available, but it seemed like as decent a place as any to
start. My initial negotiations with Aidan had been mostly positive,
and I certainly didn't want to commit to an early and potentially
costly war that could limit my other choices. Thus I figured I would
try to work with him, and see if he wouldn't be more interested
sailing ships to Spain than marching armies to Vienna. Over the
course of the four years in which I played, Aidan and I managed to
develop a very good rapport. He struck me as being a very capable
and resourceful diplomat, and he was one of the players I had on my
personal short-list if and when it came down to figuring out who to
include in a draw. Perhaps we'll never know just how successful
I was in this (unless Aidan cares to share in *his* EOG), but at
least I think that I left the game with an ally to the south.
I only hope that I wasn't merely playing the sucker who escaped a
stabbing, through an abdication in the nick of time...
Speaking of Nick: early-game Germany. In my initial view, the
only real short-term threat to Austria in the opening year comes
from an allied Prussia and Poland/Saxony. I therefore did what I
could to create tensions between them, with the view to also picking
up a few extra cities beyond Austria's traditional 8-centre Alpine
plateau. As it happened, tensions weren't too hard to achieve - both
Nick and Ray seemed to distrust each other from the start. Overtly I
sided with Nick, but as things got more complicated in Germany I'll
admit to ending up with a few mixed motives of my own. While I never
directly attacked Nick, I will admit to not being the best possible
ally, either. For instance, those "crossed wires" in 1764 that
resulted in the western Saxon army surviving a four-unit attack were
completely accidental, and the fact that the surviving Saxon
army proceeded to stymie French growth in the Alps was most
unfortunate, and totally coincidental. Nick, given how fluid things
were at the beginning of the game, I only hope that you can forgive
these trespasses.
Nick is obviously a very good player, because he managed to scare
everyone else into a stampede into Germany in short order; that's
the most logical conclusion I can come to. What began as a
Prussian-Russian war to the east took on more ominous tones for Nick
once Dirk leveraged Ray to gain the upper hand. And, of course,
nothing brings further attacks like a perceived weakness. Soon
France and Britain were snapping at the Kaiser's heels. Nick and I
had always gotten along very well, but when push came to shove I
realized that I couldn't keep him afloat by myself - I had little
choice but to try and find other players to work with.
My relationship with Dirk is perhaps proof of the old Diplomacy
maxim that if you talk enough, it almost doesn't matter what you're
saying. After an initial slow start, my alliance with Dirk developed
into what as probably my closest in the game. Of course, this belies
the fact that our first diplomatic conversation of much substance
was a *colossal* disagreement (something on the subject of Germany,
it went on for pages and caused a few headaches for him too, I'm
sure)! He has since sung me some very high praises in his EOG, so I
imagine that that has been forgiven and forgotten. I'm very glad
that I was able to convince Dirk to not push through central Europe;
even if this was rather self-serving at first, it clearly worked to
Dirk's interest as well. Overall, I found Dirk to be a very
reasonable and very canny player, with whom it was a pleasure to
work, and who played the board very well. At one point, I think he
was juggling two, maybe even three vassals - not an easy feat.
Congratulations again, Dirk, on a game well-played.
Mixed in between Nick, Dirk and myself, there was Ray. Now I know
there may be a numerical argument somewhere saying that Poland and
Saxony isn't really all that bad, but I think that it has to be, at
the very least, the most precarious position on the board
(whether or not it does decently in the long run). I found my
interactions with Ray to be a little clipped, but all the same
constructive and not unreasonable. Perhaps the brevity can be
excused by the game of 1900 he was also involved in. In a critique
of his play style, I really can't say too much; I initially chose to
work with Nick against Ray mostly on the basis of starting position
and rumour (cheering for the same team as Nick in the Stanly Cup
finals probably influenced my position more than I'd care to admit).
Ray, let me assure you - I never intended to execute the stab that
befell you.
I've always felt that Diplomacy is best played when the map does
not force the players into any particular course of action. Thus, I
prefer 1900 over Standard partly because in 1900, Turkey need not
fight Austria. In A&E, I think that the relationship between
Austria and France may not approach the same level of
predestination, but it is definitely not a stress-free border. That
is not to say, of course, that France and Austria *need* to fight;
merely that it is easy. I tried to structure my relationship with
Warren on the basis that most of the other players would expect some
hostility between the two of us, and that we could therefore both
have an advantage if our borders stayed unexpectedly calm. Of
course, aiding this was the fact that Warren was a good player and a
reasonable person, with whom I saw a fair bit of common interest (is
it ever possible to have a good player that is not
reasonable?). I found our relationship to be cordial, if perhaps a
little wary - though perhaps wariness was warranted, given what
happened during my last move. Rest assured, Warren, I never intended
on continuing my cooperation with Ray beyond that one turn that saw
the Saxons march to Burgundy.
Michael, Josiah, Richard, and Wladimir - it was good to meet you
all. Some time I hope to meet you in another game, where we might be
located somewhat closer together, and have somewhat greater
interactions. As it was, I hope that you all got as much enjoyment
out of this game as I did.
Finally, the highly-appreciated replacement, Sun Chung. Many
thanks, of course, for taking over my position on such short notice;
real life can be such a pesky thing to have to deal with. The rest
of you probably know him better than I do, as we only had a few
short emails between us at the tail end of my tenure. Nevertheless,
as he mentions we did have a few discussions of some weight - in
particular one concerning whether Austria should make a break for a
solo, or risk enmeshed borders with Saxony. Sun has said that I
provided him with council on this; I will admit to sending him a
detailed multi-page discussion and risk assessment outlining
how an Archduke might strike for a solo from eight
centres few suggestions, but in my defense I
also made it clear that I had made no decision whether or not I
would actually go about implementing this plan. All said, I was
actually rather glad when Sun agreed to be my replacement, as he
signed on just in time to save me from having to make this very
hard choice. From an outside perspective, I think that there was
likely very little that Sun could have done differently to convert
his inherited position into a solo - changing players is always
going to make your neighbours rather wary. I think he handled the
chaos following his run admirably, and he certainly kept Austria
abreast the future of Europe. Well-played Sun, and thanks
again.
In closing, I have to thank you all for what was a tremendously
fun game. I hope to get an opportunity to play with you all again
sometime; it is always a pleasure to find a group of players who are
not only committed to playing Diplomacy, but who play it well. I
hope to see you all in future games.
Best regards,
Adriaan Tichler
P.S. I've uploaded photos of a few of my reasons for abdication,
for your interest.
https://plus.google.com/u/0/photos/101141162735761025862/albums/5677699991823577681
On 7 October 2011 15:21, Sun Chung <sun.chung(at)gmail.com> wrote:
Thanks Robert for GMing ??? it???s a pleasure
playing in a game that you run.
Also, thanks to
everyone on the board for a good game. And for Adriaan for
his thoughts/guidance/recommendations early on in the game.
Kudos to him for getting Austria to a great stage in the
game. My big regret is that I was unable to fulfill
Austria???s opportunity that Adriaan set up.
For me, the mark
of a good game is when the players are committed and are willing
to accept the game for what it is ??? a shifting swirl of deals,
broken deals, and new deals being created. It was
interesting to see how the dynamics of the game were able to
shift, although I probably contributed to less of that towards the
end of the game. I appreciated that most on the board were
open to thinking about shifting their alliance and at least
listened to new deals.
I missed the early stages of the
game, so I can???t really comment much on how the armed neutrals
dynamic shaped the early portion of the game. When Robert
asked me to replace Adriaan, I came into the game thinking 1) what
a great opportunity ??? this power is strong and has a good lead but
2) Austria???s completely surrounded I don't have enough armies to
plug in all the gaps - the lead can fall really quickly.
My
first focus on the game was the complex relationship Austria had
with Saxony. There wasn???t a good defensive line set up, and
our armies were all intermixed together. Not a situation I
liked. Elsewhere on the map, it didn???t seem like there was
strong cooperation between France/Britain/Spain. Russia was
friendly and was trying to build upon the work that Adriaan had
done. Unfortunately for me, I didn???t have much contact with
Turkey at the start.
The first order of business was how to
get involved in the game and unwind the tie-up of Austria and
Saxony. I did not feel comfortable with the situation (esp
since it wasn???t of my doing!). As Dirk mentioned in his EOG
statement, I typically like strong stable borders. It really
bothered me that I couldn???t count on a stable front in any
direction. Plus, Saxony was looking to regain his strength
and was pushing to recover some of his home centers. Adriaan
and I agreed that a re-emergence of Saxony would be a threat to
Austria. So my first major decision was that I would not
support Saxony and stab him. That would prevent a rebirth of
Saxony and give me a stable front to work from.
But this
created another problem. It would undoubtedly raise solo
alarm bells across the board. And mark a significant shift
in the Austrian??? strategy at this point. Now, my natural
desire was to start out slowly, play defensively, and get my feet
wet in the game. I didn???t want to be viewed as a loose
cannon coming in brand new. However, being able to discuss
strategy and tactics with Adriaan eased the transition quite a
bit. I know that Ray probably views my stab as a direct
consequence of a new replacement player dropping old agreements,
but I was able to get Adriaan???s consul on my first initial
moves.
From there, once I determined that Saxony would be
stabbed, and I knew that it would cause alarms on the board, I
pushed full ahead on going for the solo. I probably
shouldn???t speak for Adriaan as this is my EOG statement, and not
his, but the push for an early Austrian solo was not created in a
vacuum.
My first mistake in the game was not
securing my relationship with Turkey. I think had I been
able to pickup four builds in the first season (that I played) I
may have been able to get enough push to really threaten for a
solo. But for either nervousness with a new player, or I
rubbed him the wrong way, something lead to Turkey taking a center
from me, and I only got 3 plus centers in the first turn.
I
didn???t think it was the end of the game, and in some ways, I liked
this position much better. I was able to get a nice stable
line against France, I thought I could secure a line against
Turkey and was hoping that Russia wouldn???t view me as a long term
threat. But my dreams of an Austria solo were crushed.
I tried my best to say that my push was really only to secure
myself against Saxony and not reach for a solo. It probably
fell on deaf ears, but I thought I would have a chance since it
was at least partially true.
From there, the game switched
to survival. I thought I built an okay line of communication
with France (I told him I had to take Savoy since it was there for
the taking in the first year, but I didn???t want it to set in stone
the Austrian/French relationship), thought that I could get Turkey
to lay off by letting him keep what he took (Turkey had a good
relationship with the prior Austria), and I thought I could
convince Russia that my swing for a solo was a one and done deal
and that I could be a reasonable partner. All three powers
attacked me.
Once Turkey got into the Adriatic Sea, I was
at his mercy. Side note observation - this map creates a lot
of defensive issues for Austria, in particular the way I was set
up when I entered the game. Austria is a land power, but
with a home center in Milan and the host of supply centers in
Italy, Austria???s sphere of influence gravitates around the
Adriatic. With the Turkish fleet there, I was forced to keep
units bottled up on my southern front. That one fleet tied
up a huge number of my armies. This drove me crazy.
My
next course of action was to work on France and/or Russia into
attack Turkey. While trying to cut a deal with Aiden in any
fashion as long as he left ADR. Deals with Turkey fell apart
multiple times, but I fared better on the diplomatic front.
Getting Russia to favor me, while getting France to
cooperate for awhile and attack Turkey.
The end game stage
really boiled down to trying to figure out a way to end the game
without it being a DIAS. I tried really hard to make it a
France ??? Austria ??? Russia triple, but neither France nor Russia
seemed to trust the other. What may have worked against me
was that I also played up the potential solo threat that they both
presented. Russia could (and did) have the numbers to sweep
across northern Germany and get a solo. France for a while
was a couple of centers lower, but if Turkey got crippled (and I
had a bear of a time trying to get a deal done where we trusted
each other), and Britain got stabbed by France, then no one could
really threaten the French navy. I felt that Austria was the
only credible counter to either solo threats.
For awhile,
it worked. France agreed to not aid Turkey any more, and
Russia allowed me to rush my armies to the west and defend against
France???s superior land position over me. Eventually it
boiled down to keeping what I had, while trying diplomatically
getting into the three way draw.
At one point, Russia had
the necessary centers at his reach where he could easily have gone
for the solo. I panicked and hedged myself and move some
units, but not all, to cover the open centers. Dirk was
surprised but took it rather well that I tactically split myself.
Since he didn???t stab me nor went for a solo directly, I was
lulled into thinking that maybe Russia wasn???t in it for a solo at
this stage. I had even asked Sweden (given how close
Wladimir was coordinating with Dirk for the bulk of the game) for
advice to get his read on Russia???s plans. Whether Wladimir
was equally convinced of Dirk not attempting a solo or was part of
the Russian PR campaign I don???t know.
From a
tactical stand point, I was then doomed. I didn???t have
enough armies to cover all of my holes, I was at the mercy of
Russia not pushing for a solo. And I felt that I couldn???t
react too strong or else I would push Russia into thinking I was
an untrustworthy ally and by my preventative action, get Dirk to
order to secure a solo.
In hind-sight, I should???ve
committed one way or the other. I felt that I was constantly
moving my armies east and then west. I could never build a
fleet, which crippled me against Turkey. And at some point,
I should???ve made a more tactical retreat to shore up my defensive
line against Turkey/France/or Russia.
This has been a long
winded rambling, so apologies for that. And apologies for
any typos in this - trying to do this quickly, across small breaks
during my work day.
Thoughts on the
players:
Russia: Good job. Played
skillfully, and got me suckered into thinking you'd be committed
to the draw. Not much I could've done about it even if I
knew about your intentions though. Always enjoyed our
conversations and your willingness to work out deals. Your solo
was well deserved.
France: Enjoyed our
conversations, and the fact that we were able to keep up a
dialogue even with disagreements. I wonder if we could've
set up a different outcome had we had a chance to work together
from the beginning. Your warning bells should've been heeded
more in Vienna. I blame the Turks for drowning out your
message!
Ottoman Empire: We got off on the
wrong foot and then continued to break our agreements. I
wish we could've some out untangled the complex tactical mess we
were in, but alas, I think our in-fighting created the biggest
opportunity for Russia to solo. You had me in a difficult
spot the entire game, and I don't really blame you for keeping
that dang fleet parked in the Adriatic. Makes sense, but
created all sorts of issues for me. If we cross paths again,
I promise to try harder to get diplomacy working between
us.
Poland Saxony: I do apologize for starting
out the game with a stab. I really felt uncomfortable with
the way our units/centers were intertwined. This is one of
those, it's all business, message. I appreciate your
attempts to get back into the game and your willingness to stick
with the game and not drop off.
Britain: We
didn't have a lot of interaction - another hindsight thing where I
should've tried harder. Perhaps the make up of the game
would've been
different?
Spain/Prussia/Denmark/Sweden:
Unfortunately, I don't have a lot of comments. I came in
at a time where I think your fates may have already been
decided.
All in all, thank you for giving me this
opportunity to play Ambition and Empire. I???ve been
interested in playing this variant for awhile and would love
another opportunity to play (esp from the beginning). It's
been a pleasure playing with you
all.
Thanks.
=
= |
| Upcoming A&E Game (dc386) FuzzyLogic Nov 25, 12:57 pm |
|
| DC386: Initial Archduke's EoG Comments - smileyrob (Nov 24, 2011, 9:15 am) |
[Reply] |
| DC386: Initial Archduke's EoG Comments - alwayshunted (Nov 24, 2011, 1:19 am) |
Hi Nick. Yah.... my bad as well. But you are soooo far away.
Don't think I haven't been watching. I have no idea where you will convoy (or if) but I'm waiting excitedly to see. I love those global variants when you can occupy the northern oceans.
W
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2011 23:07:17 -0800
Subject: Re: DC386: Initial Archduke's EoG Comments
From: nick.s.powell(at)gmail.com
To: alwayshunted(at)hotmail.com
CC: dirk(at)knemeyer.com; vonpowell(at)aol.com; arandia.t(at)gmail.com; sun.chung(at)gmail.com; wmysonski(at)gmail.com; smileyrob68(at)gmail.com; raybrucea(at)aol.com; psychosis(at)sky.com; aislattery(at)aol.com; josiah.henderson(at)gmail.com; aldous(at)xtra.co.nz; jeffreykase(at)yahoo.com; dipping_chris(at)yahoo.com; dc386(at)diplomaticcorp.com
But, but... I don't have enough time to play properly! Maybe after the move... no, no, Nick what are you saying... but I have to avenge my loss\prove to that I'm not actually a very good Diplomacy player after all...
Ai yah. Don't think I'll be joining that one. I'm having enough trouble being chatty in the one game I'm in. I haven't even talked to some of the players on the other side of the board yet (Hi Warren)...
-Nick
On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 10:39 PM, Warren Fleming <alwayshunted(at)hotmail.com> wrote:
Well then I wouldn't have to play against you... silver tongued devil
Maybe. I agree it's a great variant.
Warren
Subject: Re: DC386: Initial Archduke's EoG Comments
From: dirk(at)knemeyer.com
Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2011 01:32:40 -0500
CC: arandia.t(at)gmail.com; sun.chung(at)gmail.com; wmysonski(at)gmail.com; smileyrob68(at)gmail.com; alwayshunted(at)hotmail.com; Raybrucea(at)aol.com; psychosis(at)sky.com; aislattery(at)aol.com; josiah.henderson(at)gmail.com; nick.s.powell(at)gmail.com; aldous(at)xtra.co.nz; jeffreykase(at)yahoo.com; dipping_chris(at)yahoo.com; dc386(at)diplomaticcorp.com
To: VonPowell(at)aol.com
Hi Friends,
In appreciation of Baron's support of his variants, and fulfilling my promise to Robert to GM an advanced variant for him, I have just posted a new game of Ambition and Empire on DC that I shall be GM'ing. I hope to see many of you there!
http://diplomaticcorp.com/game_page.php?game_id=re002
Dirk
On Nov 24, 2011, at 12:24 AM, VonPowell(at)aol.com wrote:
Adriaan,
A very entertaining read.
I don't disagree at all that Denmark-Norway and Poland & Saxony
are challenging (to put it kindly) to play. They are, indeed,
extremely challenging. The key question is are they viable. By
viable I mean that the a DN or PS player should have a "reasonable
expectation" of success if he or she plays well. I think this is the
case. The proof is that I've seen both positions enjoy tremendous
success. Of course I've also seen plenty of spectacular failure. The
true weakness in these positions, in my opinion, is that they have virtually no
margin for error in the early going. Most of the other nations have
at least some wiggle room to work with should they guess incorrectly or be on
the wrong side of a coalition. This wiggle room might not be enough to
overcome a poor start and early elimination, but there is a "chance" to
recover. DN and PS cannot really afford a misstep until they have gained
some traction. They MUST start the game with at least one and preferably
more reliable allies so that they can initially leave a flank unprotected while
focusing their forces on the first objective. Good diplomacy should see DN
and PS as integral parts of coalitions that win the DP battle each
turn and isolate their enemies. If DN and PS can avoid the early
elimination and gain a SC or two, then their prospects start to look
bright.
You are correct. Austria often gets to 8 SCs with little trouble at
all. Getting to 15 SCs is another matter. No power suffers from ELS
more than the Habsburg Empire. Easy early growth frequently turns into
mid-game stagnation. Decline and elimination often follow. I'm not
convinced that trying to avoid looking big is the answer to the Austrian
conundrum. Instead, I think the key for Austrian success
is to be a member in good standing of a successful coalition. This
can be achieved through active diplomacy (no surprise there), largesse with
DPs, open military support to a partner fighting a common or potential
enemy, and judicious sharing of the spoils of victory. Growth within the
coalition does not necessarily need to be equal, however. Austria has
no interest in creating a powerful rival. Instead, growth simply needs to
be "fair enough" that partners believe they benefit from being Austria's
friend. Austrian math should go as follows: one for ally A and one
for ally B and two for me. Austria can probably keep its allies happy
in this manner without too much difficulty until it reaches 11 or 12
SCs. At that point, the dynamics get trickier. Unless Austria
wishes to hold hands with its partners all the way to a draw, it will need to be
ruthless to get those last few SCs. Setting up and timing the rush to
victory is a challenge, but that is what makes the game interesting.
I do believe a correction is in order... I think the article
about A&E's Austria that mentions the Sultan Slayer was written by our
friend Nick Higgens rather than Chris. If I'm mistaken Chris, please
correct me.
I'm looking forward to the next A&E game. Until then...
Happy Stabbing,
Baron
In a message dated 11/21/2011 11:00:44 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
arandia.t(at)gmail.com writes:
Austria post-game - Adriaan (1763-1766):
It has been many turns since I passed control of the Hapsburg Empire to the
capable hands of Sun Chung. Since inheriting control, he has brought Austria
to new heights of glory and accomplished many great things. But as I sit here
writing my memoirs, I hope you can spare a thought for Austria before
she was great. Indeed, there was a time when there were ten kingdoms
seeking to dominate Europe, and Austria was but one of them...
Anyways, so to cut the crap - well, it appears that I am totally incapable
of completing anything if I don't have a looming deadline to pressure me.
Believe it or not, I actually started writing this EOG before the game even
finished! Well, look where I ended up with that... better late than
never?
First off - Robert. A great deal of thanks to you for running such an
organized and professional game. I have previously played a few games with
lackluster GMs, and it makes a huge difference - it is a lot of work for
modest reward, and I hope I can someday repay the favour.
Secondly, congratulations to Dirk, on a well-deserved victory. It is a sign
of a game well-played that even in the last few years, as you approached that
magic number, your allies still saw it as in their interest to work with you
rather than against you. This is no easy feat against what is clearly a strong
table!
Strategy. Well, we may as well begin at the beginning: power selections. As
Robert mentioned in that initial email, the two counties to receive the
highest bids (by a large margin!) were Turkey and Spain. I must own up to
contributing my fair share to those two averages, as I only saved a measly '2'
for Austria. I suppose that, all things considered, there are worse countries
to start with than Austria - I consider it good fortune that I didn't end up
with Saxony or Norway. That is, of course, not to say that there is anything
wrong with either of those countries (Baron), merely that they force a
play style that I don't personally enjoy.
I had done a little reading on A&E prior to this game, and from what I
could tell, Austria tends to suffer from the curse of being the early leader.
Not only does she start with four units, but she is square in the middle of
the most SC-rich part of the board. Austria expands almost involuntarily, at
least at first. Of course, the trade-off for this early success seems to be
middle-game stagnation. Perhaps Baron could shed some light/numbers on this,
but I hoped to try and take a different course in this game. My initial
expansion in Italy was deliberately slower than it could have been (at times
requiring great amounts of willpower), in an attempt to follow this path.
However, beyond this rough outline, I had relatively little in the way of a
long-term plan - too much depends, of course, on the other players
involved.
Chris Dziedzic, in his article on A&E in Diplomacy World, suggests that
Austria's relationship with Turkey is her defining feature; that the Archduke
must play either the Sultan-slayer or the Sultan's best friend. I'm not
convinced that those are the only two options available, but it seemed like as
decent a place as any to start. My initial negotiations with Aidan had been
mostly positive, and I certainly didn't want to commit to an early and
potentially costly war that could limit my other choices. Thus I figured I
would try to work with him, and see if he wouldn't be more interested sailing
ships to Spain than marching armies to Vienna. Over the course of the four
years in which I played, Aidan and I managed to develop a very good rapport.
He struck me as being a very capable and resourceful diplomat, and he was one
of the players I had on my personal short-list if and when it came down to
figuring out who to include in a draw. Perhaps we'll never know just how
successful I was in this (unless Aidan cares to share in *his* EOG),
but at least I think that I left the game with an ally to the south. I
only hope that I wasn't merely playing the sucker who escaped a stabbing,
through an abdication in the nick of time...
Speaking of Nick: early-game Germany. In my initial view, the only real
short-term threat to Austria in the opening year comes from an allied Prussia
and Poland/Saxony. I therefore did what I could to create tensions between
them, with the view to also picking up a few extra cities beyond Austria's
traditional 8-centre Alpine plateau. As it happened, tensions weren't too hard
to achieve - both Nick and Ray seemed to distrust each other from the start.
Overtly I sided with Nick, but as things got more complicated in Germany I'll
admit to ending up with a few mixed motives of my own. While I never directly
attacked Nick, I will admit to not being the best possible ally, either. For
instance, those "crossed wires" in 1764 that resulted in the western Saxon
army surviving a four-unit attack were completely accidental, and the
fact that the surviving Saxon army proceeded to stymie French growth in the
Alps was most unfortunate, and totally coincidental. Nick, given how fluid
things were at the beginning of the game, I only hope that you can forgive
these trespasses.
Nick is obviously a very good player, because he managed to scare everyone
else into a stampede into Germany in short order; that's the most logical
conclusion I can come to. What began as a Prussian-Russian war to the east
took on more ominous tones for Nick once Dirk leveraged Ray to gain the upper
hand. And, of course, nothing brings further attacks like a perceived
weakness. Soon France and Britain were snapping at the Kaiser's heels. Nick
and I had always gotten along very well, but when push came to shove I
realized that I couldn't keep him afloat by myself - I had little choice but
to try and find other players to work with.
My relationship with Dirk is perhaps proof of the old Diplomacy maxim that
if you talk enough, it almost doesn't matter what you're saying. After an
initial slow start, my alliance with Dirk developed into what as probably my
closest in the game. Of course, this belies the fact that our first diplomatic
conversation of much substance was a *colossal* disagreement (something on the
subject of Germany, it went on for pages and caused a few headaches for him
too, I'm sure)! He has since sung me some very high praises in his EOG, so I
imagine that that has been forgiven and forgotten. I'm very glad that I was
able to convince Dirk to not push through central Europe; even if this was
rather self-serving at first, it clearly worked to Dirk's interest as well.
Overall, I found Dirk to be a very reasonable and very canny player, with whom
it was a pleasure to work, and who played the board very well. At one point, I
think he was juggling two, maybe even three vassals - not an easy feat.
Congratulations again, Dirk, on a game well-played.
Mixed in between Nick, Dirk and myself, there was Ray. Now I know there may
be a numerical argument somewhere saying that Poland and Saxony isn't really
all that bad, but I think that it has to be, at the very least, the most
precarious position on the board (whether or not it does decently in
the long run). I found my interactions with Ray to be a little clipped, but
all the same constructive and not unreasonable. Perhaps the brevity can be
excused by the game of 1900 he was also involved in. In a critique of his play
style, I really can't say too much; I initially chose to work with Nick
against Ray mostly on the basis of starting position and rumour (cheering for
the same team as Nick in the Stanly Cup finals probably influenced my position
more than I'd care to admit). Ray, let me assure you - I never intended to
execute the stab that befell you.
I've always felt that Diplomacy is best played when the map does not force
the players into any particular course of action. Thus, I prefer 1900 over
Standard partly because in 1900, Turkey need not fight Austria. In A&E, I
think that the relationship between Austria and France may not approach the
same level of predestination, but it is definitely not a stress-free border.
That is not to say, of course, that France and Austria *need* to fight; merely
that it is easy. I tried to structure my relationship with Warren on the basis
that most of the other players would expect some hostility between the two of
us, and that we could therefore both have an advantage if our borders stayed
unexpectedly calm. Of course, aiding this was the fact that Warren was a good
player and a reasonable person, with whom I saw a fair bit of common interest
(is it ever possible to have a good player that is not reasonable?). I
found our relationship to be cordial, if perhaps a little wary - though
perhaps wariness was warranted, given what happened during my last move. Rest
assured, Warren, I never intended on continuing my cooperation with Ray beyond
that one turn that saw the Saxons march to Burgundy.
Michael, Josiah, Richard, and Wladimir - it was good to meet you all. Some
time I hope to meet you in another game, where we might be located somewhat
closer together, and have somewhat greater interactions. As it was, I hope
that you all got as much enjoyment out of this game as I did.
Finally, the highly-appreciated replacement, Sun Chung. Many thanks, of
course, for taking over my position on such short notice; real life can be
such a pesky thing to have to deal with. The rest of you probably know him
better than I do, as we only had a few short emails between us at the tail end
of my tenure. Nevertheless, as he mentions we did have a few discussions of
some weight - in particular one concerning whether Austria should make a break
for a solo, or risk enmeshed borders with Saxony. Sun has said that I provided
him with council on this; I will admit to sending him a detailed
multi-page discussion and risk assessment outlining how an Archduke
might strike for a solo from eight centres few
suggestions, but in my defense I also made it clear that I had made
no decision whether or not I would actually go about implementing this plan.
All said, I was actually rather glad when Sun agreed to be my replacement, as
he signed on just in time to save me from having to make this very hard
choice. From an outside perspective, I think that there was likely very little
that Sun could have done differently to convert his inherited position into a
solo - changing players is always going to make your neighbours rather wary. I
think he handled the chaos following his run admirably, and he certainly kept
Austria abreast the future of Europe. Well-played Sun, and thanks
again.
In closing, I have to thank you all for what was a tremendously fun game. I
hope to get an opportunity to play with you all again sometime; it is always a
pleasure to find a group of players who are not only committed to playing
Diplomacy, but who play it well. I hope to see you all in future games.
Best regards,
Adriaan Tichler
P.S. I've uploaded photos of a few of my reasons for abdication, for your
interest.
https://plus.google.com/u/0/photos/101141162735761025862/albums/5677699991823577681
On 7 October 2011 15:21, Sun Chung <sun.chung(at)gmail.com> wrote:
Thanks Robert for GMing - it's a pleasure playing in a
game that you run.
Also, thanks to everyone on the board for a
good game. And for Adriaan for his thoughts/guidance/recommendations
early on in the game. Kudos to him for getting Austria to a great
stage in the game. My big regret is that I was unable to fulfill
Austria's opportunity that Adriaan set up.
For me, the mark of a good
game is when the players are committed and are willing to accept the game
for what it is - a shifting swirl of deals, broken deals, and new deals
being created. It was interesting to see how the dynamics of the game
were able to shift, although I probably contributed to less of that towards
the end of the game. I appreciated that most on the board were open to
thinking about shifting their alliance and at least listened to new
deals.
I missed the early stages of the game, so I can't really
comment much on how the armed neutrals dynamic shaped the early portion of
the game. When Robert asked me to replace Adriaan, I came into the
game thinking 1) what a great opportunity - this power is strong and has a
good lead but 2) Austria's completely surrounded I don't have enough armies
to plug in all the gaps - the lead can fall really quickly.
My first
focus on the game was the complex relationship Austria had with Saxony.
There wasn't a good defensive line set up, and our armies were all
intermixed together. Not a situation I liked. Elsewhere on the
map, it didn't seem like there was strong cooperation between
France/Britain/Spain. Russia was friendly and was trying to build upon
the work that Adriaan had done. Unfortunately for me, I didn't have
much contact with Turkey at the start.
The first order of business
was how to get involved in the game and unwind the tie-up of Austria and
Saxony. I did not feel comfortable with the situation (esp since it
wasn't of my doing!). As Dirk mentioned in his EOG statement, I
typically like strong stable borders. It really bothered me that I
couldn't count on a stable front in any direction. Plus, Saxony was
looking to regain his strength and was pushing to recover some of his home
centers. Adriaan and I agreed that a re-emergence of Saxony would be a
threat to Austria. So my first major decision was that I would not
support Saxony and stab him. That would prevent a rebirth of Saxony
and give me a stable front to work from.
But this created another
problem. It would undoubtedly raise solo alarm bells across the board.
And mark a significant shift in the Austrian' strategy at this point.
Now, my natural desire was to start out slowly, play defensively, and
get my feet wet in the game. I didn't want to be viewed as a loose
cannon coming in brand new. However, being able to discuss strategy
and tactics with Adriaan eased the transition quite a bit. I know that
Ray probably views my stab as a direct consequence of a new replacement
player dropping old agreements, but I was able to get Adriaan's consul on my
first initial moves.
From there, once I determined that Saxony would
be stabbed, and I knew that it would cause alarms on the board, I pushed
full ahead on going for the solo. I probably shouldn't speak for
Adriaan as this is my EOG statement, and not his, but the push for an early
Austrian solo was not created in a vacuum.
My first mistake in
the game was not securing my relationship with Turkey. I think had I
been able to pickup four builds in the first season (that I played) I may
have been able to get enough push to really threaten for a solo. But
for either nervousness with a new player, or I rubbed him the wrong way,
something lead to Turkey taking a center from me, and I only got 3 plus
centers in the first turn.
I didn't think it was the end of the game,
and in some ways, I liked this position much better. I was able to get
a nice stable line against France, I thought I could secure a line against
Turkey and was hoping that Russia wouldn't view me as a long term
threat. But my dreams of an Austria solo were crushed. I tried
my best to say that my push was really only to secure myself against Saxony
and not reach for a solo. It probably fell on deaf ears, but I thought
I would have a chance since it was at least partially true.
From
there, the game switched to survival. I thought I built an okay line
of communication with France (I told him I had to take Savoy since it was
there for the taking in the first year, but I didn't want it to set in stone
the Austrian/French relationship), thought that I could get Turkey to lay
off by letting him keep what he took (Turkey had a good relationship with
the prior Austria), and I thought I could convince Russia that my swing for
a solo was a one and done deal and that I could be a reasonable partner.
All three powers attacked me.
Once Turkey got into the Adriatic
Sea, I was at his mercy. Side note observation - this map creates a
lot of defensive issues for Austria, in particular the way I was set up when
I entered the game. Austria is a land power, but with a home center in
Milan and the host of supply centers in Italy, Austria's sphere of influence
gravitates around the Adriatic. With the Turkish fleet there, I was
forced to keep units bottled up on my southern front. That one fleet
tied up a huge number of my armies. This drove me crazy.
My next
course of action was to work on France and/or Russia into attack Turkey.
While trying to cut a deal with Aiden in any fashion as long as he
left ADR. Deals with Turkey fell apart multiple times, but I fared
better on the diplomatic front. Getting Russia to favor me, while
getting France to cooperate for awhile and attack Turkey.
The end
game stage really boiled down to trying to figure out a way to end the game
without it being a DIAS. I tried really hard to make it a France -
Austria - Russia triple, but neither France nor Russia seemed to trust the
other. What may have worked against me was that I also played up the
potential solo threat that they both presented. Russia could (and did)
have the numbers to sweep across northern Germany and get a solo.
France for a while was a couple of centers lower, but if Turkey got
crippled (and I had a bear of a time trying to get a deal done where we
trusted each other), and Britain got stabbed by France, then no one could
really threaten the French navy. I felt that Austria was the only
credible counter to either solo threats.
For awhile, it worked.
France agreed to not aid Turkey any more, and Russia allowed me to
rush my armies to the west and defend against France's superior land
position over me. Eventually it boiled down to keeping what I had,
while trying diplomatically getting into the three way draw.
At one
point, Russia had the necessary centers at his reach where he could easily
have gone for the solo. I panicked and hedged myself and move some
units, but not all, to cover the open centers. Dirk was surprised but
took it rather well that I tactically split myself. Since he didn't
stab me nor went for a solo directly, I was lulled into thinking that maybe
Russia wasn't in it for a solo at this stage. I had even asked Sweden
(given how close Wladimir was coordinating with Dirk for the bulk of the
game) for advice to get his read on Russia's plans. Whether Wladimir
was equally convinced of Dirk not attempting a solo or was part of the
Russian PR campaign I don't know.
From a tactical stand point,
I was then doomed. I didn't have enough armies to cover all of my
holes, I was at the mercy of Russia not pushing for a solo. And I felt
that I couldn't react too strong or else I would push Russia into thinking I
was an untrustworthy ally and by my preventative action, get Dirk to order
to secure a solo.
In hind-sight, I should've committed one way or the
other. I felt that I was constantly moving my armies east and then
west. I could never build a fleet, which crippled me against Turkey.
And at some point, I should've made a more tactical retreat to shore
up my defensive line against Turkey/France/or Russia.
This has been a
long winded rambling, so apologies for that. And apologies for any
typos in this - trying to do this quickly, across small breaks during my
work day.
Thoughts on the players:
Russia: Good
job. Played skillfully, and got me suckered into thinking you'd be
committed to the draw. Not much I could've done about it even if I
knew about your intentions though. Always enjoyed our conversations
and your willingness to work out deals. Your solo was well
deserved.
France: Enjoyed our conversations, and the
fact that we were able to keep up a dialogue even with disagreements.
I wonder if we could've set up a different outcome had we had a chance to
work together from the beginning. Your warning bells should've been
heeded more in Vienna. I blame the Turks for drowning out your
message!
Ottoman Empire: We got off on the wrong foot
and then continued to break our agreements. I wish we could've some
out untangled the complex tactical mess we were in, but alas, I think our
in-fighting created the biggest opportunity for Russia to solo. You
had me in a difficult spot the entire game, and I don't really blame you for
keeping that dang fleet parked in the Adriatic. Makes sense, but
created all sorts of issues for me. If we cross paths again, I promise
to try harder to get diplomacy working between us.
Poland
Saxony: I do apologize for starting out the game with a
stab. I really felt uncomfortable with the way our units/centers were
intertwined. This is one of those, it's all business, message. I
appreciate your attempts to get back into the game and your willingness to
stick with the game and not drop off.
Britain: We didn't
have a lot of interaction - another hindsight thing where I should've tried
harder. Perhaps the make up of the game would've been
different?
Spain/Prussia/Denmark/Sweden: Unfortunately,
I don't have a lot of comments. I came in at a time where I think your
fates may have already been decided.
All in all, thank you for
giving me this opportunity to play Ambition and Empire. I've been
interested in playing this variant for awhile and would love another
opportunity to play (esp from the beginning). It's been a pleasure
playing with you
all.
Thanks.[Reply] |
| DC386: Initial Archduke's EoG Comments - DrSwordopolis (Nov 24, 2011, 1:07 am) |
[Reply] |
| DC386: Initial Archduke's EoG Comments - alwayshunted (Nov 24, 2011, 12:39 am) |
Well then I wouldn't have to play against you... silver tongued devil
Maybe. I agree it's a great variant.
Warren
Subject: Re: DC386: Initial Archduke's EoG Comments
From: dirk(at)knemeyer.com
Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2011 01:32:40 -0500
CC: arandia.t(at)gmail.com; sun.chung(at)gmail.com; wmysonski(at)gmail.com; smileyrob68(at)gmail.com; alwayshunted(at)hotmail.com; Raybrucea(at)aol.com; psychosis(at)sky.com; aislattery(at)aol.com; josiah.henderson(at)gmail.com; nick.s.powell(at)gmail.com; aldous(at)xtra.co.nz; jeffreykase(at)yahoo.com; dipping_chris(at)yahoo.com; dc386(at)diplomaticcorp.com
To: VonPowell(at)aol.com
Hi Friends,
In appreciation of Baron's support of his variants, and fulfilling my promise to Robert to GM an advanced variant for him, I have just posted a new game of Ambition and Empire on DC that I shall be GM'ing. I hope to see many of you there!
http://diplomaticcorp.com/game_page.php?game_id=re002
Dirk
On Nov 24, 2011, at 12:24 AM, VonPowell(at)aol.com wrote:
Adriaan,
A very entertaining read.
I don't disagree at all that Denmark-Norway and Poland & Saxony
are challenging (to put it kindly) to play. They are, indeed,
extremely challenging. The key question is are they viable. By
viable I mean that the a DN or PS player should have a "reasonable
expectation" of success if he or she plays well. I think this is the
case. The proof is that I've seen both positions enjoy tremendous
success. Of course I've also seen plenty of spectacular failure. The
true weakness in these positions, in my opinion, is that they have virtually no
margin for error in the early going. Most of the other nations have
at least some wiggle room to work with should they guess incorrectly or be on
the wrong side of a coalition. This wiggle room might not be enough to
overcome a poor start and early elimination, but there is a "chance" to
recover. DN and PS cannot really afford a misstep until they have gained
some traction. They MUST start the game with at least one and preferably
more reliable allies so that they can initially leave a flank unprotected while
focusing their forces on the first objective. Good diplomacy should see DN
and PS as integral parts of coalitions that win the DP battle each
turn and isolate their enemies. If DN and PS can avoid the early
elimination and gain a SC or two, then their prospects start to look
bright.
You are correct. Austria often gets to 8 SCs with little trouble at
all. Getting to 15 SCs is another matter. No power suffers from ELS
more than the Habsburg Empire. Easy early growth frequently turns into
mid-game stagnation. Decline and elimination often follow. I'm not
convinced that trying to avoid looking big is the answer to the Austrian
conundrum. Instead, I think the key for Austrian success
is to be a member in good standing of a successful coalition. This
can be achieved through active diplomacy (no surprise there), largesse with
DPs, open military support to a partner fighting a common or potential
enemy, and judicious sharing of the spoils of victory. Growth within the
coalition does not necessarily need to be equal, however. Austria has
no interest in creating a powerful rival. Instead, growth simply needs to
be "fair enough" that partners believe they benefit from being Austria's
friend. Austrian math should go as follows: one for ally A and one
for ally B and two for me. Austria can probably keep its allies happy
in this manner without too much difficulty until it reaches 11 or 12
SCs. At that point, the dynamics get trickier. Unless Austria
wishes to hold hands with its partners all the way to a draw, it will need to be
ruthless to get those last few SCs. Setting up and timing the rush to
victory is a challenge, but that is what makes the game interesting.
I do believe a correction is in order... I think the article
about A&E's Austria that mentions the Sultan Slayer was written by our
friend Nick Higgens rather than Chris. If I'm mistaken Chris, please
correct me.
I'm looking forward to the next A&E game. Until then...
Happy Stabbing,
Baron
In a message dated 11/21/2011 11:00:44 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
arandia.t(at)gmail.com writes:
Austria post-game - Adriaan (1763-1766):
It has been many turns since I passed control of the Hapsburg Empire to the
capable hands of Sun Chung. Since inheriting control, he has brought Austria
to new heights of glory and accomplished many great things. But as I sit here
writing my memoirs, I hope you can spare a thought for Austria before
she was great. Indeed, there was a time when there were ten kingdoms
seeking to dominate Europe, and Austria was but one of them...
Anyways, so to cut the crap - well, it appears that I am totally incapable
of completing anything if I don't have a looming deadline to pressure me.
Believe it or not, I actually started writing this EOG before the game even
finished! Well, look where I ended up with that... better late than
never?
First off - Robert. A great deal of thanks to you for running such an
organized and professional game. I have previously played a few games with
lackluster GMs, and it makes a huge difference - it is a lot of work for
modest reward, and I hope I can someday repay the favour.
Secondly, congratulations to Dirk, on a well-deserved victory. It is a sign
of a game well-played that even in the last few years, as you approached that
magic number, your allies still saw it as in their interest to work with you
rather than against you. This is no easy feat against what is clearly a strong
table!
Strategy. Well, we may as well begin at the beginning: power selections. As
Robert mentioned in that initial email, the two counties to receive the
highest bids (by a large margin!) were Turkey and Spain. I must own up to
contributing my fair share to those two averages, as I only saved a measly '2'
for Austria. I suppose that, all things considered, there are worse countries
to start with than Austria - I consider it good fortune that I didn't end up
with Saxony or Norway. That is, of course, not to say that there is anything
wrong with either of those countries (Baron), merely that they force a
play style that I don't personally enjoy.
I had done a little reading on A&E prior to this game, and from what I
could tell, Austria tends to suffer from the curse of being the early leader.
Not only does she start with four units, but she is square in the middle of
the most SC-rich part of the board. Austria expands almost involuntarily, at
least at first. Of course, the trade-off for this early success seems to be
middle-game stagnation. Perhaps Baron could shed some light/numbers on this,
but I hoped to try and take a different course in this game. My initial
expansion in Italy was deliberately slower than it could have been (at times
requiring great amounts of willpower), in an attempt to follow this path.
However, beyond this rough outline, I had relatively little in the way of a
long-term plan - too much depends, of course, on the other players
involved.
Chris Dziedzic, in his article on A&E in Diplomacy World, suggests that
Austria's relationship with Turkey is her defining feature; that the Archduke
must play either the Sultan-slayer or the Sultan's best friend. I'm not
convinced that those are the only two options available, but it seemed like as
decent a place as any to start. My initial negotiations with Aidan had been
mostly positive, and I certainly didn't want to commit to an early and
potentially costly war that could limit my other choices. Thus I figured I
would try to work with him, and see if he wouldn't be more interested sailing
ships to Spain than marching armies to Vienna. Over the course of the four
years in which I played, Aidan and I managed to develop a very good rapport.
He struck me as being a very capable and resourceful diplomat, and he was one
of the players I had on my personal short-list if and when it came down to
figuring out who to include in a draw. Perhaps we'll never know just how
successful I was in this (unless Aidan cares to share in *his* EOG),
but at least I think that I left the game with an ally to the south. I
only hope that I wasn't merely playing the sucker who escaped a stabbing,
through an abdication in the nick of time...
Speaking of Nick: early-game Germany. In my initial view, the only real
short-term threat to Austria in the opening year comes from an allied Prussia
and Poland/Saxony. I therefore did what I could to create tensions between
them, with the view to also picking up a few extra cities beyond Austria's
traditional 8-centre Alpine plateau. As it happened, tensions weren't too hard
to achieve - both Nick and Ray seemed to distrust each other from the start.
Overtly I sided with Nick, but as things got more complicated in Germany I'll
admit to ending up with a few mixed motives of my own. While I never directly
attacked Nick, I will admit to not being the best possible ally, either. For
instance, those "crossed wires" in 1764 that resulted in the western Saxon
army surviving a four-unit attack were completely accidental, and the
fact that the surviving Saxon army proceeded to stymie French growth in the
Alps was most unfortunate, and totally coincidental. Nick, given how fluid
things were at the beginning of the game, I only hope that you can forgive
these trespasses.
Nick is obviously a very good player, because he managed to scare everyone
else into a stampede into Germany in short order; that's the most logical
conclusion I can come to. What began as a Prussian-Russian war to the east
took on more ominous tones for Nick once Dirk leveraged Ray to gain the upper
hand. And, of course, nothing brings further attacks like a perceived
weakness. Soon France and Britain were snapping at the Kaiser's heels. Nick
and I had always gotten along very well, but when push came to shove I
realized that I couldn't keep him afloat by myself - I had little choice but
to try and find other players to work with.
My relationship with Dirk is perhaps proof of the old Diplomacy maxim that
if you talk enough, it almost doesn't matter what you're saying. After an
initial slow start, my alliance with Dirk developed into what as probably my
closest in the game. Of course, this belies the fact that our first diplomatic
conversation of much substance was a *colossal* disagreement (something on the
subject of Germany, it went on for pages and caused a few headaches for him
too, I'm sure)! He has since sung me some very high praises in his EOG, so I
imagine that that has been forgiven and forgotten. I'm very glad that I was
able to convince Dirk to not push through central Europe; even if this was
rather self-serving at first, it clearly worked to Dirk's interest as well.
Overall, I found Dirk to be a very reasonable and very canny player, with whom
it was a pleasure to work, and who played the board very well. At one point, I
think he was juggling two, maybe even three vassals - not an easy feat.
Congratulations again, Dirk, on a game well-played.
Mixed in between Nick, Dirk and myself, there was Ray. Now I know there may
be a numerical argument somewhere saying that Poland and Saxony isn't really
all that bad, but I think that it has to be, at the very least, the most
precarious position on the board (whether or not it does decently in
the long run). I found my interactions with Ray to be a little clipped, but
all the same constructive and not unreasonable. Perhaps the brevity can be
excused by the game of 1900 he was also involved in. In a critique of his play
style, I really can't say too much; I initially chose to work with Nick
against Ray mostly on the basis of starting position and rumour (cheering for
the same team as Nick in the Stanly Cup finals probably influenced my position
more than I'd care to admit). Ray, let me assure you - I never intended to
execute the stab that befell you.
I've always felt that Diplomacy is best played when the map does not force
the players into any particular course of action. Thus, I prefer 1900 over
Standard partly because in 1900, Turkey need not fight Austria. In A&E, I
think that the relationship between Austria and France may not approach the
same level of predestination, but it is definitely not a stress-free border.
That is not to say, of course, that France and Austria *need* to fight; merely
that it is easy. I tried to structure my relationship with Warren on the basis
that most of the other players would expect some hostility between the two of
us, and that we could therefore both have an advantage if our borders stayed
unexpectedly calm. Of course, aiding this was the fact that Warren was a good
player and a reasonable person, with whom I saw a fair bit of common interest
(is it ever possible to have a good player that is not reasonable?). I
found our relationship to be cordial, if perhaps a little wary - though
perhaps wariness was warranted, given what happened during my last move. Rest
assured, Warren, I never intended on continuing my cooperation with Ray beyond
that one turn that saw the Saxons march to Burgundy.
Michael, Josiah, Richard, and Wladimir - it was good to meet you all. Some
time I hope to meet you in another game, where we might be located somewhat
closer together, and have somewhat greater interactions. As it was, I hope
that you all got as much enjoyment out of this game as I did.
Finally, the highly-appreciated replacement, Sun Chung. Many thanks, of
course, for taking over my position on such short notice; real life can be
such a pesky thing to have to deal with. The rest of you probably know him
better than I do, as we only had a few short emails between us at the tail end
of my tenure. Nevertheless, as he mentions we did have a few discussions of
some weight - in particular one concerning whether Austria should make a break
for a solo, or risk enmeshed borders with Saxony. Sun has said that I provided
him with council on this; I will admit to sending him a detailed
multi-page discussion and risk assessment outlining how an Archduke
might strike for a solo from eight centres few
suggestions, but in my defense I also made it clear that I had made
no decision whether or not I would actually go about implementing this plan.
All said, I was actually rather glad when Sun agreed to be my replacement, as
he signed on just in time to save me from having to make this very hard
choice. From an outside perspective, I think that there was likely very little
that Sun could have done differently to convert his inherited position into a
solo - changing players is always going to make your neighbours rather wary. I
think he handled the chaos following his run admirably, and he certainly kept
Austria abreast the future of Europe. Well-played Sun, and thanks
again.
In closing, I have to thank you all for what was a tremendously fun game. I
hope to get an opportunity to play with you all again sometime; it is always a
pleasure to find a group of players who are not only committed to playing
Diplomacy, but who play it well. I hope to see you all in future games.
Best regards,
Adriaan Tichler
P.S. I've uploaded photos of a few of my reasons for abdication, for your
interest.
https://plus.google.com/u/0/photos/101141162735761025862/albums/5677699991823577681
On 7 October 2011 15:21, Sun Chung <sun.chung(at)gmail.com> wrote:
Thanks Robert for GMing - it's a pleasure playing in a
game that you run.
Also, thanks to everyone on the board for a
good game. And for Adriaan for his thoughts/guidance/recommendations
early on in the game. Kudos to him for getting Austria to a great
stage in the game. My big regret is that I was unable to fulfill
Austria's opportunity that Adriaan set up.
For me, the mark of a good
game is when the players are committed and are willing to accept the game
for what it is - a shifting swirl of deals, broken deals, and new deals
being created. It was interesting to see how the dynamics of the game
were able to shift, although I probably contributed to less of that towards
the end of the game. I appreciated that most on the board were open to
thinking about shifting their alliance and at least listened to new
deals.
I missed the early stages of the game, so I can't really
comment much on how the armed neutrals dynamic shaped the early portion of
the game. When Robert asked me to replace Adriaan, I came into the
game thinking 1) what a great opportunity - this power is strong and has a
good lead but 2) Austria's completely surrounded I don't have enough armies
to plug in all the gaps - the lead can fall really quickly.
My first
focus on the game was the complex relationship Austria had with Saxony.
There wasn't a good defensive line set up, and our armies were all
intermixed together. Not a situation I liked. Elsewhere on the
map, it didn't seem like there was strong cooperation between
France/Britain/Spain. Russia was friendly and was trying to build upon
the work that Adriaan had done. Unfortunately for me, I didn't have
much contact with Turkey at the start.
The first order of business
was how to get involved in the game and unwind the tie-up of Austria and
Saxony. I did not feel comfortable with the situation (esp since it
wasn't of my doing!). As Dirk mentioned in his EOG statement, I
typically like strong stable borders. It really bothered me that I
couldn't count on a stable front in any direction. Plus, Saxony was
looking to regain his strength and was pushing to recover some of his home
centers. Adriaan and I agreed that a re-emergence of Saxony would be a
threat to Austria. So my first major decision was that I would not
support Saxony and stab him. That would prevent a rebirth of Saxony
and give me a stable front to work from.
But this created another
problem. It would undoubtedly raise solo alarm bells across the board.
And mark a significant shift in the Austrian' strategy at this point.
Now, my natural desire was to start out slowly, play defensively, and
get my feet wet in the game. I didn't want to be viewed as a loose
cannon coming in brand new. However, being able to discuss strategy
and tactics with Adriaan eased the transition quite a bit. I know that
Ray probably views my stab as a direct consequence of a new replacement
player dropping old agreements, but I was able to get Adriaan's consul on my
first initial moves.
From there, once I determined that Saxony would
be stabbed, and I knew that it would cause alarms on the board, I pushed
full ahead on going for the solo. I probably shouldn't speak for
Adriaan as this is my EOG statement, and not his, but the push for an early
Austrian solo was not created in a vacuum.
My first mistake in
the game was not securing my relationship with Turkey. I think had I
been able to pickup four builds in the first season (that I played) I may
have been able to get enough push to really threaten for a solo. But
for either nervousness with a new player, or I rubbed him the wrong way,
something lead to Turkey taking a center from me, and I only got 3 plus
centers in the first turn.
I didn't think it was the end of the game,
and in some ways, I liked this position much better. I was able to get
a nice stable line against France, I thought I could secure a line against
Turkey and was hoping that Russia wouldn't view me as a long term
threat. But my dreams of an Austria solo were crushed. I tried
my best to say that my push was really only to secure myself against Saxony
and not reach for a solo. It probably fell on deaf ears, but I thought
I would have a chance since it was at least partially true.
From
there, the game switched to survival. I thought I built an okay line
of communication with France (I told him I had to take Savoy since it was
there for the taking in the first year, but I didn't want it to set in stone
the Austrian/French relationship), thought that I could get Turkey to lay
off by letting him keep what he took (Turkey had a good relationship with
the prior Austria), and I thought I could convince Russia that my swing for
a solo was a one and done deal and that I could be a reasonable partner.
All three powers attacked me.
Once Turkey got into the Adriatic
Sea, I was at his mercy. Side note observation - this map creates a
lot of defensive issues for Austria, in particular the way I was set up when
I entered the game. Austria is a land power, but with a home center in
Milan and the host of supply centers in Italy, Austria's sphere of influence
gravitates around the Adriatic. With the Turkish fleet there, I was
forced to keep units bottled up on my southern front. That one fleet
tied up a huge number of my armies. This drove me crazy.
My next
course of action was to work on France and/or Russia into attack Turkey.
While trying to cut a deal with Aiden in any fashion as long as he
left ADR. Deals with Turkey fell apart multiple times, but I fared
better on the diplomatic front. Getting Russia to favor me, while
getting France to cooperate for awhile and attack Turkey.
The end
game stage really boiled down to trying to figure out a way to end the game
without it being a DIAS. I tried really hard to make it a France -
Austria - Russia triple, but neither France nor Russia seemed to trust the
other. What may have worked against me was that I also played up the
potential solo threat that they both presented. Russia could (and did)
have the numbers to sweep across northern Germany and get a solo.
France for a while was a couple of centers lower, but if Turkey got
crippled (and I had a bear of a time trying to get a deal done where we
trusted each other), and Britain got stabbed by France, then no one could
really threaten the French navy. I felt that Austria was the only
credible counter to either solo threats.
For awhile, it worked.
France agreed to not aid Turkey any more, and Russia allowed me to
rush my armies to the west and defend against France's superior land
position over me. Eventually it boiled down to keeping what I had,
while trying diplomatically getting into the three way draw.
At one
point, Russia had the necessary centers at his reach where he could easily
have gone for the solo. I panicked and hedged myself and move some
units, but not all, to cover the open centers. Dirk was surprised but
took it rather well that I tactically split myself. Since he didn't
stab me nor went for a solo directly, I was lulled into thinking that maybe
Russia wasn't in it for a solo at this stage. I had even asked Sweden
(given how close Wladimir was coordinating with Dirk for the bulk of the
game) for advice to get his read on Russia's plans. Whether Wladimir
was equally convinced of Dirk not attempting a solo or was part of the
Russian PR campaign I don't know.
From a tactical stand point,
I was then doomed. I didn't have enough armies to cover all of my
holes, I was at the mercy of Russia not pushing for a solo. And I felt
that I couldn't react too strong or else I would push Russia into thinking I
was an untrustworthy ally and by my preventative action, get Dirk to order
to secure a solo.
In hind-sight, I should've committed one way or the
other. I felt that I was constantly moving my armies east and then
west. I could never build a fleet, which crippled me against Turkey.
And at some point, I should've made a more tactical retreat to shore
up my defensive line against Turkey/France/or Russia.
This has been a
long winded rambling, so apologies for that. And apologies for any
typos in this - trying to do this quickly, across small breaks during my
work day.
Thoughts on the players:
Russia: Good
job. Played skillfully, and got me suckered into thinking you'd be
committed to the draw. Not much I could've done about it even if I
knew about your intentions though. Always enjoyed our conversations
and your willingness to work out deals. Your solo was well
deserved.
France: Enjoyed our conversations, and the
fact that we were able to keep up a dialogue even with disagreements.
I wonder if we could've set up a different outcome had we had a chance to
work together from the beginning. Your warning bells should've been
heeded more in Vienna. I blame the Turks for drowning out your
message!
Ottoman Empire: We got off on the wrong foot
and then continued to break our agreements. I wish we could've some
out untangled the complex tactical mess we were in, but alas, I think our
in-fighting created the biggest opportunity for Russia to solo. You
had me in a difficult spot the entire game, and I don't really blame you for
keeping that dang fleet parked in the Adriatic. Makes sense, but
created all sorts of issues for me. If we cross paths again, I promise
to try harder to get diplomacy working between us.
Poland
Saxony: I do apologize for starting out the game with a
stab. I really felt uncomfortable with the way our units/centers were
intertwined. This is one of those, it's all business, message. I
appreciate your attempts to get back into the game and your willingness to
stick with the game and not drop off.
Britain: We didn't
have a lot of interaction - another hindsight thing where I should've tried
harder. Perhaps the make up of the game would've been
different?
Spain/Prussia/Denmark/Sweden: Unfortunately,
I don't have a lot of comments. I came in at a time where I think your
fates may have already been decided.
All in all, thank you for
giving me this opportunity to play Ambition and Empire. I've been
interested in playing this variant for awhile and would love another
opportunity to play (esp from the beginning). It's been a pleasure
playing with you
all.
Thanks.[Reply] |
| DC386: Initial Archduke's EoG Comments - dknemeyer (Nov 24, 2011, 12:32 am) |
Hi Friends,
In appreciation of Baron's support of his variants, and fulfilling my promise to Robert to GM an advanced variant for him, I have just posted a new game of Ambition and Empire on DC that I shall be GM'ing. I hope to see many of you there!
http://diplomaticcorp.com/game_page.php?game_id=re002
Dirk
On Nov 24, 2011, at 12:24 AM, VonPowell(at)aol.com wrote:
Adriaan,
A very entertaining read.
I don't disagree at all that Denmark-Norway and Poland & Saxony
are challenging (to put it kindly) to play. They are, indeed,
extremely challenging. The key question is are they viable. By
viable I mean that the a DN or PS player should have a "reasonable
expectation" of success if he or she plays well. I think this is the
case. The proof is that I've seen both positions enjoy tremendous
success. Of course I've also seen plenty of spectacular failure. The
true weakness in these positions, in my opinion, is that they have virtually no
margin for error in the early going. Most of the other nations have
at least some wiggle room to work with should they guess incorrectly or be on
the wrong side of a coalition. This wiggle room might not be enough to
overcome a poor start and early elimination, but there is a "chance" to
recover. DN and PS cannot really afford a misstep until they have gained
some traction. They MUST start the game with at least one and preferably
more reliable allies so that they can initially leave a flank unprotected while
focusing their forces on the first objective. Good diplomacy should see DN
and PS as integral parts of coalitions that win the DP battle each
turn and isolate their enemies. If DN and PS can avoid the early
elimination and gain a SC or two, then their prospects start to look
bright.
You are correct. Austria often gets to 8 SCs with little trouble at
all. Getting to 15 SCs is another matter. No power suffers from ELS
more than the Habsburg Empire. Easy early growth frequently turns into
mid-game stagnation. Decline and elimination often follow. I'm not
convinced that trying to avoid looking big is the answer to the Austrian
conundrum. Instead, I think the key for Austrian success
is to be a member in good standing of a successful coalition. This
can be achieved through active diplomacy (no surprise there), largesse with
DPs, open military support to a partner fighting a common or potential
enemy, and judicious sharing of the spoils of victory. Growth within the
coalition does not necessarily need to be equal, however. Austria has
no interest in creating a powerful rival. Instead, growth simply needs to
be "fair enough" that partners believe they benefit from being Austria's
friend. Austrian math should go as follows: one for ally A and one
for ally B and two for me. Austria can probably keep its allies happy
in this manner without too much difficulty until it reaches 11 or 12
SCs. At that point, the dynamics get trickier. Unless Austria
wishes to hold hands with its partners all the way to a draw, it will need to be
ruthless to get those last few SCs. Setting up and timing the rush to
victory is a challenge, but that is what makes the game interesting.
I do believe a correction is in order... I think the article
about A&E's Austria that mentions the Sultan Slayer was written by our
friend Nick Higgens rather than Chris. If I'm mistaken Chris, please
correct me.
I'm looking forward to the next A&E game. Until then...
Happy Stabbing,
Baron
In a message dated 11/21/2011 11:00:44 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
arandia.t(at)gmail.com writes:
Austria post-game - Adriaan (1763-1766):
It has been many turns since I passed control of the Hapsburg Empire to the
capable hands of Sun Chung. Since inheriting control, he has brought Austria
to new heights of glory and accomplished many great things. But as I sit here
writing my memoirs, I hope you can spare a thought for Austria before
she was great. Indeed, there was a time when there were ten kingdoms
seeking to dominate Europe, and Austria was but one of them...
Anyways, so to cut the crap - well, it appears that I am totally incapable
of completing anything if I don't have a looming deadline to pressure me.
Believe it or not, I actually started writing this EOG before the game even
finished! Well, look where I ended up with that... better late than
never?
First off - Robert. A great deal of thanks to you for running such an
organized and professional game. I have previously played a few games with
lackluster GMs, and it makes a huge difference - it is a lot of work for
modest reward, and I hope I can someday repay the favour.
Secondly, congratulations to Dirk, on a well-deserved victory. It is a sign
of a game well-played that even in the last few years, as you approached that
magic number, your allies still saw it as in their interest to work with you
rather than against you. This is no easy feat against what is clearly a strong
table!
Strategy. Well, we may as well begin at the beginning: power selections. As
Robert mentioned in that initial email, the two counties to receive the
highest bids (by a large margin!) were Turkey and Spain. I must own up to
contributing my fair share to those two averages, as I only saved a measly '2'
for Austria. I suppose that, all things considered, there are worse countries
to start with than Austria - I consider it good fortune that I didn't end up
with Saxony or Norway. That is, of course, not to say that there is anything
wrong with either of those countries (Baron), merely that they force a
play style that I don't personally enjoy.
I had done a little reading on A&E prior to this game, and from what I
could tell, Austria tends to suffer from the curse of being the early leader.
Not only does she start with four units, but she is square in the middle of
the most SC-rich part of the board. Austria expands almost involuntarily, at
least at first. Of course, the trade-off for this early success seems to be
middle-game stagnation. Perhaps Baron could shed some light/numbers on this,
but I hoped to try and take a different course in this game. My initial
expansion in Italy was deliberately slower than it could have been (at times
requiring great amounts of willpower), in an attempt to follow this path.
However, beyond this rough outline, I had relatively little in the way of a
long-term plan - too much depends, of course, on the other players
involved.
Chris Dziedzic, in his article on A&E in Diplomacy World, suggests that
Austria's relationship with Turkey is her defining feature; that the Archduke
must play either the Sultan-slayer or the Sultan's best friend. I'm not
convinced that those are the only two options available, but it seemed like as
decent a place as any to start. My initial negotiations with Aidan had been
mostly positive, and I certainly didn't want to commit to an early and
potentially costly war that could limit my other choices. Thus I figured I
would try to work with him, and see if he wouldn't be more interested sailing
ships to Spain than marching armies to Vienna. Over the course of the four
years in which I played, Aidan and I managed to develop a very good rapport.
He struck me as being a very capable and resourceful diplomat, and he was one
of the players I had on my personal short-list if and when it came down to
figuring out who to include in a draw. Perhaps we'll never know just how
successful I was in this (unless Aidan cares to share in *his* EOG),
but at least I think that I left the game with an ally to the south. I
only hope that I wasn't merely playing the sucker who escaped a stabbing,
through an abdication in the nick of time...
Speaking of Nick: early-game Germany. In my initial view, the only real
short-term threat to Austria in the opening year comes from an allied Prussia
and Poland/Saxony. I therefore did what I could to create tensions between
them, with the view to also picking up a few extra cities beyond Austria's
traditional 8-centre Alpine plateau. As it happened, tensions weren't too hard
to achieve - both Nick and Ray seemed to distrust each other from the start.
Overtly I sided with Nick, but as things got more complicated in Germany I'll
admit to ending up with a few mixed motives of my own. While I never directly
attacked Nick, I will admit to not being the best possible ally, either. For
instance, those "crossed wires" in 1764 that resulted in the western Saxon
army surviving a four-unit attack were completely accidental, and the
fact that the surviving Saxon army proceeded to stymie French growth in the
Alps was most unfortunate, and totally coincidental. Nick, given how fluid
things were at the beginning of the game, I only hope that you can forgive
these trespasses.
Nick is obviously a very good player, because he managed to scare everyone
else into a stampede into Germany in short order; that's the most logical
conclusion I can come to. What began as a Prussian-Russian war to the east
took on more ominous tones for Nick once Dirk leveraged Ray to gain the upper
hand. And, of course, nothing brings further attacks like a perceived
weakness. Soon France and Britain were snapping at the Kaiser's heels. Nick
and I had always gotten along very well, but when push came to shove I
realized that I couldn't keep him afloat by myself - I had little choice but
to try and find other players to work with.
My relationship with Dirk is perhaps proof of the old Diplomacy maxim that
if you talk enough, it almost doesn't matter what you're saying. After an
initial slow start, my alliance with Dirk developed into what as probably my
closest in the game. Of course, this belies the fact that our first diplomatic
conversation of much substance was a *colossal* disagreement (something on the
subject of Germany, it went on for pages and caused a few headaches for him
too, I'm sure)! He has since sung me some very high praises in his EOG, so I
imagine that that has been forgiven and forgotten. I'm very glad that I was
able to convince Dirk to not push through central Europe; even if this was
rather self-serving at first, it clearly worked to Dirk's interest as well.
Overall, I found Dirk to be a very reasonable and very canny player, with whom
it was a pleasure to work, and who played the board very well. At one point, I
think he was juggling two, maybe even three vassals - not an easy feat.
Congratulations again, Dirk, on a game well-played.
Mixed in between Nick, Dirk and myself, there was Ray. Now I know there may
be a numerical argument somewhere saying that Poland and Saxony isn't really
all that bad, but I think that it has to be, at the very least, the most
precarious position on the board (whether or not it does decently in
the long run). I found my interactions with Ray to be a little clipped, but
all the same constructive and not unreasonable. Perhaps the brevity can be
excused by the game of 1900 he was also involved in. In a critique of his play
style, I really can't say too much; I initially chose to work with Nick
against Ray mostly on the basis of starting position and rumour (cheering for
the same team as Nick in the Stanly Cup finals probably influenced my position
more than I'd care to admit). Ray, let me assure you - I never intended to
execute the stab that befell you.
I've always felt that Diplomacy is best played when the map does not force
the players into any particular course of action. Thus, I prefer 1900 over
Standard partly because in 1900, Turkey need not fight Austria. In A&E, I
think that the relationship between Austria and France may not approach the
same level of predestination, but it is definitely not a stress-free border.
That is not to say, of course, that France and Austria *need* to fight; merely
that it is easy. I tried to structure my relationship with Warren on the basis
that most of the other players would expect some hostility between the two of
us, and that we could therefore both have an advantage if our borders stayed
unexpectedly calm. Of course, aiding this was the fact that Warren was a good
player and a reasonable person, with whom I saw a fair bit of common interest
(is it ever possible to have a good player that is not reasonable?). I
found our relationship to be cordial, if perhaps a little wary - though
perhaps wariness was warranted, given what happened during my last move. Rest
assured, Warren, I never intended on continuing my cooperation with Ray beyond
that one turn that saw the Saxons march to Burgundy.
Michael, Josiah, Richard, and Wladimir - it was good to meet you all. Some
time I hope to meet you in another game, where we might be located somewhat
closer together, and have somewhat greater interactions. As it was, I hope
that you all got as much enjoyment out of this game as I did.
Finally, the highly-appreciated replacement, Sun Chung. Many thanks, of
course, for taking over my position on such short notice; real life can be
such a pesky thing to have to deal with. The rest of you probably know him
better than I do, as we only had a few short emails between us at the tail end
of my tenure. Nevertheless, as he mentions we did have a few discussions of
some weight - in particular one concerning whether Austria should make a break
for a solo, or risk enmeshed borders with Saxony. Sun has said that I provided
him with council on this; I will admit to sending him a detailed
multi-page discussion and risk assessment outlining how an Archduke
might strike for a solo from eight centres few
suggestions, but in my defense I also made it clear that I had made
no decision whether or not I would actually go about implementing this plan.
All said, I was actually rather glad when Sun agreed to be my replacement, as
he signed on just in time to save me from having to make this very hard
choice. From an outside perspective, I think that there was likely very little
that Sun could have done differently to convert his inherited position into a
solo - changing players is always going to make your neighbours rather wary. I
think he handled the chaos following his run admirably, and he certainly kept
Austria abreast the future of Europe. Well-played Sun, and thanks
again.
In closing, I have to thank you all for what was a tremendously fun game. I
hope to get an opportunity to play with you all again sometime; it is always a
pleasure to find a group of players who are not only committed to playing
Diplomacy, but who play it well. I hope to see you all in future games.
Best regards,
Adriaan Tichler
P.S. I've uploaded photos of a few of my reasons for abdication, for your
interest.
https://plus.google.com/u/0/photos/101141162735761025862/albums/5677699991823577681
On 7 October 2011 15:21, Sun Chung <sun.chung(at)gmail.com> wrote:
Thanks Robert for GMing - it's a pleasure playing in a
game that you run.
Also, thanks to everyone on the board for a
good game. And for Adriaan for his thoughts/guidance/recommendations
early on in the game. Kudos to him for getting Austria to a great
stage in the game. My big regret is that I was unable to fulfill
Austria's opportunity that Adriaan set up.
For me, the mark of a good
game is when the players are committed and are willing to accept the game
for what it is - a shifting swirl of deals, broken deals, and new deals
being created. It was interesting to see how the dynamics of the game
were able to shift, although I probably contributed to less of that towards
the end of the game. I appreciated that most on the board were open to
thinking about shifting their alliance and at least listened to new
deals.
I missed the early stages of the game, so I can't really
comment much on how the armed neutrals dynamic shaped the early portion of
the game. When Robert asked me to replace Adriaan, I came into the
game thinking 1) what a great opportunity - this power is strong and has a
good lead but 2) Austria's completely surrounded I don't have enough armies
to plug in all the gaps - the lead can fall really quickly.
My first
focus on the game was the complex relationship Austria had with Saxony.
There wasn't a good defensive line set up, and our armies were all
intermixed together. Not a situation I liked. Elsewhere on the
map, it didn't seem like there was strong cooperation between
France/Britain/Spain. Russia was friendly and was trying to build upon
the work that Adriaan had done. Unfortunately for me, I didn't have
much contact with Turkey at the start.
The first order of business
was how to get involved in the game and unwind the tie-up of Austria and
Saxony. I did not feel comfortable with the situation (esp since it
wasn't of my doing!). As Dirk mentioned in his EOG statement, I
typically like strong stable borders. It really bothered me that I
couldn't count on a stable front in any direction. Plus, Saxony was
looking to regain his strength and was pushing to recover some of his home
centers. Adriaan and I agreed that a re-emergence of Saxony would be a
threat to Austria. So my first major decision was that I would not
support Saxony and stab him. That would prevent a rebirth of Saxony
and give me a stable front to work from.
But this created another
problem. It would undoubtedly raise solo alarm bells across the board.
And mark a significant shift in the Austrian' strategy at this point.
Now, my natural desire was to start out slowly, play defensively, and
get my feet wet in the game. I didn't want to be viewed as a loose
cannon coming in brand new. However, being able to discuss strategy
and tactics with Adriaan eased the transition quite a bit. I know that
Ray probably views my stab as a direct consequence of a new replacement
player dropping old agreements, but I was able to get Adriaan's consul on my
first initial moves.
From there, once I determined that Saxony would
be stabbed, and I knew that it would cause alarms on the board, I pushed
full ahead on going for the solo. I probably shouldn't speak for
Adriaan as this is my EOG statement, and not his, but the push for an early
Austrian solo was not created in a vacuum.
My first mistake in
the game was not securing my relationship with Turkey. I think had I
been able to pickup four builds in the first season (that I played) I may
have been able to get enough push to really threaten for a solo. But
for either nervousness with a new player, or I rubbed him the wrong way,
something lead to Turkey taking a center from me, and I only got 3 plus
centers in the first turn.
I didn't think it was the end of the game,
and in some ways, I liked this position much better. I was able to get
a nice stable line against France, I thought I could secure a line against
Turkey and was hoping that Russia wouldn't view me as a long term
threat. But my dreams of an Austria solo were crushed. I tried
my best to say that my push was really only to secure myself against Saxony
and not reach for a solo. It probably fell on deaf ears, but I thought
I would have a chance since it was at least partially true.
From
there, the game switched to survival. I thought I built an okay line
of communication with France (I told him I had to take Savoy since it was
there for the taking in the first year, but I didn't want it to set in stone
the Austrian/French relationship), thought that I could get Turkey to lay
off by letting him keep what he took (Turkey had a good relationship with
the prior Austria), and I thought I could convince Russia that my swing for
a solo was a one and done deal and that I could be a reasonable partner.
All three powers attacked me.
Once Turkey got into the Adriatic
Sea, I was at his mercy. Side note observation - this map creates a
lot of defensive issues for Austria, in particular the way I was set up when
I entered the game. Austria is a land power, but with a home center in
Milan and the host of supply centers in Italy, Austria's sphere of influence
gravitates around the Adriatic. With the Turkish fleet there, I was
forced to keep units bottled up on my southern front. That one fleet
tied up a huge number of my armies. This drove me crazy.
My next
course of action was to work on France and/or Russia into attack Turkey.
While trying to cut a deal with Aiden in any fashion as long as he
left ADR. Deals with Turkey fell apart multiple times, but I fared
better on the diplomatic front. Getting Russia to favor me, while
getting France to cooperate for awhile and attack Turkey.
The end
game stage really boiled down to trying to figure out a way to end the game
without it being a DIAS. I tried really hard to make it a France -
Austria - Russia triple, but neither France nor Russia seemed to trust the
other. What may have worked against me was that I also played up the
potential solo threat that they both presented. Russia could (and did)
have the numbers to sweep across northern Germany and get a solo.
France for a while was a couple of centers lower, but if Turkey got
crippled (and I had a bear of a time trying to get a deal done where we
trusted each other), and Britain got stabbed by France, then no one could
really threaten the French navy. I felt that Austria was the only
credible counter to either solo threats.
For awhile, it worked.
France agreed to not aid Turkey any more, and Russia allowed me to
rush my armies to the west and defend against France's superior land
position over me. Eventually it boiled down to keeping what I had,
while trying diplomatically getting into the three way draw.
At one
point, Russia had the necessary centers at his reach where he could easily
have gone for the solo. I panicked and hedged myself and move some
units, but not all, to cover the open centers. Dirk was surprised but
took it rather well that I tactically split myself. Since he didn't
stab me nor went for a solo directly, I was lulled into thinking that maybe
Russia wasn't in it for a solo at this stage. I had even asked Sweden
(given how close Wladimir was coordinating with Dirk for the bulk of the
game) for advice to get his read on Russia's plans. Whether Wladimir
was equally convinced of Dirk not attempting a solo or was part of the
Russian PR campaign I don't know.
From a tactical stand point,
I was then doomed. I didn't have enough armies to cover all of my
holes, I was at the mercy of Russia not pushing for a solo. And I felt
that I couldn't react too strong or else I would push Russia into thinking I
was an untrustworthy ally and by my preventative action, get Dirk to order
to secure a solo.
In hind-sight, I should've committed one way or the
other. I felt that I was constantly moving my armies east and then
west. I could never build a fleet, which crippled me against Turkey.
And at some point, I should've made a more tactical retreat to shore
up my defensive line against Turkey/France/or Russia.
This has been a
long winded rambling, so apologies for that. And apologies for any
typos in this - trying to do this quickly, across small breaks during my
work day.
Thoughts on the players:
Russia: Good
job. Played skillfully, and got me suckered into thinking you'd be
committed to the draw. Not much I could've done about it even if I
knew about your intentions though. Always enjoyed our conversations
and your willingness to work out deals. Your solo was well
deserved.
France: Enjoyed our conversations, and the
fact that we were able to keep up a dialogue even with disagreements.
I wonder if we could've set up a different outcome had we had a chance to
work together from the beginning. Your warning bells should've been
heeded more in Vienna. I blame the Turks for drowning out your
message!
Ottoman Empire: We got off on the wrong foot
and then continued to break our agreements. I wish we could've some
out untangled the complex tactical mess we were in, but alas, I think our
in-fighting created the biggest opportunity for Russia to solo. You
had me in a difficult spot the entire game, and I don't really blame you for
keeping that dang fleet parked in the Adriatic. Makes sense, but
created all sorts of issues for me. If we cross paths again, I promise
to try harder to get diplomacy working between us.
Poland
Saxony: I do apologize for starting out the game with a
stab. I really felt uncomfortable with the way our units/centers were
intertwined. This is one of those, it's all business, message. I
appreciate your attempts to get back into the game and your willingness to
stick with the game and not drop off.
Britain: We didn't
have a lot of interaction - another hindsight thing where I should've tried
harder. Perhaps the make up of the game would've been
different?
Spain/Prussia/Denmark/Sweden: Unfortunately,
I don't have a lot of comments. I came in at a time where I think your
fates may have already been decided.
All in all, thank you for
giving me this opportunity to play Ambition and Empire. I've been
interested in playing this variant for awhile and would love another
opportunity to play (esp from the beginning). It's been a pleasure
playing with you
all.
Thanks.[Reply] |
| DC386: Initial Archduke's EoG Comments - vonpowell (Nov 23, 2011, 11:24 pm) |
Adriaan,
A very entertaining read.
I don't disagree at all that Denmark-Norway and Poland & Saxony
are challenging (to put it kindly) to play. They are, indeed,
extremely challenging. The key question is are they viable. By
viable I mean that the a DN or PS player should have a "reasonable
expectation" of success if he or she plays well. I think this is the
case. The proof is that I've seen both positions enjoy tremendous
success. Of course I've also seen plenty of spectacular failure. The
true weakness in these positions, in my opinion, is that they have virtually no
margin for error in the early going. Most of the other nations have
at least some wiggle room to work with should they guess incorrectly or be on
the wrong side of a coalition. This wiggle room might not be enough to
overcome a poor start and early elimination, but there is a "chance" to
recover. DN and PS cannot really afford a misstep until they have gained
some traction. They MUST start the game with at least one and preferably
more reliable allies so that they can initially leave a flank unprotected while
focusing their forces on the first objective. Good diplomacy should see DN
and PS as integral parts of coalitions that win the DP battle each
turn and isolate their enemies. If DN and PS can avoid the early
elimination and gain a SC or two, then their prospects start to look
bright.
You are correct. Austria often gets to 8 SCs with little trouble at
all. Getting to 15 SCs is another matter. No power suffers from ELS
more than the Habsburg Empire. Easy early growth frequently turns into
mid-game stagnation. Decline and elimination often follow. I'm not
convinced that trying to avoid looking big is the answer to the Austrian
conundrum. Instead, I think the key for Austrian success
is to be a member in good standing of a successful coalition. This
can be achieved through active diplomacy (no surprise there), largesse with
DPs, open military support to a partner fighting a common or potential
enemy, and judicious sharing of the spoils of victory. Growth within the
coalition does not necessarily need to be equal, however. Austria has
no interest in creating a powerful rival. Instead, growth simply needs to
be "fair enough" that partners believe they benefit from being Austria's
friend. Austrian math should go as follows: one for ally A and one
for ally B and two for me. Austria can probably keep its allies happy
in this manner without too much difficulty until it reaches 11 or 12
SCs. At that point, the dynamics get trickier. Unless Austria
wishes to hold hands with its partners all the way to a draw, it will need to be
ruthless to get those last few SCs. Setting up and timing the rush to
victory is a challenge, but that is what makes the game interesting.
I do believe a correction is in order... I think the article
about A&E's Austria that mentions the Sultan Slayer was written by our
friend Nick Higgens rather than Chris. If I'm mistaken Chris, please
correct me.
I'm looking forward to the next A&E game. Until then...
Happy Stabbing,
Baron
In a message dated 11/21/2011 11:00:44 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
arandia.t(at)gmail.com writes:
Austria post-game - Adriaan (1763-1766):
It has been many turns since I passed control of the Hapsburg Empire to the
capable hands of Sun Chung. Since inheriting control, he has brought Austria
to new heights of glory and accomplished many great things. But as I sit here
writing my memoirs, I hope you can spare a thought for Austria before
she was great. Indeed, there was a time when there were ten kingdoms
seeking to dominate Europe, and Austria was but one of them...
Anyways, so to cut the crap - well, it appears that I am totally incapable
of completing anything if I don't have a looming deadline to pressure me.
Believe it or not, I actually started writing this EOG before the game even
finished! Well, look where I ended up with that... better late than
never?
First off - Robert. A great deal of thanks to you for running such an
organized and professional game. I have previously played a few games with
lackluster GMs, and it makes a huge difference - it is a lot of work for
modest reward, and I hope I can someday repay the favour.
Secondly, congratulations to Dirk, on a well-deserved victory. It is a sign
of a game well-played that even in the last few years, as you approached that
magic number, your allies still saw it as in their interest to work with you
rather than against you. This is no easy feat against what is clearly a strong
table!
Strategy. Well, we may as well begin at the beginning: power selections. As
Robert mentioned in that initial email, the two counties to receive the
highest bids (by a large margin!) were Turkey and Spain. I must own up to
contributing my fair share to those two averages, as I only saved a measly '2'
for Austria. I suppose that, all things considered, there are worse countries
to start with than Austria - I consider it good fortune that I didn't end up
with Saxony or Norway. That is, of course, not to say that there is anything
wrong with either of those countries (Baron), merely that they force a
play style that I don't personally enjoy.
I had done a little reading on A&E prior to this game, and from what I
could tell, Austria tends to suffer from the curse of being the early leader.
Not only does she start with four units, but she is square in the middle of
the most SC-rich part of the board. Austria expands almost involuntarily, at
least at first. Of course, the trade-off for this early success seems to be
middle-game stagnation. Perhaps Baron could shed some light/numbers on this,
but I hoped to try and take a different course in this game. My initial
expansion in Italy was deliberately slower than it could have been (at times
requiring great amounts of willpower), in an attempt to follow this path.
However, beyond this rough outline, I had relatively little in the way of a
long-term plan - too much depends, of course, on the other players
involved.
Chris Dziedzic, in his article on A&E in Diplomacy World, suggests that
Austria's relationship with Turkey is her defining feature; that the Archduke
must play either the Sultan-slayer or the Sultan's best friend. I'm not
convinced that those are the only two options available, but it seemed like as
decent a place as any to start. My initial negotiations with Aidan had been
mostly positive, and I certainly didn't want to commit to an early and
potentially costly war that could limit my other choices. Thus I figured I
would try to work with him, and see if he wouldn't be more interested sailing
ships to Spain than marching armies to Vienna. Over the course of the four
years in which I played, Aidan and I managed to develop a very good rapport.
He struck me as being a very capable and resourceful diplomat, and he was one
of the players I had on my personal short-list if and when it came down to
figuring out who to include in a draw. Perhaps we'll never know just how
successful I was in this (unless Aidan cares to share in *his* EOG),
but at least I think that I left the game with an ally to the south. I
only hope that I wasn't merely playing the sucker who escaped a stabbing,
through an abdication in the nick of time...
Speaking of Nick: early-game Germany. In my initial view, the only real
short-term threat to Austria in the opening year comes from an allied Prussia
and Poland/Saxony. I therefore did what I could to create tensions between
them, with the view to also picking up a few extra cities beyond Austria's
traditional 8-centre Alpine plateau. As it happened, tensions weren't too hard
to achieve - both Nick and Ray seemed to distrust each other from the start.
Overtly I sided with Nick, but as things got more complicated in Germany I'll
admit to ending up with a few mixed motives of my own. While I never directly
attacked Nick, I will admit to not being the best possible ally, either. For
instance, those "crossed wires" in 1764 that resulted in the western Saxon
army surviving a four-unit attack were completely accidental, and the
fact that the surviving Saxon army proceeded to stymie French growth in the
Alps was most unfortunate, and totally coincidental. Nick, given how fluid
things were at the beginning of the game, I only hope that you can forgive
these trespasses.
Nick is obviously a very good player, because he managed to scare everyone
else into a stampede into Germany in short order; that's the most logical
conclusion I can come to. What began as a Prussian-Russian war to the east
took on more ominous tones for Nick once Dirk leveraged Ray to gain the upper
hand. And, of course, nothing brings further attacks like a perceived
weakness. Soon France and Britain were snapping at the Kaiser's heels. Nick
and I had always gotten along very well, but when push came to shove I
realized that I couldn't keep him afloat by myself - I had little choice but
to try and find other players to work with.
My relationship with Dirk is perhaps proof of the old Diplomacy maxim that
if you talk enough, it almost doesn't matter what you're saying. After an
initial slow start, my alliance with Dirk developed into what as probably my
closest in the game. Of course, this belies the fact that our first diplomatic
conversation of much substance was a *colossal* disagreement (something on the
subject of Germany, it went on for pages and caused a few headaches for him
too, I'm sure)! He has since sung me some very high praises in his EOG, so I
imagine that that has been forgiven and forgotten. I'm very glad that I was
able to convince Dirk to not push through central Europe; even if this was
rather self-serving at first, it clearly worked to Dirk's interest as well.
Overall, I found Dirk to be a very reasonable and very canny player, with whom
it was a pleasure to work, and who played the board very well. At one point, I
think he was juggling two, maybe even three vassals - not an easy feat.
Congratulations again, Dirk, on a game well-played.
Mixed in between Nick, Dirk and myself, there was Ray. Now I know there may
be a numerical argument somewhere saying that Poland and Saxony isn't really
all that bad, but I think that it has to be, at the very least, the most
precarious position on the board (whether or not it does decently in
the long run). I found my interactions with Ray to be a little clipped, but
all the same constructive and not unreasonable. Perhaps the brevity can be
excused by the game of 1900 he was also involved in. In a critique of his play
style, I really can't say too much; I initially chose to work with Nick
against Ray mostly on the basis of starting position and rumour (cheering for
the same team as Nick in the Stanly Cup finals probably influenced my position
more than I'd care to admit). Ray, let me assure you - I never intended to
execute the stab that befell you.
I've always felt that Diplomacy is best played when the map does not force
the players into any particular course of action. Thus, I prefer 1900 over
Standard partly because in 1900, Turkey need not fight Austria. In A&E, I
think that the relationship between Austria and France may not approach the
same level of predestination, but it is definitely not a stress-free border.
That is not to say, of course, that France and Austria *need* to fight; merely
that it is easy. I tried to structure my relationship with Warren on the basis
that most of the other players would expect some hostility between the two of
us, and that we could therefore both have an advantage if our borders stayed
unexpectedly calm. Of course, aiding this was the fact that Warren was a good
player and a reasonable person, with whom I saw a fair bit of common interest
(is it ever possible to have a good player that is not reasonable?). I
found our relationship to be cordial, if perhaps a little wary - though
perhaps wariness was warranted, given what happened during my last move. Rest
assured, Warren, I never intended on continuing my cooperation with Ray beyond
that one turn that saw the Saxons march to Burgundy.
Michael, Josiah, Richard, and Wladimir - it was good to meet you all. Some
time I hope to meet you in another game, where we might be located somewhat
closer together, and have somewhat greater interactions. As it was, I hope
that you all got as much enjoyment out of this game as I did.
Finally, the highly-appreciated replacement, Sun Chung. Many thanks, of
course, for taking over my position on such short notice; real life can be
such a pesky thing to have to deal with. The rest of you probably know him
better than I do, as we only had a few short emails between us at the tail end
of my tenure. Nevertheless, as he mentions we did have a few discussions of
some weight - in particular one concerning whether Austria should make a break
for a solo, or risk enmeshed borders with Saxony. Sun has said that I provided
him with council on this; I will admit to sending him a detailed
multi-page discussion and risk assessment outlining how an Archduke
might strike for a solo from eight centres few
suggestions, but in my defense I also made it clear that I had made
no decision whether or not I would actually go about implementing this plan.
All said, I was actually rather glad when Sun agreed to be my replacement, as
he signed on just in time to save me from having to make this very hard
choice. From an outside perspective, I think that there was likely very little
that Sun could have done differently to convert his inherited position into a
solo - changing players is always going to make your neighbours rather wary. I
think he handled the chaos following his run admirably, and he certainly kept
Austria abreast the future of Europe. Well-played Sun, and thanks
again.
In closing, I have to thank you all for what was a tremendously fun game. I
hope to get an opportunity to play with you all again sometime; it is always a
pleasure to find a group of players who are not only committed to playing
Diplomacy, but who play it well. I hope to see you all in future games.
Best regards,
Adriaan Tichler
P.S. I've uploaded photos of a few of my reasons for abdication, for your
interest.
https://plus.google.com/u/0/photos/101141162735761025862/albums/5677699991823577681
On 7 October 2011 15:21, Sun Chung <sun.chung(at)gmail.com> wrote:
Thanks Robert for GMing ??? it???s a pleasure playing in a
game that you run.
Also, thanks to everyone on the board for a
good game. And for Adriaan for his thoughts/guidance/recommendations
early on in the game. Kudos to him for getting Austria to a great
stage in the game. My big regret is that I was unable to fulfill
Austria???s opportunity that Adriaan set up.
For me, the mark of a good
game is when the players are committed and are willing to accept the game
for what it is ??? a shifting swirl of deals, broken deals, and new deals
being created. It was interesting to see how the dynamics of the game
were able to shift, although I probably contributed to less of that towards
the end of the game. I appreciated that most on the board were open to
thinking about shifting their alliance and at least listened to new
deals.
I missed the early stages of the game, so I can???t really
comment much on how the armed neutrals dynamic shaped the early portion of
the game. When Robert asked me to replace Adriaan, I came into the
game thinking 1) what a great opportunity ??? this power is strong and has a
good lead but 2) Austria???s completely surrounded I don't have enough armies
to plug in all the gaps - the lead can fall really quickly.
My first
focus on the game was the complex relationship Austria had with Saxony.
There wasn???t a good defensive line set up, and our armies were all
intermixed together. Not a situation I liked. Elsewhere on the
map, it didn???t seem like there was strong cooperation between
France/Britain/Spain. Russia was friendly and was trying to build upon
the work that Adriaan had done. Unfortunately for me, I didn???t have
much contact with Turkey at the start.
The first order of business
was how to get involved in the game and unwind the tie-up of Austria and
Saxony. I did not feel comfortable with the situation (esp since it
wasn???t of my doing!). As Dirk mentioned in his EOG statement, I
typically like strong stable borders. It really bothered me that I
couldn???t count on a stable front in any direction. Plus, Saxony was
looking to regain his strength and was pushing to recover some of his home
centers. Adriaan and I agreed that a re-emergence of Saxony would be a
threat to Austria. So my first major decision was that I would not
support Saxony and stab him. That would prevent a rebirth of Saxony
and give me a stable front to work from.
But this created another
problem. It would undoubtedly raise solo alarm bells across the board.
And mark a significant shift in the Austrian??? strategy at this point.
Now, my natural desire was to start out slowly, play defensively, and
get my feet wet in the game. I didn???t want to be viewed as a loose
cannon coming in brand new. However, being able to discuss strategy
and tactics with Adriaan eased the transition quite a bit. I know that
Ray probably views my stab as a direct consequence of a new replacement
player dropping old agreements, but I was able to get Adriaan???s consul on my
first initial moves.
From there, once I determined that Saxony would
be stabbed, and I knew that it would cause alarms on the board, I pushed
full ahead on going for the solo. I probably shouldn???t speak for
Adriaan as this is my EOG statement, and not his, but the push for an early
Austrian solo was not created in a vacuum.
My first mistake in
the game was not securing my relationship with Turkey. I think had I
been able to pickup four builds in the first season (that I played) I may
have been able to get enough push to really threaten for a solo. But
for either nervousness with a new player, or I rubbed him the wrong way,
something lead to Turkey taking a center from me, and I only got 3 plus
centers in the first turn.
I didn???t think it was the end of the game,
and in some ways, I liked this position much better. I was able to get
a nice stable line against France, I thought I could secure a line against
Turkey and was hoping that Russia wouldn???t view me as a long term
threat. But my dreams of an Austria solo were crushed. I tried
my best to say that my push was really only to secure myself against Saxony
and not reach for a solo. It probably fell on deaf ears, but I thought
I would have a chance since it was at least partially true.
From
there, the game switched to survival. I thought I built an okay line
of communication with France (I told him I had to take Savoy since it was
there for the taking in the first year, but I didn???t want it to set in stone
the Austrian/French relationship), thought that I could get Turkey to lay
off by letting him keep what he took (Turkey had a good relationship with
the prior Austria), and I thought I could convince Russia that my swing for
a solo was a one and done deal and that I could be a reasonable partner.
All three powers attacked me.
Once Turkey got into the Adriatic
Sea, I was at his mercy. Side note observation - this map creates a
lot of defensive issues for Austria, in particular the way I was set up when
I entered the game. Austria is a land power, but with a home center in
Milan and the host of supply centers in Italy, Austria???s sphere of influence
gravitates around the Adriatic. With the Turkish fleet there, I was
forced to keep units bottled up on my southern front. That one fleet
tied up a huge number of my armies. This drove me crazy.
My next
course of action was to work on France and/or Russia into attack Turkey.
While trying to cut a deal with Aiden in any fashion as long as he
left ADR. Deals with Turkey fell apart multiple times, but I fared
better on the diplomatic front. Getting Russia to favor me, while
getting France to cooperate for awhile and attack Turkey.
The end
game stage really boiled down to trying to figure out a way to end the game
without it being a DIAS. I tried really hard to make it a France ???
Austria ??? Russia triple, but neither France nor Russia seemed to trust the
other. What may have worked against me was that I also played up the
potential solo threat that they both presented. Russia could (and did)
have the numbers to sweep across northern Germany and get a solo.
France for a while was a couple of centers lower, but if Turkey got
crippled (and I had a bear of a time trying to get a deal done where we
trusted each other), and Britain got stabbed by France, then no one could
really threaten the French navy. I felt that Austria was the only
credible counter to either solo threats.
For awhile, it worked.
France agreed to not aid Turkey any more, and Russia allowed me to
rush my armies to the west and defend against France???s superior land
position over me. Eventually it boiled down to keeping what I had,
while trying diplomatically getting into the three way draw.
At one
point, Russia had the necessary centers at his reach where he could easily
have gone for the solo. I panicked and hedged myself and move some
units, but not all, to cover the open centers. Dirk was surprised but
took it rather well that I tactically split myself. Since he didn???t
stab me nor went for a solo directly, I was lulled into thinking that maybe
Russia wasn???t in it for a solo at this stage. I had even asked Sweden
(given how close Wladimir was coordinating with Dirk for the bulk of the
game) for advice to get his read on Russia???s plans. Whether Wladimir
was equally convinced of Dirk not attempting a solo or was part of the
Russian PR campaign I don???t know.
From a tactical stand point,
I was then doomed. I didn???t have enough armies to cover all of my
holes, I was at the mercy of Russia not pushing for a solo. And I felt
that I couldn???t react too strong or else I would push Russia into thinking I
was an untrustworthy ally and by my preventative action, get Dirk to order
to secure a solo.
In hind-sight, I should???ve committed one way or the
other. I felt that I was constantly moving my armies east and then
west. I could never build a fleet, which crippled me against Turkey.
And at some point, I should???ve made a more tactical retreat to shore
up my defensive line against Turkey/France/or Russia.
This has been a
long winded rambling, so apologies for that. And apologies for any
typos in this - trying to do this quickly, across small breaks during my
work day.
Thoughts on the players:
Russia: Good
job. Played skillfully, and got me suckered into thinking you'd be
committed to the draw. Not much I could've done about it even if I
knew about your intentions though. Always enjoyed our conversations
and your willingness to work out deals. Your solo was well
deserved.
France: Enjoyed our conversations, and the
fact that we were able to keep up a dialogue even with disagreements.
I wonder if we could've set up a different outcome had we had a chance to
work together from the beginning. Your warning bells should've been
heeded more in Vienna. I blame the Turks for drowning out your
message!
Ottoman Empire: We got off on the wrong foot
and then continued to break our agreements. I wish we could've some
out untangled the complex tactical mess we were in, but alas, I think our
in-fighting created the biggest opportunity for Russia to solo. You
had me in a difficult spot the entire game, and I don't really blame you for
keeping that dang fleet parked in the Adriatic. Makes sense, but
created all sorts of issues for me. If we cross paths again, I promise
to try harder to get diplomacy working between us.
Poland
Saxony: I do apologize for starting out the game with a
stab. I really felt uncomfortable with the way our units/centers were
intertwined. This is one of those, it's all business, message. I
appreciate your attempts to get back into the game and your willingness to
stick with the game and not drop off.
Britain: We didn't
have a lot of interaction - another hindsight thing where I should've tried
harder. Perhaps the make up of the game would've been
different?
Spain/Prussia/Denmark/Sweden: Unfortunately,
I don't have a lot of comments. I came in at a time where I think your
fates may have already been decided.
All in all, thank you for
giving me this opportunity to play Ambition and Empire. I???ve been
interested in playing this variant for awhile and would love another
opportunity to play (esp from the beginning). It's been a pleasure
playing with you
all.
Thanks.[Reply] |
| DC386: Initial Archduke's EoG Comments (dc386) dknemeyer Nov 24, 12:32 am |
Hi Friends,
In appreciation of Baron's support of his variants, and fulfilling my promise to Robert to GM an advanced variant for him, I have just posted a new game of Ambition and Empire on DC that I shall be GM'ing. I hope to see many of you there!
http://diplomaticcorp.com/game_page.php?game_id=re002
Dirk
On Nov 24, 2011, at 12:24 AM, VonPowell(at)aol.com wrote:
Adriaan,
A very entertaining read.
I don't disagree at all that Denmark-Norway and Poland & Saxony
are challenging (to put it kindly) to play. They are, indeed,
extremely challenging. The key question is are they viable. By
viable I mean that the a DN or PS player should have a "reasonable
expectation" of success if he or she plays well. I think this is the
case. The proof is that I've seen both positions enjoy tremendous
success. Of course I've also seen plenty of spectacular failure. The
true weakness in these positions, in my opinion, is that they have virtually no
margin for error in the early going. Most of the other nations have
at least some wiggle room to work with should they guess incorrectly or be on
the wrong side of a coalition. This wiggle room might not be enough to
overcome a poor start and early elimination, but there is a "chance" to
recover. DN and PS cannot really afford a misstep until they have gained
some traction. They MUST start the game with at least one and preferably
more reliable allies so that they can initially leave a flank unprotected while
focusing their forces on the first objective. Good diplomacy should see DN
and PS as integral parts of coalitions that win the DP battle each
turn and isolate their enemies. If DN and PS can avoid the early
elimination and gain a SC or two, then their prospects start to look
bright.
You are correct. Austria often gets to 8 SCs with little trouble at
all. Getting to 15 SCs is another matter. No power suffers from ELS
more than the Habsburg Empire. Easy early growth frequently turns into
mid-game stagnation. Decline and elimination often follow. I'm not
convinced that trying to avoid looking big is the answer to the Austrian
conundrum. Instead, I think the key for Austrian success
is to be a member in good standing of a successful coalition. This
can be achieved through active diplomacy (no surprise there), largesse with
DPs, open military support to a partner fighting a common or potential
enemy, and judicious sharing of the spoils of victory. Growth within the
coalition does not necessarily need to be equal, however. Austria has
no interest in creating a powerful rival. Instead, growth simply needs to
be "fair enough" that partners believe they benefit from being Austria's
friend. Austrian math should go as follows: one for ally A and one
for ally B and two for me. Austria can probably keep its allies happy
in this manner without too much difficulty until it reaches 11 or 12
SCs. At that point, the dynamics get trickier. Unless Austria
wishes to hold hands with its partners all the way to a draw, it will need to be
ruthless to get those last few SCs. Setting up and timing the rush to
victory is a challenge, but that is what makes the game interesting.
I do believe a correction is in order... I think the article
about A&E's Austria that mentions the Sultan Slayer was written by our
friend Nick Higgens rather than Chris. If I'm mistaken Chris, please
correct me.
I'm looking forward to the next A&E game. Until then...
Happy Stabbing,
Baron
In a message dated 11/21/2011 11:00:44 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
arandia.t(at)gmail.com writes:
Austria post-game - Adriaan (1763-1766):
It has been many turns since I passed control of the Hapsburg Empire to the
capable hands of Sun Chung. Since inheriting control, he has brought Austria
to new heights of glory and accomplished many great things. But as I sit here
writing my memoirs, I hope you can spare a thought for Austria before
she was great. Indeed, there was a time when there were ten kingdoms
seeking to dominate Europe, and Austria was but one of them...
Anyways, so to cut the crap - well, it appears that I am totally incapable
of completing anything if I don't have a looming deadline to pressure me.
Believe it or not, I actually started writing this EOG before the game even
finished! Well, look where I ended up with that... better late than
never?
First off - Robert. A great deal of thanks to you for running such an
organized and professional game. I have previously played a few games with
lackluster GMs, and it makes a huge difference - it is a lot of work for
modest reward, and I hope I can someday repay the favour.
Secondly, congratulations to Dirk, on a well-deserved victory. It is a sign
of a game well-played that even in the last few years, as you approached that
magic number, your allies still saw it as in their interest to work with you
rather than against you. This is no easy feat against what is clearly a strong
table!
Strategy. Well, we may as well begin at the beginning: power selections. As
Robert mentioned in that initial email, the two counties to receive the
highest bids (by a large margin!) were Turkey and Spain. I must own up to
contributing my fair share to those two averages, as I only saved a measly '2'
for Austria. I suppose that, all things considered, there are worse countries
to start with than Austria - I consider it good fortune that I didn't end up
with Saxony or Norway. That is, of course, not to say that there is anything
wrong with either of those countries (Baron), merely that they force a
play style that I don't personally enjoy.
I had done a little reading on A&E prior to this game, and from what I
could tell, Austria tends to suffer from the curse of being the early leader.
Not only does she start with four units, but she is square in the middle of
the most SC-rich part of the board. Austria expands almost involuntarily, at
least at first. Of course, the trade-off for this early success seems to be
middle-game stagnation. Perhaps Baron could shed some light/numbers on this,
but I hoped to try and take a different course in this game. My initial
expansion in Italy was deliberately slower than it could have been (at times
requiring great amounts of willpower), in an attempt to follow this path.
However, beyond this rough outline, I had relatively little in the way of a
long-term plan - too much depends, of course, on the other players
involved.
Chris Dziedzic, in his article on A&E in Diplomacy World, suggests that
Austria's relationship with Turkey is her defining feature; that the Archduke
must play either the Sultan-slayer or the Sultan's best friend. I'm not
convinced that those are the only two options available, but it seemed like as
decent a place as any to start. My initial negotiations with Aidan had been
mostly positive, and I certainly didn't want to commit to an early and
potentially costly war that could limit my other choices. Thus I figured I
would try to work with him, and see if he wouldn't be more interested sailing
ships to Spain than marching armies to Vienna. Over the course of the four
years in which I played, Aidan and I managed to develop a very good rapport.
He struck me as being a very capable and resourceful diplomat, and he was one
of the players I had on my personal short-list if and when it came down to
figuring out who to include in a draw. Perhaps we'll never know just how
successful I was in this (unless Aidan cares to share in *his* EOG),
but at least I think that I left the game with an ally to the south. I
only hope that I wasn't merely playing the sucker who escaped a stabbing,
through an abdication in the nick of time...
Speaking of Nick: early-game Germany. In my initial view, the only real
short-term threat to Austria in the opening year comes from an allied Prussia
and Poland/Saxony. I therefore did what I could to create tensions between
them, with the view to also picking up a few extra cities beyond Austria's
traditional 8-centre Alpine plateau. As it happened, tensions weren't too hard
to achieve - both Nick and Ray seemed to distrust each other from the start.
Overtly I sided with Nick, but as things got more complicated in Germany I'll
admit to ending up with a few mixed motives of my own. While I never directly
attacked Nick, I will admit to not being the best possible ally, either. For
instance, those "crossed wires" in 1764 that resulted in the western Saxon
army surviving a four-unit attack were completely accidental, and the
fact that the surviving Saxon army proceeded to stymie French growth in the
Alps was most unfortunate, and totally coincidental. Nick, given how fluid
things were at the beginning of the game, I only hope that you can forgive
these trespasses.
Nick is obviously a very good player, because he managed to scare everyone
else into a stampede into Germany in short order; that's the most logical
conclusion I can come to. What began as a Prussian-Russian war to the east
took on more ominous tones for Nick once Dirk leveraged Ray to gain the upper
hand. And, of course, nothing brings further attacks like a perceived
weakness. Soon France and Britain were snapping at the Kaiser's heels. Nick
and I had always gotten along very well, but when push came to shove I
realized that I couldn't keep him afloat by myself - I had little choice but
to try and find other players to work with.
My relationship with Dirk is perhaps proof of the old Diplomacy maxim that
if you talk enough, it almost doesn't matter what you're saying. After an
initial slow start, my alliance with Dirk developed into what as probably my
closest in the game. Of course, this belies the fact that our first diplomatic
conversation of much substance was a *colossal* disagreement (something on the
subject of Germany, it went on for pages and caused a few headaches for him
too, I'm sure)! He has since sung me some very high praises in his EOG, so I
imagine that that has been forgiven and forgotten. I'm very glad that I was
able to convince Dirk to not push through central Europe; even if this was
rather self-serving at first, it clearly worked to Dirk's interest as well.
Overall, I found Dirk to be a very reasonable and very canny player, with whom
it was a pleasure to work, and who played the board very well. At one point, I
think he was juggling two, maybe even three vassals - not an easy feat.
Congratulations again, Dirk, on a game well-played.
Mixed in between Nick, Dirk and myself, there was Ray. Now I know there may
be a numerical argument somewhere saying that Poland and Saxony isn't really
all that bad, but I think that it has to be, at the very least, the most
precarious position on the board (whether or not it does decently in
the long run). I found my interactions with Ray to be a little clipped, but
all the same constructive and not unreasonable. Perhaps the brevity can be
excused by the game of 1900 he was also involved in. In a critique of his play
style, I really can't say too much; I initially chose to work with Nick
against Ray mostly on the basis of starting position and rumour (cheering for
the same team as Nick in the Stanly Cup finals probably influenced my position
more than I'd care to admit). Ray, let me assure you - I never intended to
execute the stab that befell you.
I've always felt that Diplomacy is best played when the map does not force
the players into any particular course of action. Thus, I prefer 1900 over
Standard partly because in 1900, Turkey need not fight Austria. In A&E, I
think that the relationship between Austria and France may not approach the
same level of predestination, but it is definitely not a stress-free border.
That is not to say, of course, that France and Austria *need* to fight; merely
that it is easy. I tried to structure my relationship with Warren on the basis
that most of the other players would expect some hostility between the two of
us, and that we could therefore both have an advantage if our borders stayed
unexpectedly calm. Of course, aiding this was the fact that Warren was a good
player and a reasonable person, with whom I saw a fair bit of common interest
(is it ever possible to have a good player that is not reasonable?). I
found our relationship to be cordial, if perhaps a little wary - though
perhaps wariness was warranted, given what happened during my last move. Rest
assured, Warren, I never intended on continuing my cooperation with Ray beyond
that one turn that saw the Saxons march to Burgundy.
Michael, Josiah, Richard, and Wladimir - it was good to meet you all. Some
time I hope to meet you in another game, where we might be located somewhat
closer together, and have somewhat greater interactions. As it was, I hope
that you all got as much enjoyment out of this game as I did.
Finally, the highly-appreciated replacement, Sun Chung. Many thanks, of
course, for taking over my position on such short notice; real life can be
such a pesky thing to have to deal with. The rest of you probably know him
better than I do, as we only had a few short emails between us at the tail end
of my tenure. Nevertheless, as he mentions we did have a few discussions of
some weight - in particular one concerning whether Austria should make a break
for a solo, or risk enmeshed borders with Saxony. Sun has said that I provided
him with council on this; I will admit to sending him a detailed
multi-page discussion and risk assessment outlining how an Archduke
might strike for a solo from eight centres few
suggestions, but in my defense I also made it clear that I had made
no decision whether or not I would actually go about implementing this plan.
All said, I was actually rather glad when Sun agreed to be my replacement, as
he signed on just in time to save me from having to make this very hard
choice. From an outside perspective, I think that there was likely very little
that Sun could have done differently to convert his inherited position into a
solo - changing players is always going to make your neighbours rather wary. I
think he handled the chaos following his run admirably, and he certainly kept
Austria abreast the future of Europe. Well-played Sun, and thanks
again.
In closing, I have to thank you all for what was a tremendously fun game. I
hope to get an opportunity to play with you all again sometime; it is always a
pleasure to find a group of players who are not only committed to playing
Diplomacy, but who play it well. I hope to see you all in future games.
Best regards,
Adriaan Tichler
P.S. I've uploaded photos of a few of my reasons for abdication, for your
interest.
https://plus.google.com/u/0/photos/101141162735761025862/albums/5677699991823577681
On 7 October 2011 15:21, Sun Chung <sun.chung(at)gmail.com> wrote:
Thanks Robert for GMing - it's a pleasure playing in a
game that you run.
Also, thanks to everyone on the board for a
good game. And for Adriaan for his thoughts/guidance/recommendations
early on in the game. Kudos to him for getting Austria to a great
stage in the game. My big regret is that I was unable to fulfill
Austria's opportunity that Adriaan set up.
For me, the mark of a good
game is when the players are committed and are willing to accept the game
for what it is - a shifting swirl of deals, broken deals, and new deals
being created. It was interesting to see how the dynamics of the game
were able to shift, although I probably contributed to less of that towards
the end of the game. I appreciated that most on the board were open to
thinking about shifting their alliance and at least listened to new
deals.
I missed the early stages of the game, so I can't really
comment much on how the armed neutrals dynamic shaped the early portion of
the game. When Robert asked me to replace Adriaan, I came into the
game thinking 1) what a great opportunity - this power is strong and has a
good lead but 2) Austria's completely surrounded I don't have enough armies
to plug in all the gaps - the lead can fall really quickly.
My first
focus on the game was the complex relationship Austria had with Saxony.
There wasn't a good defensive line set up, and our armies were all
intermixed together. Not a situation I liked. Elsewhere on the
map, it didn't seem like there was strong cooperation between
France/Britain/Spain. Russia was friendly and was trying to build upon
the work that Adriaan had done. Unfortunately for me, I didn't have
much contact with Turkey at the start.
The first order of business
was how to get involved in the game and unwind the tie-up of Austria and
Saxony. I did not feel comfortable with the situation (esp since it
wasn't of my doing!). As Dirk mentioned in his EOG statement, I
typically like strong stable borders. It really bothered me that I
couldn't count on a stable front in any direction. Plus, Saxony was
looking to regain his strength and was pushing to recover some of his home
centers. Adriaan and I agreed that a re-emergence of Saxony would be a
threat to Austria. So my first major decision was that I would not
support Saxony and stab him. That would prevent a rebirth of Saxony
and give me a stable front to work from.
But this created another
problem. It would undoubtedly raise solo alarm bells across the board.
And mark a significant shift in the Austrian' strategy at this point.
Now, my natural desire was to start out slowly, play defensively, and
get my feet wet in the game. I didn't want to be viewed as a loose
cannon coming in brand new. However, being able to discuss strategy
and tactics with Adriaan eased the transition quite a bit. I know that
Ray probably views my stab as a direct consequence of a new replacement
player dropping old agreements, but I was able to get Adriaan's consul on my
first initial moves.
From there, once I determined that Saxony would
be stabbed, and I knew that it would cause alarms on the board, I pushed
full ahead on going for the solo. I probably shouldn't speak for
Adriaan as this is my EOG statement, and not his, but the push for an early
Austrian solo was not created in a vacuum.
My first mistake in
the game was not securing my relationship with Turkey. I think had I
been able to pickup four builds in the first season (that I played) I may
have been able to get enough push to really threaten for a solo. But
for either nervousness with a new player, or I rubbed him the wrong way,
something lead to Turkey taking a center from me, and I only got 3 plus
centers in the first turn.
I didn't think it was the end of the game,
and in some ways, I liked this position much better. I was able to get
a nice stable line against France, I thought I could secure a line against
Turkey and was hoping that Russia wouldn't view me as a long term
threat. But my dreams of an Austria solo were crushed. I tried
my best to say that my push was really only to secure myself against Saxony
and not reach for a solo. It probably fell on deaf ears, but I thought
I would have a chance since it was at least partially true.
From
there, the game switched to survival. I thought I built an okay line
of communication with France (I told him I had to take Savoy since it was
there for the taking in the first year, but I didn't want it to set in stone
the Austrian/French relationship), thought that I could get Turkey to lay
off by letting him keep what he took (Turkey had a good relationship with
the prior Austria), and I thought I could convince Russia that my swing for
a solo was a one and done deal and that I could be a reasonable partner.
All three powers attacked me.
Once Turkey got into the Adriatic
Sea, I was at his mercy. Side note observation - this map creates a
lot of defensive issues for Austria, in particular the way I was set up when
I entered the game. Austria is a land power, but with a home center in
Milan and the host of supply centers in Italy, Austria's sphere of influence
gravitates around the Adriatic. With the Turkish fleet there, I was
forced to keep units bottled up on my southern front. That one fleet
tied up a huge number of my armies. This drove me crazy.
My next
course of action was to work on France and/or Russia into attack Turkey.
While trying to cut a deal with Aiden in any fashion as long as he
left ADR. Deals with Turkey fell apart multiple times, but I fared
better on the diplomatic front. Getting Russia to favor me, while
getting France to cooperate for awhile and attack Turkey.
The end
game stage really boiled down to trying to figure out a way to end the game
without it being a DIAS. I tried really hard to make it a France -
Austria - Russia triple, but neither France nor Russia seemed to trust the
other. What may have worked against me was that I also played up the
potential solo threat that they both presented. Russia could (and did)
have the numbers to sweep across northern Germany and get a solo.
France for a while was a couple of centers lower, but if Turkey got
crippled (and I had a bear of a time trying to get a deal done where we
trusted each other), and Britain got stabbed by France, then no one could
really threaten the French navy. I felt that Austria was the only
credible counter to either solo threats.
For awhile, it worked.
France agreed to not aid Turkey any more, and Russia allowed me to
rush my armies to the west and defend against France's superior land
position over me. Eventually it boiled down to keeping what I had,
while trying diplomatically getting into the three way draw.
At one
point, Russia had the necessary centers at his reach where he could easily
have gone for the solo. I panicked and hedged myself and move some
units, but not all, to cover the open centers. Dirk was surprised but
took it rather well that I tactically split myself. Since he didn't
stab me nor went for a solo directly, I was lulled into thinking that maybe
Russia wasn't in it for a solo at this stage. I had even asked Sweden
(given how close Wladimir was coordinating with Dirk for the bulk of the
game) for advice to get his read on Russia's plans. Whether Wladimir
was equally convinced of Dirk not attempting a solo or was part of the
Russian PR campaign I don't know.
From a tactical stand point,
I was then doomed. I didn't have enough armies to cover all of my
holes, I was at the mercy of Russia not pushing for a solo. And I felt
that I couldn't react too strong or else I would push Russia into thinking I
was an untrustworthy ally and by my preventative action, get Dirk to order
to secure a solo.
In hind-sight, I should've committed one way or the
other. I felt that I was constantly moving my armies east and then
west. I could never build a fleet, which crippled me against Turkey.
And at some point, I should've made a more tactical retreat to shore
up my defensive line against Turkey/France/or Russia.
This has been a
long winded rambling, so apologies for that. And apologies for any
typos in this - trying to do this quickly, across small breaks during my
work day.
Thoughts on the players:
Russia: Good
job. Played skillfully, and got me suckered into thinking you'd be
committed to the draw. Not much I could've done about it even if I
knew about your intentions though. Always enjoyed our conversations
and your willingness to work out deals. Your solo was well
deserved.
France: Enjoyed our conversations, and the
fact that we were able to keep up a dialogue even with disagreements.
I wonder if we could've set up a different outcome had we had a chance to
work together from the beginning. Your warning bells should've been
heeded more in Vienna. I blame the Turks for drowning out your
message!
Ottoman Empire: We got off on the wrong foot
and then continued to break our agreements. I wish we could've some
out untangled the complex tactical mess we were in, but alas, I think our
in-fighting created the biggest opportunity for Russia to solo. You
had me in a difficult spot the entire game, and I don't really blame you for
keeping that dang fleet parked in the Adriatic. Makes sense, but
created all sorts of issues for me. If we cross paths again, I promise
to try harder to get diplomacy working between us.
Poland
Saxony: I do apologize for starting out the game with a
stab. I really felt uncomfortable with the way our units/centers were
intertwined. This is one of those, it's all business, message. I
appreciate your attempts to get back into the game and your willingness to
stick with the game and not drop off.
Britain: We didn't
have a lot of interaction - another hindsight thing where I should've tried
harder. Perhaps the make up of the game would've been
different?
Spain/Prussia/Denmark/Sweden: Unfortunately,
I don't have a lot of comments. I came in at a time where I think your
fates may have already been decided.
All in all, thank you for
giving me this opportunity to play Ambition and Empire. I've been
interested in playing this variant for awhile and would love another
opportunity to play (esp from the beginning). It's been a pleasure
playing with you
all.
Thanks. |
| DC386: Initial Archduke's EoG Comments (dc386) alwayshunted Nov 24, 12:39 am |
Well then I wouldn't have to play against you... silver tongued devil
Maybe. I agree it's a great variant.
Warren
Subject: Re: DC386: Initial Archduke's EoG Comments
From: dirk(at)knemeyer.com
Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2011 01:32:40 -0500
CC: arandia.t(at)gmail.com; sun.chung(at)gmail.com; wmysonski(at)gmail.com; smileyrob68(at)gmail.com; alwayshunted(at)hotmail.com; Raybrucea(at)aol.com; psychosis(at)sky.com; aislattery(at)aol.com; josiah.henderson(at)gmail.com; nick.s.powell(at)gmail.com; aldous(at)xtra.co.nz; jeffreykase(at)yahoo.com; dipping_chris(at)yahoo.com; dc386(at)diplomaticcorp.com
To: VonPowell(at)aol.com
Hi Friends,
In appreciation of Baron's support of his variants, and fulfilling my promise to Robert to GM an advanced variant for him, I have just posted a new game of Ambition and Empire on DC that I shall be GM'ing. I hope to see many of you there!
http://diplomaticcorp.com/game_page.php?game_id=re002
Dirk
On Nov 24, 2011, at 12:24 AM, VonPowell(at)aol.com wrote:
Adriaan,
A very entertaining read.
I don't disagree at all that Denmark-Norway and Poland & Saxony
are challenging (to put it kindly) to play. They are, indeed,
extremely challenging. The key question is are they viable. By
viable I mean that the a DN or PS player should have a "reasonable
expectation" of success if he or she plays well. I think this is the
case. The proof is that I've seen both positions enjoy tremendous
success. Of course I've also seen plenty of spectacular failure. The
true weakness in these positions, in my opinion, is that they have virtually no
margin for error in the early going. Most of the other nations have
at least some wiggle room to work with should they guess incorrectly or be on
the wrong side of a coalition. This wiggle room might not be enough to
overcome a poor start and early elimination, but there is a "chance" to
recover. DN and PS cannot really afford a misstep until they have gained
some traction. They MUST start the game with at least one and preferably
more reliable allies so that they can initially leave a flank unprotected while
focusing their forces on the first objective. Good diplomacy should see DN
and PS as integral parts of coalitions that win the DP battle each
turn and isolate their enemies. If DN and PS can avoid the early
elimination and gain a SC or two, then their prospects start to look
bright.
You are correct. Austria often gets to 8 SCs with little trouble at
all. Getting to 15 SCs is another matter. No power suffers from ELS
more than the Habsburg Empire. Easy early growth frequently turns into
mid-game stagnation. Decline and elimination often follow. I'm not
convinced that trying to avoid looking big is the answer to the Austrian
conundrum. Instead, I think the key for Austrian success
is to be a member in good standing of a successful coalition. This
can be achieved through active diplomacy (no surprise there), largesse with
DPs, open military support to a partner fighting a common or potential
enemy, and judicious sharing of the spoils of victory. Growth within the
coalition does not necessarily need to be equal, however. Austria has
no interest in creating a powerful rival. Instead, growth simply needs to
be "fair enough" that partners believe they benefit from being Austria's
friend. Austrian math should go as follows: one for ally A and one
for ally B and two for me. Austria can probably keep its allies happy
in this manner without too much difficulty until it reaches 11 or 12
SCs. At that point, the dynamics get trickier. Unless Austria
wishes to hold hands with its partners all the way to a draw, it will need to be
ruthless to get those last few SCs. Setting up and timing the rush to
victory is a challenge, but that is what makes the game interesting.
I do believe a correction is in order... I think the article
about A&E's Austria that mentions the Sultan Slayer was written by our
friend Nick Higgens rather than Chris. If I'm mistaken Chris, please
correct me.
I'm looking forward to the next A&E game. Until then...
Happy Stabbing,
Baron
In a message dated 11/21/2011 11:00:44 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
arandia.t(at)gmail.com writes:
Austria post-game - Adriaan (1763-1766):
It has been many turns since I passed control of the Hapsburg Empire to the
capable hands of Sun Chung. Since inheriting control, he has brought Austria
to new heights of glory and accomplished many great things. But as I sit here
writing my memoirs, I hope you can spare a thought for Austria before
she was great. Indeed, there was a time when there were ten kingdoms
seeking to dominate Europe, and Austria was but one of them...
Anyways, so to cut the crap - well, it appears that I am totally incapable
of completing anything if I don't have a looming deadline to pressure me.
Believe it or not, I actually started writing this EOG before the game even
finished! Well, look where I ended up with that... better late than
never?
First off - Robert. A great deal of thanks to you for running such an
organized and professional game. I have previously played a few games with
lackluster GMs, and it makes a huge difference - it is a lot of work for
modest reward, and I hope I can someday repay the favour.
Secondly, congratulations to Dirk, on a well-deserved victory. It is a sign
of a game well-played that even in the last few years, as you approached that
magic number, your allies still saw it as in their interest to work with you
rather than against you. This is no easy feat against what is clearly a strong
table!
Strategy. Well, we may as well begin at the beginning: power selections. As
Robert mentioned in that initial email, the two counties to receive the
highest bids (by a large margin!) were Turkey and Spain. I must own up to
contributing my fair share to those two averages, as I only saved a measly '2'
for Austria. I suppose that, all things considered, there are worse countries
to start with than Austria - I consider it good fortune that I didn't end up
with Saxony or Norway. That is, of course, not to say that there is anything
wrong with either of those countries (Baron), merely that they force a
play style that I don't personally enjoy.
I had done a little reading on A&E prior to this game, and from what I
could tell, Austria tends to suffer from the curse of being the early leader.
Not only does she start with four units, but she is square in the middle of
the most SC-rich part of the board. Austria expands almost involuntarily, at
least at first. Of course, the trade-off for this early success seems to be
middle-game stagnation. Perhaps Baron could shed some light/numbers on this,
but I hoped to try and take a different course in this game. My initial
expansion in Italy was deliberately slower than it could have been (at times
requiring great amounts of willpower), in an attempt to follow this path.
However, beyond this rough outline, I had relatively little in the way of a
long-term plan - too much depends, of course, on the other players
involved.
Chris Dziedzic, in his article on A&E in Diplomacy World, suggests that
Austria's relationship with Turkey is her defining feature; that the Archduke
must play either the Sultan-slayer or the Sultan's best friend. I'm not
convinced that those are the only two options available, but it seemed like as
decent a place as any to start. My initial negotiations with Aidan had been
mostly positive, and I certainly didn't want to commit to an early and
potentially costly war that could limit my other choices. Thus I figured I
would try to work with him, and see if he wouldn't be more interested sailing
ships to Spain than marching armies to Vienna. Over the course of the four
years in which I played, Aidan and I managed to develop a very good rapport.
He struck me as being a very capable and resourceful diplomat, and he was one
of the players I had on my personal short-list if and when it came down to
figuring out who to include in a draw. Perhaps we'll never know just how
successful I was in this (unless Aidan cares to share in *his* EOG),
but at least I think that I left the game with an ally to the south. I
only hope that I wasn't merely playing the sucker who escaped a stabbing,
through an abdication in the nick of time...
Speaking of Nick: early-game Germany. In my initial view, the only real
short-term threat to Austria in the opening year comes from an allied Prussia
and Poland/Saxony. I therefore did what I could to create tensions between
them, with the view to also picking up a few extra cities beyond Austria's
traditional 8-centre Alpine plateau. As it happened, tensions weren't too hard
to achieve - both Nick and Ray seemed to distrust each other from the start.
Overtly I sided with Nick, but as things got more complicated in Germany I'll
admit to ending up with a few mixed motives of my own. While I never directly
attacked Nick, I will admit to not being the best possible ally, either. For
instance, those "crossed wires" in 1764 that resulted in the western Saxon
army surviving a four-unit attack were completely accidental, and the
fact that the surviving Saxon army proceeded to stymie French growth in the
Alps was most unfortunate, and totally coincidental. Nick, given how fluid
things were at the beginning of the game, I only hope that you can forgive
these trespasses.
Nick is obviously a very good player, because he managed to scare everyone
else into a stampede into Germany in short order; that's the most logical
conclusion I can come to. What began as a Prussian-Russian war to the east
took on more ominous tones for Nick once Dirk leveraged Ray to gain the upper
hand. And, of course, nothing brings further attacks like a perceived
weakness. Soon France and Britain were snapping at the Kaiser's heels. Nick
and I had always gotten along very well, but when push came to shove I
realized that I couldn't keep him afloat by myself - I had little choice but
to try and find other players to work with.
My relationship with Dirk is perhaps proof of the old Diplomacy maxim that
if you talk enough, it almost doesn't matter what you're saying. After an
initial slow start, my alliance with Dirk developed into what as probably my
closest in the game. Of course, this belies the fact that our first diplomatic
conversation of much substance was a *colossal* disagreement (something on the
subject of Germany, it went on for pages and caused a few headaches for him
too, I'm sure)! He has since sung me some very high praises in his EOG, so I
imagine that that has been forgiven and forgotten. I'm very glad that I was
able to convince Dirk to not push through central Europe; even if this was
rather self-serving at first, it clearly worked to Dirk's interest as well.
Overall, I found Dirk to be a very reasonable and very canny player, with whom
it was a pleasure to work, and who played the board very well. At one point, I
think he was juggling two, maybe even three vassals - not an easy feat.
Congratulations again, Dirk, on a game well-played.
Mixed in between Nick, Dirk and myself, there was Ray. Now I know there may
be a numerical argument somewhere saying that Poland and Saxony isn't really
all that bad, but I think that it has to be, at the very least, the most
precarious position on the board (whether or not it does decently in
the long run). I found my interactions with Ray to be a little clipped, but
all the same constructive and not unreasonable. Perhaps the brevity can be
excused by the game of 1900 he was also involved in. In a critique of his play
style, I really can't say too much; I initially chose to work with Nick
against Ray mostly on the basis of starting position and rumour (cheering for
the same team as Nick in the Stanly Cup finals probably influenced my position
more than I'd care to admit). Ray, let me assure you - I never intended to
execute the stab that befell you.
I've always felt that Diplomacy is best played when the map does not force
the players into any particular course of action. Thus, I prefer 1900 over
Standard partly because in 1900, Turkey need not fight Austria. In A&E, I
think that the relationship between Austria and France may not approach the
same level of predestination, but it is definitely not a stress-free border.
That is not to say, of course, that France and Austria *need* to fight; merely
that it is easy. I tried to structure my relationship with Warren on the basis
that most of the other players would expect some hostility between the two of
us, and that we could therefore both have an advantage if our borders stayed
unexpectedly calm. Of course, aiding this was the fact that Warren was a good
player and a reasonable person, with whom I saw a fair bit of common interest
(is it ever possible to have a good player that is not reasonable?). I
found our relationship to be cordial, if perhaps a little wary - though
perhaps wariness was warranted, given what happened during my last move. Rest
assured, Warren, I never intended on continuing my cooperation with Ray beyond
that one turn that saw the Saxons march to Burgundy.
Michael, Josiah, Richard, and Wladimir - it was good to meet you all. Some
time I hope to meet you in another game, where we might be located somewhat
closer together, and have somewhat greater interactions. As it was, I hope
that you all got as much enjoyment out of this game as I did.
Finally, the highly-appreciated replacement, Sun Chung. Many thanks, of
course, for taking over my position on such short notice; real life can be
such a pesky thing to have to deal with. The rest of you probably know him
better than I do, as we only had a few short emails between us at the tail end
of my tenure. Nevertheless, as he mentions we did have a few discussions of
some weight - in particular one concerning whether Austria should make a break
for a solo, or risk enmeshed borders with Saxony. Sun has said that I provided
him with council on this; I will admit to sending him a detailed
multi-page discussion and risk assessment outlining how an Archduke
might strike for a solo from eight centres few
suggestions, but in my defense I also made it clear that I had made
no decision whether or not I would actually go about implementing this plan.
All said, I was actually rather glad when Sun agreed to be my replacement, as
he signed on just in time to save me from having to make this very hard
choice. From an outside perspective, I think that there was likely very little
that Sun could have done differently to convert his inherited position into a
solo - changing players is always going to make your neighbours rather wary. I
think he handled the chaos following his run admirably, and he certainly kept
Austria abreast the future of Europe. Well-played Sun, and thanks
again.
In closing, I have to thank you all for what was a tremendously fun game. I
hope to get an opportunity to play with you all again sometime; it is always a
pleasure to find a group of players who are not only committed to playing
Diplomacy, but who play it well. I hope to see you all in future games.
Best regards,
Adriaan Tichler
P.S. I've uploaded photos of a few of my reasons for abdication, for your
interest.
https://plus.google.com/u/0/photos/101141162735761025862/albums/5677699991823577681
On 7 October 2011 15:21, Sun Chung <sun.chung(at)gmail.com> wrote:
Thanks Robert for GMing - it's a pleasure playing in a
game that you run.
Also, thanks to everyone on the board for a
good game. And for Adriaan for his thoughts/guidance/recommendations
early on in the game. Kudos to him for getting Austria to a great
stage in the game. My big regret is that I was unable to fulfill
Austria's opportunity that Adriaan set up.
For me, the mark of a good
game is when the players are committed and are willing to accept the game
for what it is - a shifting swirl of deals, broken deals, and new deals
being created. It was interesting to see how the dynamics of the game
were able to shift, although I probably contributed to less of that towards
the end of the game. I appreciated that most on the board were open to
thinking about shifting their alliance and at least listened to new
deals.
I missed the early stages of the game, so I can't really
comment much on how the armed neutrals dynamic shaped the early portion of
the game. When Robert asked me to replace Adriaan, I came into the
game thinking 1) what a great opportunity - this power is strong and has a
good lead but 2) Austria's completely surrounded I don't have enough armies
to plug in all the gaps - the lead can fall really quickly.
My first
focus on the game was the complex relationship Austria had with Saxony.
There wasn't a good defensive line set up, and our armies were all
intermixed together. Not a situation I liked. Elsewhere on the
map, it didn't seem like there was strong cooperation between
France/Britain/Spain. Russia was friendly and was trying to build upon
the work that Adriaan had done. Unfortunately for me, I didn't have
much contact with Turkey at the start.
The first order of business
was how to get involved in the game and unwind the tie-up of Austria and
Saxony. I did not feel comfortable with the situation (esp since it
wasn't of my doing!). As Dirk mentioned in his EOG statement, I
typically like strong stable borders. It really bothered me that I
couldn't count on a stable front in any direction. Plus, Saxony was
looking to regain his strength and was pushing to recover some of his home
centers. Adriaan and I agreed that a re-emergence of Saxony would be a
threat to Austria. So my first major decision was that I would not
support Saxony and stab him. That would prevent a rebirth of Saxony
and give me a stable front to work from.
But this created another
problem. It would undoubtedly raise solo alarm bells across the board.
And mark a significant shift in the Austrian' strategy at this point.
Now, my natural desire was to start out slowly, play defensively, and
get my feet wet in the game. I didn't want to be viewed as a loose
cannon coming in brand new. However, being able to discuss strategy
and tactics with Adriaan eased the transition quite a bit. I know that
Ray probably views my stab as a direct consequence of a new replacement
player dropping old agreements, but I was able to get Adriaan's consul on my
first initial moves.
From there, once I determined that Saxony would
be stabbed, and I knew that it would cause alarms on the board, I pushed
full ahead on going for the solo. I probably shouldn't speak for
Adriaan as this is my EOG statement, and not his, but the push for an early
Austrian solo was not created in a vacuum.
My first mistake in
the game was not securing my relationship with Turkey. I think had I
been able to pickup four builds in the first season (that I played) I may
have been able to get enough push to really threaten for a solo. But
for either nervousness with a new player, or I rubbed him the wrong way,
something lead to Turkey taking a center from me, and I only got 3 plus
centers in the first turn.
I didn't think it was the end of the game,
and in some ways, I liked this position much better. I was able to get
a nice stable line against France, I thought I could secure a line against
Turkey and was hoping that Russia wouldn't view me as a long term
threat. But my dreams of an Austria solo were crushed. I tried
my best to say that my push was really only to secure myself against Saxony
and not reach for a solo. It probably fell on deaf ears, but I thought
I would have a chance since it was at least partially true.
From
there, the game switched to survival. I thought I built an okay line
of communication with France (I told him I had to take Savoy since it was
there for the taking in the first year, but I didn't want it to set in stone
the Austrian/French relationship), thought that I could get Turkey to lay
off by letting him keep what he took (Turkey had a good relationship with
the prior Austria), and I thought I could convince Russia that my swing for
a solo was a one and done deal and that I could be a reasonable partner.
All three powers attacked me.
Once Turkey got into the Adriatic
Sea, I was at his mercy. Side note observation - this map creates a
lot of defensive issues for Austria, in particular the way I was set up when
I entered the game. Austria is a land power, but with a home center in
Milan and the host of supply centers in Italy, Austria's sphere of influence
gravitates around the Adriatic. With the Turkish fleet there, I was
forced to keep units bottled up on my southern front. That one fleet
tied up a huge number of my armies. This drove me crazy.
My next
course of action was to work on France and/or Russia into attack Turkey.
While trying to cut a deal with Aiden in any fashion as long as he
left ADR. Deals with Turkey fell apart multiple times, but I fared
better on the diplomatic front. Getting Russia to favor me, while
getting France to cooperate for awhile and attack Turkey.
The end
game stage really boiled down to trying to figure out a way to end the game
without it being a DIAS. I tried really hard to make it a France -
Austria - Russia triple, but neither France nor Russia seemed to trust the
other. What may have worked against me was that I also played up the
potential solo threat that they both presented. Russia could (and did)
have the numbers to sweep across northern Germany and get a solo.
France for a while was a couple of centers lower, but if Turkey got
crippled (and I had a bear of a time trying to get a deal done where we
trusted each other), and Britain got stabbed by France, then no one could
really threaten the French navy. I felt that Austria was the only
credible counter to either solo threats.
For awhile, it worked.
France agreed to not aid Turkey any more, and Russia allowed me to
rush my armies to the west and defend against France's superior land
position over me. Eventually it boiled down to keeping what I had,
while trying diplomatically getting into the three way draw.
At one
point, Russia had the necessary centers at his reach where he could easily
have gone for the solo. I panicked and hedged myself and move some
units, but not all, to cover the open centers. Dirk was surprised but
took it rather well that I tactically split myself. Since he didn't
stab me nor went for a solo directly, I was lulled into thinking that maybe
Russia wasn't in it for a solo at this stage. I had even asked Sweden
(given how close Wladimir was coordinating with Dirk for the bulk of the
game) for advice to get his read on Russia's plans. Whether Wladimir
was equally convinced of Dirk not attempting a solo or was part of the
Russian PR campaign I don't know.
From a tactical stand point,
I was then doomed. I didn't have enough armies to cover all of my
holes, I was at the mercy of Russia not pushing for a solo. And I felt
that I couldn't react too strong or else I would push Russia into thinking I
was an untrustworthy ally and by my preventative action, get Dirk to order
to secure a solo.
In hind-sight, I should've committed one way or the
other. I felt that I was constantly moving my armies east and then
west. I could never build a fleet, which crippled me against Turkey.
And at some point, I should've made a more tactical retreat to shore
up my defensive line against Turkey/France/or Russia.
This has been a
long winded rambling, so apologies for that. And apologies for any
typos in this - trying to do this quickly, across small breaks during my
work day.
Thoughts on the players:
Russia: Good
job. Played skillfully, and got me suckered into thinking you'd be
committed to the draw. Not much I could've done about it even if I
knew about your intentions though. Always enjoyed our conversations
and your willingness to work out deals. Your solo was well
deserved.
France: Enjoyed our conversations, and the
fact that we were able to keep up a dialogue even with disagreements.
I wonder if we could've set up a different outcome had we had a chance to
work together from the beginning. Your warning bells should've been
heeded more in Vienna. I blame the Turks for drowning out your
message!
Ottoman Empire: We got off on the wrong foot
and then continued to break our agreements. I wish we could've some
out untangled the complex tactical mess we were in, but alas, I think our
in-fighting created the biggest opportunity for Russia to solo. You
had me in a difficult spot the entire game, and I don't really blame you for
keeping that dang fleet parked in the Adriatic. Makes sense, but
created all sorts of issues for me. If we cross paths again, I promise
to try harder to get diplomacy working between us.
Poland
Saxony: I do apologize for starting out the game with a
stab. I really felt uncomfortable with the way our units/centers were
intertwined. This is one of those, it's all business, message. I
appreciate your attempts to get back into the game and your willingness to
stick with the game and not drop off.
Britain: We didn't
have a lot of interaction - another hindsight thing where I should've tried
harder. Perhaps the make up of the game would've been
different?
Spain/Prussia/Denmark/Sweden: Unfortunately,
I don't have a lot of comments. I came in at a time where I think your
fates may have already been decided.
All in all, thank you for
giving me this opportunity to play Ambition and Empire. I've been
interested in playing this variant for awhile and would love another
opportunity to play (esp from the beginning). It's been a pleasure
playing with you
all.
Thanks. |
| DC386: Initial Archduke's EoG Comments (dc386) DrSwordopolis Nov 24, 01:07 am |
|
| DC386: Initial Archduke's EoG Comments (dc386) alwayshunted Nov 24, 01:19 am |
Hi Nick. Yah.... my bad as well. But you are soooo far away.
Don't think I haven't been watching. I have no idea where you will convoy (or if) but I'm waiting excitedly to see. I love those global variants when you can occupy the northern oceans.
W
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2011 23:07:17 -0800
Subject: Re: DC386: Initial Archduke's EoG Comments
From: nick.s.powell(at)gmail.com
To: alwayshunted(at)hotmail.com
CC: dirk(at)knemeyer.com; vonpowell(at)aol.com; arandia.t(at)gmail.com; sun.chung(at)gmail.com; wmysonski(at)gmail.com; smileyrob68(at)gmail.com; raybrucea(at)aol.com; psychosis(at)sky.com; aislattery(at)aol.com; josiah.henderson(at)gmail.com; aldous(at)xtra.co.nz; jeffreykase(at)yahoo.com; dipping_chris(at)yahoo.com; dc386(at)diplomaticcorp.com
But, but... I don't have enough time to play properly! Maybe after the move... no, no, Nick what are you saying... but I have to avenge my loss\prove to that I'm not actually a very good Diplomacy player after all...
Ai yah. Don't think I'll be joining that one. I'm having enough trouble being chatty in the one game I'm in. I haven't even talked to some of the players on the other side of the board yet (Hi Warren)...
-Nick
On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 10:39 PM, Warren Fleming <alwayshunted(at)hotmail.com> wrote:
Well then I wouldn't have to play against you... silver tongued devil
Maybe. I agree it's a great variant.
Warren
Subject: Re: DC386: Initial Archduke's EoG Comments
From: dirk(at)knemeyer.com
Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2011 01:32:40 -0500
CC: arandia.t(at)gmail.com; sun.chung(at)gmail.com; wmysonski(at)gmail.com; smileyrob68(at)gmail.com; alwayshunted(at)hotmail.com; Raybrucea(at)aol.com; psychosis(at)sky.com; aislattery(at)aol.com; josiah.henderson(at)gmail.com; nick.s.powell(at)gmail.com; aldous(at)xtra.co.nz; jeffreykase(at)yahoo.com; dipping_chris(at)yahoo.com; dc386(at)diplomaticcorp.com
To: VonPowell(at)aol.com
Hi Friends,
In appreciation of Baron's support of his variants, and fulfilling my promise to Robert to GM an advanced variant for him, I have just posted a new game of Ambition and Empire on DC that I shall be GM'ing. I hope to see many of you there!
http://diplomaticcorp.com/game_page.php?game_id=re002
Dirk
On Nov 24, 2011, at 12:24 AM, VonPowell(at)aol.com wrote:
Adriaan,
A very entertaining read.
I don't disagree at all that Denmark-Norway and Poland & Saxony
are challenging (to put it kindly) to play. They are, indeed,
extremely challenging. The key question is are they viable. By
viable I mean that the a DN or PS player should have a "reasonable
expectation" of success if he or she plays well. I think this is the
case. The proof is that I've seen both positions enjoy tremendous
success. Of course I've also seen plenty of spectacular failure. The
true weakness in these positions, in my opinion, is that they have virtually no
margin for error in the early going. Most of the other nations have
at least some wiggle room to work with should they guess incorrectly or be on
the wrong side of a coalition. This wiggle room might not be enough to
overcome a poor start and early elimination, but there is a "chance" to
recover. DN and PS cannot really afford a misstep until they have gained
some traction. They MUST start the game with at least one and preferably
more reliable allies so that they can initially leave a flank unprotected while
focusing their forces on the first objective. Good diplomacy should see DN
and PS as integral parts of coalitions that win the DP battle each
turn and isolate their enemies. If DN and PS can avoid the early
elimination and gain a SC or two, then their prospects start to look
bright.
You are correct. Austria often gets to 8 SCs with little trouble at
all. Getting to 15 SCs is another matter. No power suffers from ELS
more than the Habsburg Empire. Easy early growth frequently turns into
mid-game stagnation. Decline and elimination often follow. I'm not
convinced that trying to avoid looking big is the answer to the Austrian
conundrum. Instead, I think the key for Austrian success
is to be a member in good standing of a successful coalition. This
can be achieved through active diplomacy (no surprise there), largesse with
DPs, open military support to a partner fighting a common or potential
enemy, and judicious sharing of the spoils of victory. Growth within the
coalition does not necessarily need to be equal, however. Austria has
no interest in creating a powerful rival. Instead, growth simply needs to
be "fair enough" that partners believe they benefit from being Austria's
friend. Austrian math should go as follows: one for ally A and one
for ally B and two for me. Austria can probably keep its allies happy
in this manner without too much difficulty until it reaches 11 or 12
SCs. At that point, the dynamics get trickier. Unless Austria
wishes to hold hands with its partners all the way to a draw, it will need to be
ruthless to get those last few SCs. Setting up and timing the rush to
victory is a challenge, but that is what makes the game interesting.
I do believe a correction is in order... I think the article
about A&E's Austria that mentions the Sultan Slayer was written by our
friend Nick Higgens rather than Chris. If I'm mistaken Chris, please
correct me.
I'm looking forward to the next A&E game. Until then...
Happy Stabbing,
Baron
In a message dated 11/21/2011 11:00:44 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
arandia.t(at)gmail.com writes:
Austria post-game - Adriaan (1763-1766):
It has been many turns since I passed control of the Hapsburg Empire to the
capable hands of Sun Chung. Since inheriting control, he has brought Austria
to new heights of glory and accomplished many great things. But as I sit here
writing my memoirs, I hope you can spare a thought for Austria before
she was great. Indeed, there was a time when there were ten kingdoms
seeking to dominate Europe, and Austria was but one of them...
Anyways, so to cut the crap - well, it appears that I am totally incapable
of completing anything if I don't have a looming deadline to pressure me.
Believe it or not, I actually started writing this EOG before the game even
finished! Well, look where I ended up with that... better late than
never?
First off - Robert. A great deal of thanks to you for running such an
organized and professional game. I have previously played a few games with
lackluster GMs, and it makes a huge difference - it is a lot of work for
modest reward, and I hope I can someday repay the favour.
Secondly, congratulations to Dirk, on a well-deserved victory. It is a sign
of a game well-played that even in the last few years, as you approached that
magic number, your allies still saw it as in their interest to work with you
rather than against you. This is no easy feat against what is clearly a strong
table!
Strategy. Well, we may as well begin at the beginning: power selections. As
Robert mentioned in that initial email, the two counties to receive the
highest bids (by a large margin!) were Turkey and Spain. I must own up to
contributing my fair share to those two averages, as I only saved a measly '2'
for Austria. I suppose that, all things considered, there are worse countries
to start with than Austria - I consider it good fortune that I didn't end up
with Saxony or Norway. That is, of course, not to say that there is anything
wrong with either of those countries (Baron), merely that they force a
play style that I don't personally enjoy.
I had done a little reading on A&E prior to this game, and from what I
could tell, Austria tends to suffer from the curse of being the early leader.
Not only does she start with four units, but she is square in the middle of
the most SC-rich part of the board. Austria expands almost involuntarily, at
least at first. Of course, the trade-off for this early success seems to be
middle-game stagnation. Perhaps Baron could shed some light/numbers on this,
but I hoped to try and take a different course in this game. My initial
expansion in Italy was deliberately slower than it could have been (at times
requiring great amounts of willpower), in an attempt to follow this path.
However, beyond this rough outline, I had relatively little in the way of a
long-term plan - too much depends, of course, on the other players
involved.
Chris Dziedzic, in his article on A&E in Diplomacy World, suggests that
Austria's relationship with Turkey is her defining feature; that the Archduke
must play either the Sultan-slayer or the Sultan's best friend. I'm not
convinced that those are the only two options available, but it seemed like as
decent a place as any to start. My initial negotiations with Aidan had been
mostly positive, and I certainly didn't want to commit to an early and
potentially costly war that could limit my other choices. Thus I figured I
would try to work with him, and see if he wouldn't be more interested sailing
ships to Spain than marching armies to Vienna. Over the course of the four
years in which I played, Aidan and I managed to develop a very good rapport.
He struck me as being a very capable and resourceful diplomat, and he was one
of the players I had on my personal short-list if and when it came down to
figuring out who to include in a draw. Perhaps we'll never know just how
successful I was in this (unless Aidan cares to share in *his* EOG),
but at least I think that I left the game with an ally to the south. I
only hope that I wasn't merely playing the sucker who escaped a stabbing,
through an abdication in the nick of time...
Speaking of Nick: early-game Germany. In my initial view, the only real
short-term threat to Austria in the opening year comes from an allied Prussia
and Poland/Saxony. I therefore did what I could to create tensions between
them, with the view to also picking up a few extra cities beyond Austria's
traditional 8-centre Alpine plateau. As it happened, tensions weren't too hard
to achieve - both Nick and Ray seemed to distrust each other from the start.
Overtly I sided with Nick, but as things got more complicated in Germany I'll
admit to ending up with a few mixed motives of my own. While I never directly
attacked Nick, I will admit to not being the best possible ally, either. For
instance, those "crossed wires" in 1764 that resulted in the western Saxon
army surviving a four-unit attack were completely accidental, and the
fact that the surviving Saxon army proceeded to stymie French growth in the
Alps was most unfortunate, and totally coincidental. Nick, given how fluid
things were at the beginning of the game, I only hope that you can forgive
these trespasses.
Nick is obviously a very good player, because he managed to scare everyone
else into a stampede into Germany in short order; that's the most logical
conclusion I can come to. What began as a Prussian-Russian war to the east
took on more ominous tones for Nick once Dirk leveraged Ray to gain the upper
hand. And, of course, nothing brings further attacks like a perceived
weakness. Soon France and Britain were snapping at the Kaiser's heels. Nick
and I had always gotten along very well, but when push came to shove I
realized that I couldn't keep him afloat by myself - I had little choice but
to try and find other players to work with.
My relationship with Dirk is perhaps proof of the old Diplomacy maxim that
if you talk enough, it almost doesn't matter what you're saying. After an
initial slow start, my alliance with Dirk developed into what as probably my
closest in the game. Of course, this belies the fact that our first diplomatic
conversation of much substance was a *colossal* disagreement (something on the
subject of Germany, it went on for pages and caused a few headaches for him
too, I'm sure)! He has since sung me some very high praises in his EOG, so I
imagine that that has been forgiven and forgotten. I'm very glad that I was
able to convince Dirk to not push through central Europe; even if this was
rather self-serving at first, it clearly worked to Dirk's interest as well.
Overall, I found Dirk to be a very reasonable and very canny player, with whom
it was a pleasure to work, and who played the board very well. At one point, I
think he was juggling two, maybe even three vassals - not an easy feat.
Congratulations again, Dirk, on a game well-played.
Mixed in between Nick, Dirk and myself, there was Ray. Now I know there may
be a numerical argument somewhere saying that Poland and Saxony isn't really
all that bad, but I think that it has to be, at the very least, the most
precarious position on the board (whether or not it does decently in
the long run). I found my interactions with Ray to be a little clipped, but
all the same constructive and not unreasonable. Perhaps the brevity can be
excused by the game of 1900 he was also involved in. In a critique of his play
style, I really can't say too much; I initially chose to work with Nick
against Ray mostly on the basis of starting position and rumour (cheering for
the same team as Nick in the Stanly Cup finals probably influenced my position
more than I'd care to admit). Ray, let me assure you - I never intended to
execute the stab that befell you.
I've always felt that Diplomacy is best played when the map does not force
the players into any particular course of action. Thus, I prefer 1900 over
Standard partly because in 1900, Turkey need not fight Austria. In A&E, I
think that the relationship between Austria and France may not approach the
same level of predestination, but it is definitely not a stress-free border.
That is not to say, of course, that France and Austria *need* to fight; merely
that it is easy. I tried to structure my relationship with Warren on the basis
that most of the other players would expect some hostility between the two of
us, and that we could therefore both have an advantage if our borders stayed
unexpectedly calm. Of course, aiding this was the fact that Warren was a good
player and a reasonable person, with whom I saw a fair bit of common interest
(is it ever possible to have a good player that is not reasonable?). I
found our relationship to be cordial, if perhaps a little wary - though
perhaps wariness was warranted, given what happened during my last move. Rest
assured, Warren, I never intended on continuing my cooperation with Ray beyond
that one turn that saw the Saxons march to Burgundy.
Michael, Josiah, Richard, and Wladimir - it was good to meet you all. Some
time I hope to meet you in another game, where we might be located somewhat
closer together, and have somewhat greater interactions. As it was, I hope
that you all got as much enjoyment out of this game as I did.
Finally, the highly-appreciated replacement, Sun Chung. Many thanks, of
course, for taking over my position on such short notice; real life can be
such a pesky thing to have to deal with. The rest of you probably know him
better than I do, as we only had a few short emails between us at the tail end
of my tenure. Nevertheless, as he mentions we did have a few discussions of
some weight - in particular one concerning whether Austria should make a break
for a solo, or risk enmeshed borders with Saxony. Sun has said that I provided
him with council on this; I will admit to sending him a detailed
multi-page discussion and risk assessment outlining how an Archduke
might strike for a solo from eight centres few
suggestions, but in my defense I also made it clear that I had made
no decision whether or not I would actually go about implementing this plan.
All said, I was actually rather glad when Sun agreed to be my replacement, as
he signed on just in time to save me from having to make this very hard
choice. From an outside perspective, I think that there was likely very little
that Sun could have done differently to convert his inherited position into a
solo - changing players is always going to make your neighbours rather wary. I
think he handled the chaos following his run admirably, and he certainly kept
Austria abreast the future of Europe. Well-played Sun, and thanks
again.
In closing, I have to thank you all for what was a tremendously fun game. I
hope to get an opportunity to play with you all again sometime; it is always a
pleasure to find a group of players who are not only committed to playing
Diplomacy, but who play it well. I hope to see you all in future games.
Best regards,
Adriaan Tichler
P.S. I've uploaded photos of a few of my reasons for abdication, for your
interest.
https://plus.google.com/u/0/photos/101141162735761025862/albums/5677699991823577681
On 7 October 2011 15:21, Sun Chung <sun.chung(at)gmail.com> wrote:
Thanks Robert for GMing - it's a pleasure playing in a
game that you run.
Also, thanks to everyone on the board for a
good game. And for Adriaan for his thoughts/guidance/recommendations
early on in the game. Kudos to him for getting Austria to a great
stage in the game. My big regret is that I was unable to fulfill
Austria's opportunity that Adriaan set up.
For me, the mark of a good
game is when the players are committed and are willing to accept the game
for what it is - a shifting swirl of deals, broken deals, and new deals
being created. It was interesting to see how the dynamics of the game
were able to shift, although I probably contributed to less of that towards
the end of the game. I appreciated that most on the board were open to
thinking about shifting their alliance and at least listened to new
deals.
I missed the early stages of the game, so I can't really
comment much on how the armed neutrals dynamic shaped the early portion of
the game. When Robert asked me to replace Adriaan, I came into the
game thinking 1) what a great opportunity - this power is strong and has a
good lead but 2) Austria's completely surrounded I don't have enough armies
to plug in all the gaps - the lead can fall really quickly.
My first
focus on the game was the complex relationship Austria had with Saxony.
There wasn't a good defensive line set up, and our armies were all
intermixed together. Not a situation I liked. Elsewhere on the
map, it didn't seem like there was strong cooperation between
France/Britain/Spain. Russia was friendly and was trying to build upon
the work that Adriaan had done. Unfortunately for me, I didn't have
much contact with Turkey at the start.
The first order of business
was how to get involved in the game and unwind the tie-up of Austria and
Saxony. I did not feel comfortable with the situation (esp since it
wasn't of my doing!). As Dirk mentioned in his EOG statement, I
typically like strong stable borders. It really bothered me that I
couldn't count on a stable front in any direction. Plus, Saxony was
looking to regain his strength and was pushing to recover some of his home
centers. Adriaan and I agreed that a re-emergence of Saxony would be a
threat to Austria. So my first major decision was that I would not
support Saxony and stab him. That would prevent a rebirth of Saxony
and give me a stable front to work from.
But this created another
problem. It would undoubtedly raise solo alarm bells across the board.
And mark a significant shift in the Austrian' strategy at this point.
Now, my natural desire was to start out slowly, play defensively, and
get my feet wet in the game. I didn't want to be viewed as a loose
cannon coming in brand new. However, being able to discuss strategy
and tactics with Adriaan eased the transition quite a bit. I know that
Ray probably views my stab as a direct consequence of a new replacement
player dropping old agreements, but I was able to get Adriaan's consul on my
first initial moves.
From there, once I determined that Saxony would
be stabbed, and I knew that it would cause alarms on the board, I pushed
full ahead on going for the solo. I probably shouldn't speak for
Adriaan as this is my EOG statement, and not his, but the push for an early
Austrian solo was not created in a vacuum.
My first mistake in
the game was not securing my relationship with Turkey. I think had I
been able to pickup four builds in the first season (that I played) I may
have been able to get enough push to really threaten for a solo. But
for either nervousness with a new player, or I rubbed him the wrong way,
something lead to Turkey taking a center from me, and I only got 3 plus
centers in the first turn.
I didn't think it was the end of the game,
and in some ways, I liked this position much better. I was able to get
a nice stable line against France, I thought I could secure a line against
Turkey and was hoping that Russia wouldn't view me as a long term
threat. But my dreams of an Austria solo were crushed. I tried
my best to say that my push was really only to secure myself against Saxony
and not reach for a solo. It probably fell on deaf ears, but I thought
I would have a chance since it was at least partially true.
From
there, the game switched to survival. I thought I built an okay line
of communication with France (I told him I had to take Savoy since it was
there for the taking in the first year, but I didn't want it to set in stone
the Austrian/French relationship), thought that I could get Turkey to lay
off by letting him keep what he took (Turkey had a good relationship with
the prior Austria), and I thought I could convince Russia that my swing for
a solo was a one and done deal and that I could be a reasonable partner.
All three powers attacked me.
Once Turkey got into the Adriatic
Sea, I was at his mercy. Side note observation - this map creates a
lot of defensive issues for Austria, in particular the way I was set up when
I entered the game. Austria is a land power, but with a home center in
Milan and the host of supply centers in Italy, Austria's sphere of influence
gravitates around the Adriatic. With the Turkish fleet there, I was
forced to keep units bottled up on my southern front. That one fleet
tied up a huge number of my armies. This drove me crazy.
My next
course of action was to work on France and/or Russia into attack Turkey.
While trying to cut a deal with Aiden in any fashion as long as he
left ADR. Deals with Turkey fell apart multiple times, but I fared
better on the diplomatic front. Getting Russia to favor me, while
getting France to cooperate for awhile and attack Turkey.
The end
game stage really boiled down to trying to figure out a way to end the game
without it being a DIAS. I tried really hard to make it a France -
Austria - Russia triple, but neither France nor Russia seemed to trust the
other. What may have worked against me was that I also played up the
potential solo threat that they both presented. Russia could (and did)
have the numbers to sweep across northern Germany and get a solo.
France for a while was a couple of centers lower, but if Turkey got
crippled (and I had a bear of a time trying to get a deal done where we
trusted each other), and Britain got stabbed by France, then no one could
really threaten the French navy. I felt that Austria was the only
credible counter to either solo threats.
For awhile, it worked.
France agreed to not aid Turkey any more, and Russia allowed me to
rush my armies to the west and defend against France's superior land
position over me. Eventually it boiled down to keeping what I had,
while trying diplomatically getting into the three way draw.
At one
point, Russia had the necessary centers at his reach where he could easily
have gone for the solo. I panicked and hedged myself and move some
units, but not all, to cover the open centers. Dirk was surprised but
took it rather well that I tactically split myself. Since he didn't
stab me nor went for a solo directly, I was lulled into thinking that maybe
Russia wasn't in it for a solo at this stage. I had even asked Sweden
(given how close Wladimir was coordinating with Dirk for the bulk of the
game) for advice to get his read on Russia's plans. Whether Wladimir
was equally convinced of Dirk not attempting a solo or was part of the
Russian PR campaign I don't know.
From a tactical stand point,
I was then doomed. I didn't have enough armies to cover all of my
holes, I was at the mercy of Russia not pushing for a solo. And I felt
that I couldn't react too strong or else I would push Russia into thinking I
was an untrustworthy ally and by my preventative action, get Dirk to order
to secure a solo.
In hind-sight, I should've committed one way or the
other. I felt that I was constantly moving my armies east and then
west. I could never build a fleet, which crippled me against Turkey.
And at some point, I should've made a more tactical retreat to shore
up my defensive line against Turkey/France/or Russia.
This has been a
long winded rambling, so apologies for that. And apologies for any
typos in this - trying to do this quickly, across small breaks during my
work day.
Thoughts on the players:
Russia: Good
job. Played skillfully, and got me suckered into thinking you'd be
committed to the draw. Not much I could've done about it even if I
knew about your intentions though. Always enjoyed our conversations
and your willingness to work out deals. Your solo was well
deserved.
France: Enjoyed our conversations, and the
fact that we were able to keep up a dialogue even with disagreements.
I wonder if we could've set up a different outcome had we had a chance to
work together from the beginning. Your warning bells should've been
heeded more in Vienna. I blame the Turks for drowning out your
message!
Ottoman Empire: We got off on the wrong foot
and then continued to break our agreements. I wish we could've some
out untangled the complex tactical mess we were in, but alas, I think our
in-fighting created the biggest opportunity for Russia to solo. You
had me in a difficult spot the entire game, and I don't really blame you for
keeping that dang fleet parked in the Adriatic. Makes sense, but
created all sorts of issues for me. If we cross paths again, I promise
to try harder to get diplomacy working between us.
Poland
Saxony: I do apologize for starting out the game with a
stab. I really felt uncomfortable with the way our units/centers were
intertwined. This is one of those, it's all business, message. I
appreciate your attempts to get back into the game and your willingness to
stick with the game and not drop off.
Britain: We didn't
have a lot of interaction - another hindsight thing where I should've tried
harder. Perhaps the make up of the game would've been
different?
Spain/Prussia/Denmark/Sweden: Unfortunately,
I don't have a lot of comments. I came in at a time where I think your
fates may have already been decided.
All in all, thank you for
giving me this opportunity to play Ambition and Empire. I've been
interested in playing this variant for awhile and would love another
opportunity to play (esp from the beginning). It's been a pleasure
playing with you
all.
Thanks. |
| DC386: Initial Archduke's EoG Comments (dc386) smileyrob Nov 24, 09:15 am |
|
| dc386: Russia EOG - Arandia (Nov 22, 2011, 1:00 am) |
[Reply] |
| dc386: Russia EOG - Arandia (Nov 22, 2011, 1:00 am) |
[Reply] |
| dc386:Spain's EOG - Brstd46 (Oct 10, 2011, 2:08 am) |
My game was fairly brief-I started by trying to
find an ally to stop Turkey expanding along Nth Af and into the Western Med and
Italy-I was unsuccessful-Turkey seemed to have made good arrangements with both
Austria and Russia, and I was counting on one of them, and later he
reached some sort of understanding with France, so I didn't last
long.
I tried to get help from Austria 1-but he just
suggested I try to accomodate Turkey. I knew that wouldn't work.
I am not sure why Dirk says I never replied to his
emails-he only sent 1-a bland greeting at the beginning of the game-he didn't
respond to my mail before spring 1765, when I hoped he might put some pressure
on Turkey-I thought we both might profit at that point.
I enjoyed watching from the sidelines-I
thought Russia, Turkey and France seemed to play pretty well.
Thanks for being GM Robert-I guess my ps
assessments to you were usually way out, but my pessimism was
justified!!
Regards
Rich
----- Original Message -----
From:
Sun Chung
To: Wladimir Mysonski ; Dirk Knemeyer ; Robert
Stein ; Warren Fleming ; Ray Bruce ; Michael Thompson ;
Aidan
Slattery ; Josiah Henderson ; Nick
Powell ; Richard Aldous ; Baron Powell ; jeffrey
kase ; Chris Dziedzic ; dc386(at)diplomaticcorp.com ; Adriaan
Tichler
Sent: Saturday, October 08, 2011 11:21
AM
Subject: Re: dc386: Russia EOG
Thanks Robert for GMing - it's a pleasure playing in a game
that you run.
Also, thanks to everyone on the board for a good
game. And for Adriaan for his thoughts/guidance/recommendations early on
in the game. Kudos to him for getting Austria to a great stage in the
game. My big regret is that I was unable to fulfill Austria's
opportunity that Adriaan set up.
For me, the mark of a good game is
when the players are committed and are willing to accept the game for what it
is - a shifting swirl of deals, broken deals, and new deals being created.
It was interesting to see how the dynamics of the game were able to
shift, although I probably contributed to less of that towards the end of the
game. I appreciated that most on the board were open to thinking about
shifting their alliance and at least listened to new deals.
I missed
the early stages of the game, so I can't really comment much on how the armed
neutrals dynamic shaped the early portion of the game. When Robert asked
me to replace Adriaan, I came into the game thinking 1) what a great
opportunity - this power is strong and has a good lead but 2) Austria's
completely surrounded I don't have enough armies to plug in all the gaps - the
lead can fall really quickly.
My first focus on the game was the
complex relationship Austria had with Saxony. There wasn't a good
defensive line set up, and our armies were all intermixed together. Not
a situation I liked. Elsewhere on the map, it didn't seem like there was
strong cooperation between France/Britain/Spain. Russia was friendly and
was trying to build upon the work that Adriaan had done. Unfortunately
for me, I didn't have much contact with Turkey at the start.
The first
order of business was how to get involved in the game and unwind the tie-up of
Austria and Saxony. I did not feel comfortable with the situation (esp
since it wasn't of my doing!). As Dirk mentioned in his EOG statement, I
typically like strong stable borders. It really bothered me that I
couldn't count on a stable front in any direction. Plus, Saxony was
looking to regain his strength and was pushing to recover some of his home
centers. Adriaan and I agreed that a re-emergence of Saxony would be a
threat to Austria. So my first major decision was that I would not
support Saxony and stab him. That would prevent a rebirth of Saxony and
give me a stable front to work from.
But this created another problem.
It would undoubtedly raise solo alarm bells across the board. And
mark a significant shift in the Austrian' strategy at this point. Now,
my natural desire was to start out slowly, play defensively, and get my feet
wet in the game. I didn't want to be viewed as a loose cannon coming in
brand new. However, being able to discuss strategy and tactics with
Adriaan eased the transition quite a bit. I know that Ray probably views
my stab as a direct consequence of a new replacement player dropping old
agreements, but I was able to get Adriaan's consul on my first initial
moves.
From there, once I determined that Saxony would be stabbed, and
I knew that it would cause alarms on the board, I pushed full ahead on going
for the solo. I probably shouldn't speak for Adriaan as this is my EOG
statement, and not his, but the push for an early Austrian solo was not
created in a vacuum.
My first mistake in the game was not
securing my relationship with Turkey. I think had I been able to pickup
four builds in the first season (that I played) I may have been able to get
enough push to really threaten for a solo. But for either nervousness
with a new player, or I rubbed him the wrong way, something lead to Turkey
taking a center from me, and I only got 3 plus centers in the first
turn.
I didn't think it was the end of the game, and in some ways, I
liked this position much better. I was able to get a nice stable line
against France, I thought I could secure a line against Turkey and was hoping
that Russia wouldn't view me as a long term threat. But my dreams of an
Austria solo were crushed. I tried my best to say that my push was
really only to secure myself against Saxony and not reach for a solo. It
probably fell on deaf ears, but I thought I would have a chance since it was
at least partially true.
From there, the game switched to survival.
I thought I built an okay line of communication with France (I told him
I had to take Savoy since it was there for the taking in the first year, but I
didn't want it to set in stone the Austrian/French relationship), thought that
I could get Turkey to lay off by letting him keep what he took (Turkey had a
good relationship with the prior Austria), and I thought I could convince
Russia that my swing for a solo was a one and done deal and that I could be a
reasonable partner. All three powers attacked me.
Once Turkey got
into the Adriatic Sea, I was at his mercy. Side note observation - this
map creates a lot of defensive issues for Austria, in particular the way I was
set up when I entered the game. Austria is a land power, but with a home
center in Milan and the host of supply centers in Italy, Austria's sphere of
influence gravitates around the Adriatic. With the Turkish fleet there,
I was forced to keep units bottled up on my southern front. That one
fleet tied up a huge number of my armies. This drove me crazy.
My
next course of action was to work on France and/or Russia into attack Turkey.
While trying to cut a deal with Aiden in any fashion as long as he left
ADR. Deals with Turkey fell apart multiple times, but I fared better on
the diplomatic front. Getting Russia to favor me, while getting France
to cooperate for awhile and attack Turkey.
The end game stage really
boiled down to trying to figure out a way to end the game without it being a
DIAS. I tried really hard to make it a France - Austria - Russia triple,
but neither France nor Russia seemed to trust the other. What may have
worked against me was that I also played up the potential solo threat that
they both presented. Russia could (and did) have the numbers to sweep
across northern Germany and get a solo. France for a while was a couple
of centers lower, but if Turkey got crippled (and I had a bear of a time
trying to get a deal done where we trusted each other), and Britain got
stabbed by France, then no one could really threaten the French navy. I
felt that Austria was the only credible counter to either solo
threats.
For awhile, it worked. France agreed to not aid Turkey
any more, and Russia allowed me to rush my armies to the west and defend
against France's superior land position over me. Eventually it boiled
down to keeping what I had, while trying diplomatically getting into the three
way draw.
At one point, Russia had the necessary centers at his reach
where he could easily have gone for the solo. I panicked and hedged
myself and move some units, but not all, to cover the open centers. Dirk
was surprised but took it rather well that I tactically split myself.
Since he didn't stab me nor went for a solo directly, I was lulled into
thinking that maybe Russia wasn't in it for a solo at this stage. I had
even asked Sweden (given how close Wladimir was coordinating with Dirk for the
bulk of the game) for advice to get his read on Russia's plans. Whether
Wladimir was equally convinced of Dirk not attempting a solo or was part of
the Russian PR campaign I don't know.
From a tactical stand
point, I was then doomed. I didn't have enough armies to cover all of my
holes, I was at the mercy of Russia not pushing for a solo. And I felt
that I couldn't react too strong or else I would push Russia into thinking I
was an untrustworthy ally and by my preventative action, get Dirk to order to
secure a solo.
In hind-sight, I should've committed one way or the
other. I felt that I was constantly moving my armies east and then west.
I could never build a fleet, which crippled me against Turkey. And
at some point, I should've made a more tactical retreat to shore up my
defensive line against Turkey/France/or Russia.
This has been a long
winded rambling, so apologies for that. And apologies for any typos in
this - trying to do this quickly, across small breaks during my work
day.
Thoughts on the players:
Russia: Good
job. Played skillfully, and got me suckered into thinking you'd be
committed to the draw. Not much I could've done about it even if I knew
about your intentions though. Always enjoyed our conversations and your
willingness to work out deals. Your solo was well
deserved.
France: Enjoyed our conversations, and the fact
that we were able to keep up a dialogue even with disagreements. I
wonder if we could've set up a different outcome had we had a chance to work
together from the beginning. Your warning bells should've been heeded
more in Vienna. I blame the Turks for drowning out your
message!
Ottoman Empire: We got off on the wrong foot and
then continued to break our agreements. I wish we could've some out
untangled the complex tactical mess we were in, but alas, I think our
in-fighting created the biggest opportunity for Russia to solo. You had
me in a difficult spot the entire game, and I don't really blame you for
keeping that dang fleet parked in the Adriatic. Makes sense, but created
all sorts of issues for me. If we cross paths again, I promise to try
harder to get diplomacy working between us.
Poland Saxony:
I do apologize for starting out the game with a stab. I really felt
uncomfortable with the way our units/centers were intertwined. This is
one of those, it's all business, message. I appreciate your attempts to
get back into the game and your willingness to stick with the game and not
drop off.
Britain: We didn't have a lot of interaction -
another hindsight thing where I should've tried harder. Perhaps the make
up of the game would've been
different?
Spain/Prussia/Denmark/Sweden: Unfortunately, I
don't have a lot of comments. I came in at a time where I think your
fates may have already been decided.
All in all, thank you for
giving me this opportunity to play Ambition and Empire. I've been
interested in playing this variant for awhile and would love another
opportunity to play (esp from the beginning). It's been a pleasure
playing with you all.
Thanks.[Reply] |
| DC386: Comment on Sweden's EOG - vonpowell (Oct 09, 2011, 11:58 pm) |
Hey Gang,
I've been following all of the end-of-game discussion with interest.
I find it fascinating to read about the diplomatic ebb and flow that
goes on behind the scenes and is completely hidden from people like myself
who only get to see the end results. The player comments that have been
published so far have shown me that several of my assumptions were
completely off the mark.
I'd like to take a moment to comment on a statement Wladimir makes in
his remarks below, specifically the following: "I compare the Scandinavian
powers as being akin to Austria/Italy in Standard in that they are intimately
close to one another and if they do not work together, they will be easily
destroyed."
I think I've watched as many A&E games as just about
anybody. Based on what I've seen, I feel comfortable in saying that the
relationship between Denmark-Norway and Sweden is not as simple as saying that
they must hang together or hang separately (an American phrase that I hope has
its counterparts in other parts of the world). There have been games where
Denmark-Norway has attacked Sweden and been successful, and there have been
games where Sweden has attacked Denmark-Norway and been successful. There
have been games where the two countries cooperated and both did well (though one
usually did much better than the other) and there have been games where
cooperation did not prevent either from getting squashed. Just about any
result is possible. This is, in my opinion, a good thing. I feel
A&E would be compromised if it required two neighbors to work together or
face extinction.
The primary difficulty Denmark-Norway and Sweden face is that their
initial positions are extremely fragile. I think both Powers are
forced to gamble that at least one of their immediate neighbors (Britain &
Hanover or Sweden for Denmark-Norway and Russia or Denmark-Norway for Sweden)
will not attack and act accordingly. Unfortunately, being fooled or
guessing incorrectly is generally punished severely. Because of this,
both Powers are frequently eliminated or relegated to the
fringes.
In closing this note, I want to say the following:
- Robert: Thank you for putting this excellent cast
together and doing an outstanding job of GMing.
- Dirk: Congratulations on your solo. Very well
done.
- To all the players: Thank you for participating in
this game. I hope you enjoyed playing A&E and will do so again
soon.
If anyone does get involved in another A&E game, please let me
know. I'd love to follow along.
Happy Stabbing,
Baron
In a message dated 10/5/2011 12:58:52 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
wmysonski(at)gmail.com writes:
Gentlemen,
I am typing this up from an internet cafe in the Phillipines right now so
it will be shorter than normal EOG's.
First off, many congrats to Dirk for a very well-played and earned solo.
Despite my visceral objection to allowing solo's, I think this was the best
conclusion given the situation.
Here was the entire game for Sweden...Denmark moves to Scania in the
first season tossing away any chance that Sweden and Denmark had of being
remotely successful. Had Josiah not decided to go against his word in this
move, I like to think that I could have had more impact in this game. I
compare the Scandinavian powers as being akin to Austria/Italy in Standard in
that they are intimately close to one another and if they do not work
together, they will be easily destroyed. Denmark must have thought that going
for Swedish centers early would have made him the consolidated Scandinavian
power able to project power in all directions. Instead, we both had to slap
each other while leaving our flanks exposed.
For what it is worth, I wanted to see Sweden fight back-to-back with
Denmark which had me wiith my sights on Russia. My ideal season one would have
consisted of Sweden in the Bothnia and my first build from a convoyed army to
Courland. I would have then built an army in Abo and begin squeezing Russia.
Alas, Russia quickly gained the upperhand in this relationship when I had to
cover my bases from the anti-Swedish sentiment in Copenhagen. Dirk, I like to
think that you would have had a far more difficult go of it in the north had
Denmark played nice with me.
From that point on, I knew the game would be tough. I tried to quickly
settle the Danish situation with English help but England decided that he was
best in charge of Chr which left Sweden with its watershed of Cop, Sto and
Abo. It was at this point that Russia decided he just had to have Abo. I could
not stop him so Sweden never really got to take off with this new build
opportunity. Russia became my sponsor since England began moving to the
Scandinavian waters leaving me no choice but to sign the Sverige over to the
Czar. Pretty boring for Sweden for the rest of the game.
I also believe that the game had a ton of talent in it. I won't go into
each player since i really didn't interact with many in the southern half of
the board. Suffice it to say that I was happy Turkey/Austria/Russia were doing
well since I felt like Sweden's best chance was as the northern tip of some
Juggernaut.
Big fan of Nick, Sun, Aidan (should I say Siberia) and Dirk. Hope to get
to interact with the rest of you more too.
Thanks to Robert for doing an excellent job keeping this game moving
along and for providing reminders. It is so easy to forget about how much work
the GM puts into these.
Hope our paths cross again!
Wladimir
On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 8:35 AM, Dirk Knemeyer <dirk(at)knemeyer.com> wrote:
Robert, thank you for being an excellent
GM for the duration of this game. Your timely adjudications and good cheer
are an appreciated service to the community.
This was my first time playing Ambition & Empire. I very much enjoy
DP variants, as well as the 1900 variant. As such this seemed like a variant
that I would really like. Thanks Robert for taking the lead on creating the
DP module!
Looking over the board as Russia, independent of the other power
assignments, my desire was to work with Sweden and Turkey, and push out thru
the middle. Of course, once you begin considering the other players and the
inter-personal dynamics all of this can change, but I had played with both
Wladimir (Sweden) and Aidan (Turkey) before and know them to be very good as
well as generally reliable partners. On the other hand, Adriaan (Austria)
was new to me and Ray (Saxony) is the kind of aggressive and unpredictable
player I don't really like playing with. Nick (Prussia) is someone I like to
play with but because of an earlier game together was not sure if he might
be carrying a grudge over to this game. So the turning of the board seemed
to favour the approach I hoped to take.
Of course, there was a problem: I'm a big believer in ignoring
"entitlements" based on what country one is playing. So, for example, I'm a
proponent in Standard of a great EF being enabled by France letting Britain
take Brest with a fleet and thus being free to do a lot of safe DMZ'ing in
the region. My read of the Russo-Swedish relationship was the same. I
thought we could have an amazing partnership if he let me take Abo - to
close my back door - we DMZ BOT and otherwise leave the Baltic to him.
Unfortunately Wladimir didn't seem keen on this which led me to quickly
pivot and expect to go for Baltic domination at some point. Just not too
soon...
On the other hand, things were going swimmingly with Aidan. We had
limited friction and a clear path forward. My intention was to stay with him
all game or, at least, into the late game. Ray aggressively demanded
Lithuania reinforcing the notion I wouldn't want to work with him. Lithuania
is adjacent to various Russian dots yet only adjacent to a lone Saxon supply
center. His brazen insistence on control of it was incompatible with any
clear-minded Russia policy. Nick was friendly and working with me, so there
seemed an opportunity to partner with him in the early going. The thing I
didn't expect was my relationship with Adriaan. For me Diplomacy is as much
about a good experience as winning, and Adriaan was just the kind of chap I
like to play with: very communicative, open with information, although quite
smart and likely working to his advantage separately even as he worked in
earnest with me. Early efforts to work closely in a press capacity with
Britain, France and Spain were largely ignored by those players.
Throwing all of this into the mix, my plan was to:
- Seal off the south and coordinate with Turkey
- Use press to quagmire Denmark and Sweden, while not letting Britain
or Prussia take advantage of their struggles
- Smash Poland and reduce/eliminate him
- Once established in central/eastern Europe, decide on which direction
to focus my force (at Austria, at Prussia, at the Baltic)
From the beginning I was blessed with good fortune, and my activities
were so successful that I needed to pull back on the reins out of fear that
a target would be placed squarely on my back. The situation on the board led
to my working against Prussia first after Saxony, then heading into the
Baltic to take advantage of the chaos happening between the Scandinavian
powers. Around this time I had some very positive notes with Britain and
thought he and I would be close through the mid and end game. I'm not sure I
could have designed a better early and early-mid game than what actually
happened for Russia. Lots of good luck all around.
Then, the game changed. For personal reasons Adriaan needed to abdicate
the Austrian throne. While from a personal standpoint I was very
disappointed, from a game perspective I was pleased: my capacity to grow,
save stabbing Austria or Turkey, had pretty much come to an end. I didn't
want to stab either of those players so was settling into a position that
should end the game in a draw. While I had no problem with that, playing it
out to its inevitable conclusion, taking that tack would not give me a whole
lot to do in the game while hoping people on the other side of the map took
care of business properly. Not a great position to be in.
The new Austrian player (Sun) is also someone I like working with in
Dip games. So, at first, the shift didn't seem to portend any change in
status. This all shifted when Sun took advantage of Adriaan's very strong
position and made an early solo bid by smashing to the west. It was
audacious and even well-executed, but he simply faced too much opposition,
given the mature nature of the players of this game, leading to balance of
power reactions to such moves. However, Sun's big move and subsequently
putting a target square on his forehead gave me a chance to break out, too.
The big question was, to move against Austria or Turkey?
I chose Turkey. While I very much valued my relationship with Aidan,
Sun's growth and the condition of the board led me to think that, if I could
prosecute a successful campaign, almost all of the gains would be mine and,
in the process, I could seal an entire front and better focus my force
elsewhere. Like so many things in this game for me, I had good luck and
things pretty much fell as planned, albeit taking quite some time to fully
expunge Turkey from their traditional homelands.
As my relationship with Austria blossomed and success against Turkey
became clear, I decided I would not be satisfied with anything less that a
3-way draw in this game. My position was very, very strong, particularly so
after Sweden and I pushed Britain out of the Baltic completely. So my intent
was to fervently pursue 3-way draw opportunities - Austria, myself and a
third (which later shifted to include Britain) - while taking a solo only if
I was *guaranteed* to get it. My feeling was that, if I went for one and
fell short, I would face a grand alliance and a likely 5-way draw. That
would have been the worst possible case, save France soloing.
One year before the actual end of the game, it turned out that I could
have soloed if I had tried. Like most Dip players I have an overly
conservative view as to how much other players trust me and/or will do as I
expect them to, and it was with some shock I realized I could have won on
that very turn if only I had faith in the relationships I had and the moves
those people would make. Seeing that, I knew it was time to scour the board
for the solo. However, back from the grave, Ray chirped up to point out that
I could likely solo. His bringing that to everyone's attention would only
serve to spoil the opportunity as people shifted to defend against it, so I
was forced to send out a scathing, lying rebuke to the whole list to keep
his siren's call from undermining me.
At that point it was a matter of figuring out whether I could guarantee
a solo. I could, but only by eliminating my long-term Swedish ally. I was
not willing to do that. I could guarantee taking Mecklenberg and Breslau but
the third would be tricky. Constantinople was the best chance, but it was
really dicey. Turkey had two fleets adjacent to it, either of which
providing a support would have blocked me. While neither had supported
Constantinople since it became Austrian, doing so would seem a pro forma
order if he didn't have grander plans for either unit. Still, it felt like
one of those moments where, if I didn't go for it then, the opportunity
would pass. Austria was coming into a build or two, and would certainly be
looking for me to back off sometime soon. My hope was that, with my advanced
position and all of the builds, even if it failed I would be able to break
thru *somewhere* and get the 15th subsequently. Thus, I tried and - anxious
until the adjudication arrived - was pleased to see it had worked. Huzzah
Russia!
This was an excellent table of players:
Richard Aldous (Spain) didn't respond to a single email I sent him. Not
that I could have helped him avoid an early demise necessarily but, well,
who knows?!
Josiah Henderson (Denmark) was friendly but not consistently timely or
reliable with press. To my detriment I get anxious when people aren't
pressing regularly and thus was not too chagrined to contribute to getting
him into a Scandinavian quagmire with his neighbours. Would love to play a
FTF game with him.
Warren Fleming (France) played one of the best games at the table. He
and I had very little communication of substance - some talk of allying in
the mid and late games that never came to fruition - but at various points
he had spectacular turns of bravery and creativity that shot him into hugely
advantageous positions. I look forward to his EOG to try and better
understand why he didn't take advantage of some moments when he may have
truly been able to break out and win this thing.
Nick Powell (Prussia) is someone I like to play with, and the rare
player that I genuinely fear. He thinks many moves ahead, has an excellent
strategic sense, and presses very well. I wish I was as good a player as
Nick is. We had some good early press but, given my uncertainty about his
meta game motivations and the natural need for growth of Russia, was
generally pleased he had a hard time of it in this one.
Ray Bruce (Saxony) is as black-and-white as it gets: he's tough,
ruthless, smart and relentless. When he tried to play bully with me at the
outset it was all the motivation I needed to make him public enemy #1. I
love watching Ray play Diplomacy - just not in games that I am also a part
of!
Wladimir Mysonski (Sweden) had a tough position to play and was never
really able to get started with it. As he pointed out again and again,
Denmark and Sweden need to cooperate early if either is going to have a
chance to really have an impact in this variant. It just didn't happen in
this one. I was glad to have him as a janissary because he's an excellent
player and was unflinchingly loyal to the end, including giving me
invaluable tactical suggestions along the way.
Michael Thompson (Britain) and I have now played together probably half
a dozen times. We always get along well, even though invariably one or the
other of us is thrown to the muck each time (I don't think we've ever shared
a draw, despite often working together). This game we never really got on
track together, and it became perplexing when he offered to help me solo in
the early-mid game and then kept consistently working against me! That's a
page in his play book that I will need to dog ear.
Aidan Slattery (Turkey) is one of the best players one can possibly
ally. He is loyal, contributes lots of smart tactical suggestions, friendly,
and a committed balance of power/grand alliance type. I regretted that the
turns of the game resulted in his being my mid-game target, as I had always
planned to take our relationship thru to the end. I really enjoy working
with him.
Adriaan Tichler (Austria I) was a great discovery in this game. He
might have been the best player at the table, and really helmed Austria
well. I can't wait to play with him again and pick up some pointers.
Sun Chung (Austria II) is yet another player in this game I have a good
history of working together with. Sun is a very good defensive player, which
made his audacious run for a solo all the more entertaining to watch. He is
so adept at slamming the door on possible stabs that it was really to my
terrific fortune that the turns and twists of the game led him to be
defending himself so completely in the west/southwest. Otherwise, if not for
that very extreme and unusual deployment, Sun never would have given me half
a chance at this thing.
I look forward to reading all of your EOG's and seeing things from a
different perspective. Thanks for the game, all!
Dirk
On Oct 4, 2011, at 9:22 PM, Robert Stein wrote:
The three end game proposals all fail, but it
makes no difference as Dirk claims the three centers needed to give Russia
a solo victory. Congratulations to Dirk for a well deserved solo victory,
and thank you all for playing. I enjoyed GMing this game, and I hope you
enjoyed playing it. I'd very much appreciate end of game statements from
each of, at your convenience.
There were possible retreats from
Britain and Austria, but as they would not change the result of a Russian
solo, I took the liberty of auto-retreating the units so that all three
remained on the board. If for some reason either Michael or Sun would
prefer to retreat off the board, let me know and I'll amend the final map.
But if you do so, please be aware there will still be no winter builds, so
you will not be able to rebuild that unit.
DC386 FALL 1773
ADJUDICATION
PLAYERS:
Austria-Hapsburg: Arandia / Adriaan
Tichler / arandia.t(at)gmail.com
(resigned Summer 1766)
from Fall 1766: sunchung/ Sun Chung /
sun.chung(at)gmail.com
Britain-Hanover:
psychosis1973 / Michael Thompson / psychosis(at)sky.com
Denmark-Norway: Josiah / Josiah
Henderson / josiah.henderson(at)gmail.com (abandoned Spring
1766)
France: alwayshunted / Warren Fleming / alwayshunted(at)hotmail.com
Ottoman Empire: Lane /
Aidan Slattery / aislattery(at)aol.com
Poland-Saxony: raybrucea / Bruce
Ray / raybrucea(at)aol.com (eliminated Fall
1772)
Prussia: DrSwordopolis / Nick Powell / nick.s.powell(at)gmail.com (eliminated Fall
1767)
Russian Empire: dknemeyer / Dirk Knemeyer / dirk(at)knemeyer.com (solo victory, Winter 1773)
Spain:
Brstd46 / Richard Aldous / aldous(at)xtra.co.nz
(eliminated Winter 1767)
Sweden: Wladimir7 / Wladimir Mysonski / wmysonski(at)gmail.com
HEADLINES:
Russia seizes
Breslau, Constantinople and Mecklenburg. Achieves
Victory.
ORDERS:
FALL 1773:
Austria: A Baden-Wuerttemberg
Supports A Austrian Netherlands -
Hesse-Westphalia.
Austria: A Budapest - Vienna (*Bounce*).
Austria:
A Constantinople Hold (*Dislodged*).
Austria: A Dresden Supports A
Austrian Netherlands - Hesse-Westphalia.
Austria: A Milan Supports A
Republic of Venice.
Austria: A Switzerland Supports A
Milan.
Austria: A Tyrol - Vienna (*Bounce*).
Austria: A Republic of
Venice Supports A Milan (*Cut*).
Britain: F English Channel -
Austrian Netherlands.
Britain: F Helgoland Bight - United
Provinces.
Britain: A Hesse-Westphalia Supports F English Channel -
Austrian Netherlands
(*Dislodged*).
Britain: A Mecklenburg Hold (*Dislodged*).
Britain: F
North Atlantic Ocean - Irish Sea.
Britain: F North Sea Supports F
Helgoland Bight - United Provinces.
France: A Austrian Netherlands
- Hesse-Westphalia.
France: A Brest - Ireland.
France: F Gascony -
Brest.
France: F Gulf of Lyon Supports A Savoy.
France: A Languedoc
- Burgundy.
France: F Mid-Atlantic Ocean Convoys A Brest -
Ireland.
France: A Paris Supports A Languedoc - Burgundy.
France: A
Savoy Supports A Tuscany.
France: A Tuscany Supports A
Savoy.
France: A United Provinces Supports A Austrian Netherlands -
Hesse-Westphalia
(*Disbanded*).
Russia: F Ankara Supports A Wallachia -
Constantinople.
Russia: F Baltic Sea Supports A Holstein -
Mecklenburg.
Russia: A Berlin Supports F Helgoland Bight -
Hesse-Westphalia (*Void*).
Russia: F Christiania - Norwegian
Sea.
Russia: A Holstein - Mecklenburg.
Russia: A Lapland -
Christiania.
Russia: A Lithuania - Galicia.
Russia: A Lusatia -
Breslau.
Russia: A Scania - Copenhagen.
Russia: A Syria
Hold.
Russia: A Wallachia - Constantinople.
Sweden: A Stockholm
Hold.
Turkey: F Adriatic Sea Supports A Budapest - Republic of
Venice (*Void*).
Turkey: F Ionian Sea Hold.
Turkey: F Morocco
Supports F Mid-Atlantic Ocean.
Turkey: A Papal States - Republic of
Venice (*Fails*).
Turkey: F Tyrrhenian Sea - Western
Mediterranean.
THE FOLLOWING UNITS WERE DISLODGED:
Austrian A
Constantinople can retreat to Bosnia.
British-Hanoverian A
Hesse-Westphalia can retreat to Lusatia or Hanover.
British-Hanoverian
A Mecklenburg can retreat to Hanover.
AUTUMN 1773
RETREATS:
Austria: A Constantinople - Bosnia.
Britain: A
Hesse-Westphalia - Lusatia.
Britain: A Mecklenburg -
Hanover.
UNIT LOCATIONS:
Austria: A
Baden-Wuerttemberg, A Bosnia, A Budapest, A Dresden, A Milan, A
Switzerland, A Tyrol, A Republic of Venice.
Britain: F
Austrian Netherlands, A Hanover, F Irish Sea, A Lusatia, F North
Sea, F
United Provinces.
France: F Brest, A Burgundy, F Gulf
of Lyon, A Hesse-Westphalia, A Ireland,
F
Mid-Atlantic Ocean, A Paris, A Savoy, A
Tuscany.
Russia: F Ankara, F Baltic Sea, A Berlin, A
Breslau, A Christiania, A
Constantinople, A Copenhagen, A Galicia, A Mecklenburg, F Norwegian
Sea, A
Syria.
Sweden: A
Stockholm.
Turkey: F Adriatic Sea, F Ionian Sea, F
Morocco, A Papal States, F Western
Mediterranean.
OWNERSHIP OF SUPPLY CENTERS:
Austria
(10-2= : Baden-Wuerttemberg, Bavaria, /-Breslau/, Budapest,
/-Constantinople/,
Dresden,
Milan, Switzerland, Republic of Venice, Vienna.
Britain
(6-1+1=6): Edinburgh, Hanover, Liverpool, London,
/-Mecklenburg/, United Provinces. +Austrian Netherlands
France
(10-1=9): /-Austrian Netherlands/, Barcelona, Brest,
Hesse-Westphalia, Madrid,
Marseilles, Paris, Portugal, Savoy, Tuscany.
Russia
(12+3=15): Abo, Ankara, Berlin, Christiania, Copenhagen,
Courland, Crimea,
Kiev,
Koenigsburg, Moscow, St Petersburg, Warsaw. +Breslau, +Constantinople,
+Mecklenburg
Sweden (1+0=1): Stockholm.
Turkey
(5+0=5): Algiers, Morocco, Papal States, Tunis, Two
Sicilies.
Austria: 8 Supply centers, 8
Units: Builds 0 units.
Britain: 6
Supply centers, 6 Units: Builds 0
units.
Denmark: 0 Supply centers, 0
Units: Builds 0
units.
France: 9 Supply centers, 9
Units: Builds 0 units.
Prussia: 0
Supply centers, 0 Units: Builds 0
units.
Russia: 15 Supply centers, 11 Units:
Builds 4 units.
VICTORY!!!
Saxony: 0 Supply centers, 0
Units: Builds 0
units.
Spain: 0 Supply centers, 0
Units: Builds 0
units.
Sweden: 1 Supply center, 1
Unit: Builds 0
units.
Turkey: 5 Supply centers, 5
Units: Builds 0 units.
BUILD CENTERS:
Austria:
Budapest, Milan, Vienna
Britain: Edinburgh, Hanover, Liverpool,
London
France: Brest, Marseilles, Paris
Russia: Crimea, Kiev,
Moscow, St. Petersburg
Sweden: Abo, Stockholm
Turkey: Ankara,
Constantinople,
Tunis
<DC386_Fa73_orders.gif><DC386_Fa73_results.gif><DC386_Wi73_finalresults.gif><DC386_Wi73_finalresults.dpy>[Reply] |
| dc386: Russia EOG - sunchung (Oct 07, 2011, 5:21 pm) |
[Reply] |
| dc386: Russia EOG - Wladimir7 (Oct 05, 2011, 2:58 pm) |
[Reply] |
| dc386: Russia EOG - dknemeyer (Oct 05, 2011, 10:35 am) |
Robert, thank you for being an excellent GM for the duration of this game. Your timely adjudications and good cheer are an appreciated service to the community.
This was my first time playing Ambition & Empire. I very much enjoy DP variants, as well as the 1900 variant. As such this seemed like a variant that I would really like. Thanks Robert for taking the lead on creating the DP module!
Looking over the board as Russia, independent of the other power assignments, my desire was to work with Sweden and Turkey, and push out thru the middle. Of course, once you begin considering the other players and the inter-personal dynamics all of this can change, but I had played with both Wladimir (Sweden) and Aidan (Turkey) before and know them to be very good as well as generally reliable partners. On the other hand, Adriaan (Austria) was new to me and Ray (Saxony) is the kind of aggressive and unpredictable player I don't really like playing with. Nick (Prussia) is someone I like to play with but because of an earlier game together was not sure if he might be carrying a grudge over to this game. So the turning of the board seemed to favour the approach I hoped to take.
Of course, there was a problem: I'm a big believer in ignoring "entitlements" based on what country one is playing. So, for example, I'm a proponent in Standard of a great EF being enabled by France letting Britain take Brest with a fleet and thus being free to do a lot of safe DMZ'ing in the region. My read of the Russo-Swedish relationship was the same. I thought we could have an amazing partnership if he let me take Abo - to close my back door - we DMZ BOT and otherwise leave the Baltic to him. Unfortunately Wladimir didn't seem keen on this which led me to quickly pivot and expect to go for Baltic domination at some point. Just not too soon...
On the other hand, things were going swimmingly with Aidan. We had limited friction and a clear path forward. My intention was to stay with him all game or, at least, into the late game. Ray aggressively demanded Lithuania reinforcing the notion I wouldn't want to work with him. Lithuania is adjacent to various Russian dots yet only adjacent to a lone Saxon supply center. His brazen insistence on control of it was incompatible with any clear-minded Russia policy. Nick was friendly and working with me, so there seemed an opportunity to partner with him in the early going. The thing I didn't expect was my relationship with Adriaan. For me Diplomacy is as much about a good experience as winning, and Adriaan was just the kind of chap I like to play with: very communicative, open with information, although quite smart and likely working to his advantage separately even as he worked in earnest with me. Early efforts to work closely in a press capacity with Britain, France and Spain were largely ignored by those players.
Throwing all of this into the mix, my plan was to:
- Seal off the south and coordinate with Turkey
- Use press to quagmire Denmark and Sweden, while not letting Britain or Prussia take advantage of their struggles
- Smash Poland and reduce/eliminate him
- Once established in central/eastern Europe, decide on which direction to focus my force (at Austria, at Prussia, at the Baltic)
From the beginning I was blessed with good fortune, and my activities were so successful that I needed to pull back on the reins out of fear that a target would be placed squarely on my back. The situation on the board led to my working against Prussia first after Saxony, then heading into the Baltic to take advantage of the chaos happening between the Scandinavian powers. Around this time I had some very positive notes with Britain and thought he and I would be close through the mid and end game. I'm not sure I could have designed a better early and early-mid game than what actually happened for Russia. Lots of good luck all around.
Then, the game changed. For personal reasons Adriaan needed to abdicate the Austrian throne. While from a personal standpoint I was very disappointed, from a game perspective I was pleased: my capacity to grow, save stabbing Austria or Turkey, had pretty much come to an end. I didn't want to stab either of those players so was settling into a position that should end the game in a draw. While I had no problem with that, playing it out to its inevitable conclusion, taking that tack would not give me a whole lot to do in the game while hoping people on the other side of the map took care of business properly. Not a great position to be in.
The new Austrian player (Sun) is also someone I like working with in Dip games. So, at first, the shift didn't seem to portend any change in status. This all shifted when Sun took advantage of Adriaan's very strong position and made an early solo bid by smashing to the west. It was audacious and even well-executed, but he simply faced too much opposition, given the mature nature of the players of this game, leading to balance of power reactions to such moves. However, Sun's big move and subsequently putting a target square on his forehead gave me a chance to break out, too. The big question was, to move against Austria or Turkey?
I chose Turkey. While I very much valued my relationship with Aidan, Sun's growth and the condition of the board led me to think that, if I could prosecute a successful campaign, almost all of the gains would be mine and, in the process, I could seal an entire front and better focus my force elsewhere. Like so many things in this game for me, I had good luck and things pretty much fell as planned, albeit taking quite some time to fully expunge Turkey from their traditional homelands.
As my relationship with Austria blossomed and success against Turkey became clear, I decided I would not be satisfied with anything less that a 3-way draw in this game. My position was very, very strong, particularly so after Sweden and I pushed Britain out of the Baltic completely. So my intent was to fervently pursue 3-way draw opportunities - Austria, myself and a third (which later shifted to include Britain) - while taking a solo only if I was *guaranteed* to get it. My feeling was that, if I went for one and fell short, I would face a grand alliance and a likely 5-way draw. That would have been the worst possible case, save France soloing.
One year before the actual end of the game, it turned out that I could have soloed if I had tried. Like most Dip players I have an overly conservative view as to how much other players trust me and/or will do as I expect them to, and it was with some shock I realized I could have won on that very turn if only I had faith in the relationships I had and the moves those people would make. Seeing that, I knew it was time to scour the board for the solo. However, back from the grave, Ray chirped up to point out that I could likely solo. His bringing that to everyone's attention would only serve to spoil the opportunity as people shifted to defend against it, so I was forced to send out a scathing, lying rebuke to the whole list to keep his siren's call from undermining me.
At that point it was a matter of figuring out whether I could guarantee a solo. I could, but only by eliminating my long-term Swedish ally. I was not willing to do that. I could guarantee taking Mecklenberg and Breslau but the third would be tricky. Constantinople was the best chance, but it was really dicey. Turkey had two fleets adjacent to it, either of which providing a support would have blocked me. While neither had supported Constantinople since it became Austrian, doing so would seem a pro forma order if he didn't have grander plans for either unit. Still, it felt like one of those moments where, if I didn't go for it then, the opportunity would pass. Austria was coming into a build or two, and would certainly be looking for me to back off sometime soon. My hope was that, with my advanced position and all of the builds, even if it failed I would be able to break thru *somewhere* and get the 15th subsequently. Thus, I tried and - anxious until the adjudication arrived - was pleased to see it had worked. Huzzah Russia!
This was an excellent table of players:
Richard Aldous (Spain) didn't respond to a single email I sent him. Not that I could have helped him avoid an early demise necessarily but, well, who knows?!
Josiah Henderson (Denmark) was friendly but not consistently timely or reliable with press. To my detriment I get anxious when people aren't pressing regularly and thus was not too chagrined to contribute to getting him into a Scandinavian quagmire with his neighbours. Would love to play a FTF game with him.
Warren Fleming (France) played one of the best games at the table. He and I had very little communication of substance - some talk of allying in the mid and late games that never came to fruition - but at various points he had spectacular turns of bravery and creativity that shot him into hugely advantageous positions. I look forward to his EOG to try and better understand why he didn't take advantage of some moments when he may have truly been able to break out and win this thing.
Nick Powell (Prussia) is someone I like to play with, and the rare player that I genuinely fear. He thinks many moves ahead, has an excellent strategic sense, and presses very well. I wish I was as good a player as Nick is. We had some good early press but, given my uncertainty about his meta game motivations and the natural need for growth of Russia, was generally pleased he had a hard time of it in this one.
Ray Bruce (Saxony) is as black-and-white as it gets: he's tough, ruthless, smart and relentless. When he tried to play bully with me at the outset it was all the motivation I needed to make him public enemy #1. I love watching Ray play Diplomacy - just not in games that I am also a part of!
Wladimir Mysonski (Sweden) had a tough position to play and was never really able to get started with it. As he pointed out again and again, Denmark and Sweden need to cooperate early if either is going to have a chance to really have an impact in this variant. It just didn't happen in this one. I was glad to have him as a janissary because he's an excellent player and was unflinchingly loyal to the end, including giving me invaluable tactical suggestions along the way.
Michael Thompson (Britain) and I have now played together probably half a dozen times. We always get along well, even though invariably one or the other of us is thrown to the muck each time (I don't think we've ever shared a draw, despite often working together). This game we never really got on track together, and it became perplexing when he offered to help me solo in the early-mid game and then kept consistently working against me! That's a page in his play book that I will need to dog ear.
Aidan Slattery (Turkey) is one of the best players one can possibly ally. He is loyal, contributes lots of smart tactical suggestions, friendly, and a committed balance of power/grand alliance type. I regretted that the turns of the game resulted in his being my mid-game target, as I had always planned to take our relationship thru to the end. I really enjoy working with him.
Adriaan Tichler (Austria I) was a great discovery in this game. He might have been the best player at the table, and really helmed Austria well. I can't wait to play with him again and pick up some pointers.
Sun Chung (Austria II) is yet another player in this game I have a good history of working together with. Sun is a very good defensive player, which made his audacious run for a solo all the more entertaining to watch. He is so adept at slamming the door on possible stabs that it was really to my terrific fortune that the turns and twists of the game led him to be defending himself so completely in the west/southwest. Otherwise, if not for that very extreme and unusual deployment, Sun never would have given me half a chance at this thing.
I look forward to reading all of your EOG's and seeing things from a different perspective. Thanks for the game, all!
Dirk
On Oct 4, 2011, at 9:22 PM, Robert Stein wrote:
The three end game proposals all fail, but it makes no difference as Dirk claims the three centers needed to give Russia a solo victory. Congratulations to Dirk for a well deserved solo victory, and thank you all for playing. I enjoyed GMing this game, and I hope you enjoyed playing it. I'd very much appreciate end of game statements from each of, at your convenience.
There were possible retreats from Britain and Austria, but as they would not change the result of a Russian solo, I took the liberty of auto-retreating the units so that all three remained on the board. If for some reason either Michael or Sun would prefer to retreat off the board, let me know and I'll amend the final map. But if you do so, please be aware there will still be no winter builds, so you will not be able to rebuild that unit.
DC386 FALL 1773 ADJUDICATION
PLAYERS:
Austria-Hapsburg: Arandia / Adriaan Tichler / arandia.t(at)gmail.com (resigned Summer 1766)
from Fall 1766: sunchung/ Sun Chung / sun.chung(at)gmail.com
Britain-Hanover: psychosis1973 / Michael Thompson / psychosis(at)sky.com
Denmark-Norway: Josiah / Josiah Henderson / josiah.henderson(at)gmail.com (abandoned Spring 1766)
France: alwayshunted / Warren Fleming / alwayshunted(at)hotmail.com
Ottoman Empire: Lane / Aidan Slattery / aislattery(at)aol.com
Poland-Saxony: raybrucea / Bruce Ray / raybrucea(at)aol.com (eliminated Fall 1772)
Prussia: DrSwordopolis / Nick Powell / nick.s.powell(at)gmail.com (eliminated Fall 1767)
Russian Empire: dknemeyer / Dirk Knemeyer / dirk(at)knemeyer.com (solo victory, Winter 1773)
Spain: Brstd46 / Richard Aldous / aldous(at)xtra.co.nz (eliminated Winter 1767)
Sweden: Wladimir7 / Wladimir Mysonski / wmysonski(at)gmail.com
HEADLINES:
Russia seizes Breslau, Constantinople and Mecklenburg. Achieves Victory.
ORDERS:
FALL 1773:
Austria: A Baden-Wuerttemberg Supports A Austrian Netherlands -
Hesse-Westphalia.
Austria: A Budapest - Vienna (*Bounce*).
Austria: A Constantinople Hold (*Dislodged*).
Austria: A Dresden Supports A Austrian Netherlands - Hesse-Westphalia.
Austria: A Milan Supports A Republic of Venice.
Austria: A Switzerland Supports A Milan.
Austria: A Tyrol - Vienna (*Bounce*).
Austria: A Republic of Venice Supports A Milan (*Cut*).
Britain: F English Channel - Austrian Netherlands.
Britain: F Helgoland Bight - United Provinces.
Britain: A Hesse-Westphalia Supports F English Channel - Austrian Netherlands
(*Dislodged*).
Britain: A Mecklenburg Hold (*Dislodged*).
Britain: F North Atlantic Ocean - Irish Sea.
Britain: F North Sea Supports F Helgoland Bight - United Provinces.
France: A Austrian Netherlands - Hesse-Westphalia.
France: A Brest - Ireland.
France: F Gascony - Brest.
France: F Gulf of Lyon Supports A Savoy.
France: A Languedoc - Burgundy.
France: F Mid-Atlantic Ocean Convoys A Brest - Ireland.
France: A Paris Supports A Languedoc - Burgundy.
France: A Savoy Supports A Tuscany.
France: A Tuscany Supports A Savoy.
France: A United Provinces Supports A Austrian Netherlands - Hesse-Westphalia
(*Disbanded*).
Russia: F Ankara Supports A Wallachia - Constantinople.
Russia: F Baltic Sea Supports A Holstein - Mecklenburg.
Russia: A Berlin Supports F Helgoland Bight - Hesse-Westphalia (*Void*).
Russia: F Christiania - Norwegian Sea.
Russia: A Holstein - Mecklenburg.
Russia: A Lapland - Christiania.
Russia: A Lithuania - Galicia.
Russia: A Lusatia - Breslau.
Russia: A Scania - Copenhagen.
Russia: A Syria Hold.
Russia: A Wallachia - Constantinople.
Sweden: A Stockholm Hold.
Turkey: F Adriatic Sea Supports A Budapest - Republic of Venice (*Void*).
Turkey: F Ionian Sea Hold.
Turkey: F Morocco Supports F Mid-Atlantic Ocean.
Turkey: A Papal States - Republic of Venice (*Fails*).
Turkey: F Tyrrhenian Sea - Western Mediterranean.
THE FOLLOWING UNITS WERE DISLODGED:
Austrian A Constantinople can retreat to Bosnia.
British-Hanoverian A Hesse-Westphalia can retreat to Lusatia or Hanover.
British-Hanoverian A Mecklenburg can retreat to Hanover.
AUTUMN 1773 RETREATS:
Austria: A Constantinople - Bosnia.
Britain: A Hesse-Westphalia - Lusatia.
Britain: A Mecklenburg - Hanover.
UNIT LOCATIONS:
Austria: A Baden-Wuerttemberg, A Bosnia, A Budapest, A Dresden, A Milan, A
Switzerland, A Tyrol, A Republic of Venice.
Britain: F Austrian Netherlands, A Hanover, F Irish Sea, A Lusatia, F North
Sea, F United Provinces.
France: F Brest, A Burgundy, F Gulf of Lyon, A Hesse-Westphalia, A Ireland,
F Mid-Atlantic Ocean, A Paris, A Savoy, A Tuscany.
Russia: F Ankara, F Baltic Sea, A Berlin, A Breslau, A Christiania, A
Constantinople, A Copenhagen, A Galicia, A Mecklenburg, F Norwegian
Sea, A Syria.
Sweden: A Stockholm.
Turkey: F Adriatic Sea, F Ionian Sea, F Morocco, A Papal States, F Western
Mediterranean.
OWNERSHIP OF SUPPLY CENTERS:
Austria (10-2=: Baden-Wuerttemberg, Bavaria, /-Breslau/, Budapest, /-Constantinople/,
Dresden, Milan, Switzerland, Republic of Venice, Vienna.
Britain (6-1+1=6): Edinburgh, Hanover, Liverpool, London, /-Mecklenburg/, United Provinces. +Austrian Netherlands
France (10-1=9): /-Austrian Netherlands/, Barcelona, Brest, Hesse-Westphalia, Madrid,
Marseilles, Paris, Portugal, Savoy, Tuscany.
Russia (12+3=15): Abo, Ankara, Berlin, Christiania, Copenhagen, Courland, Crimea,
Kiev, Koenigsburg, Moscow, St Petersburg, Warsaw. +Breslau, +Constantinople, +Mecklenburg
Sweden (1+0=1): Stockholm.
Turkey (5+0=5): Algiers, Morocco, Papal States, Tunis, Two Sicilies.
Austria: 8 Supply centers, 8 Units: Builds 0 units.
Britain: 6 Supply centers, 6 Units: Builds 0 units.
Denmark: 0 Supply centers, 0 Units: Builds 0 units.
France: 9 Supply centers, 9 Units: Builds 0 units.
Prussia: 0 Supply centers, 0 Units: Builds 0 units.
Russia: 15 Supply centers, 11 Units: Builds 4 units. VICTORY!!!
Saxony: 0 Supply centers, 0 Units: Builds 0 units.
Spain: 0 Supply centers, 0 Units: Builds 0 units.
Sweden: 1 Supply center, 1 Unit: Builds 0 units.
Turkey: 5 Supply centers, 5 Units: Builds 0 units.
BUILD CENTERS:
Austria: Budapest, Milan, Vienna
Britain: Edinburgh, Hanover, Liverpool, London
France: Brest, Marseilles, Paris
Russia: Crimea, Kiev, Moscow, St. Petersburg
Sweden: Abo, Stockholm
Turkey: Ankara, Constantinople, Tunis
<DC386_Fa73_orders.gif><DC386_Fa73_results.gif><DC386_Wi73_finalresults.gif><DC386_Wi73_finalresults.dpy>[Reply] |
| dc386: Russia EOG (dc386) Wladimir7 Oct 05, 02:58 pm |
|
| dc386: Russia EOG (dc386) sunchung Oct 07, 05:21 pm |
|
| dc386: Russia EOG (dc386) Arandia Nov 22, 01:00 am |
|
| dc386: Russia EOG (dc386) Arandia Nov 22, 01:00 am |
|
| DC386: Fall 1773 adjudication; Game Over - Russian... - raybrucea (Oct 05, 2011, 8:58 am) |
Dirk,
I'm obviously very dense. Please again explain to me how I don't
understand that you have no intention of soloing in this game, or ever, since
our goals differ so greatly. Thank you.
Ray
In a message dated 10/4/2011 9:22:07 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
smileyrob68(at)gmail.com writes:
The
three end game proposals all fail, but it makes no difference as Dirk claims
the three centers needed to give Russia a solo victory. Congratulations to
Dirk for a well deserved solo victory, and thank you all for playing. I
enjoyed GMing this game, and I hope you enjoyed playing it. I'd very much
appreciate end of game statements from each of, at your
convenience.
There were possible retreats from Britain and Austria, but
as they would not change the result of a Russian solo, I took the liberty of
auto-retreating the units so that all three remained on the board. If for some
reason either Michael or Sun would prefer to retreat off the board, let me
know and I'll amend the final map. But if you do so, please be aware there
will still be no winter builds, so you will not be able to rebuild that
unit.
DC386 FALL 1773 ADJUDICATION
PLAYERS:
Austria-Hapsburg:
Arandia / Adriaan Tichler / arandia.t(at)gmail.com
(resigned Summer 1766)
from Fall 1766: sunchung/ Sun Chung /
sun.chung(at)gmail.com
Britain-Hanover:
psychosis1973 / Michael Thompson / psychosis(at)sky.com
Denmark-Norway: Josiah / Josiah
Henderson / josiah.henderson(at)gmail.com (abandoned Spring
1766)
France: alwayshunted / Warren Fleming / alwayshunted(at)hotmail.com
Ottoman Empire: Lane / Aidan
Slattery / aislattery(at)aol.com
Poland-Saxony: raybrucea / Bruce Ray /
raybrucea(at)aol.com (eliminated Fall 1772)
Prussia:
DrSwordopolis / Nick Powell / nick.s.powell(at)gmail.com (eliminated Fall 1767)
Russian
Empire: dknemeyer / Dirk Knemeyer / dirk(at)knemeyer.com (solo
victory, Winter 1773)
Spain: Brstd46 / Richard Aldous / aldous(at)xtra.co.nz (eliminated Winter 1767)
Sweden:
Wladimir7 / Wladimir Mysonski / wmysonski(at)gmail.com
HEADLINES:
Russia seizes
Breslau, Constantinople and Mecklenburg. Achieves
Victory.
ORDERS:
FALL 1773:
Austria: A Baden-Wuerttemberg
Supports A Austrian Netherlands -
Hesse-Westphalia.
Austria: A Budapest - Vienna (*Bounce*).
Austria: A
Constantinople Hold (*Dislodged*).
Austria: A Dresden Supports A Austrian
Netherlands - Hesse-Westphalia.
Austria: A Milan Supports A Republic of
Venice.
Austria: A Switzerland Supports A Milan.
Austria: A Tyrol -
Vienna (*Bounce*).
Austria: A Republic of Venice Supports A Milan
(*Cut*).
Britain: F English Channel - Austrian Netherlands.
Britain:
F Helgoland Bight - United Provinces.
Britain: A Hesse-Westphalia Supports
F English Channel - Austrian Netherlands
(*Dislodged*).
Britain: A Mecklenburg Hold (*Dislodged*).
Britain: F
North Atlantic Ocean - Irish Sea.
Britain: F North Sea Supports F Helgoland
Bight - United Provinces.
France: A Austrian Netherlands -
Hesse-Westphalia.
France: A Brest - Ireland.
France: F Gascony -
Brest.
France: F Gulf of Lyon Supports A Savoy.
France: A Languedoc -
Burgundy.
France: F Mid-Atlantic Ocean Convoys A Brest -
Ireland.
France: A Paris Supports A Languedoc - Burgundy.
France: A
Savoy Supports A Tuscany.
France: A Tuscany Supports A Savoy.
France: A
United Provinces Supports A Austrian Netherlands - Hesse-Westphalia
(*Disbanded*).
Russia: F Ankara Supports A Wallachia -
Constantinople.
Russia: F Baltic Sea Supports A Holstein -
Mecklenburg.
Russia: A Berlin Supports F Helgoland Bight - Hesse-Westphalia
(*Void*).
Russia: F Christiania - Norwegian Sea.
Russia: A Holstein -
Mecklenburg.
Russia: A Lapland - Christiania.
Russia: A Lithuania -
Galicia.
Russia: A Lusatia - Breslau.
Russia: A Scania -
Copenhagen.
Russia: A Syria Hold.
Russia: A Wallachia -
Constantinople.
Sweden: A Stockholm Hold.
Turkey: F Adriatic Sea
Supports A Budapest - Republic of Venice (*Void*).
Turkey: F Ionian Sea
Hold.
Turkey: F Morocco Supports F Mid-Atlantic Ocean.
Turkey: A Papal
States - Republic of Venice (*Fails*).
Turkey: F Tyrrhenian Sea - Western
Mediterranean.
THE FOLLOWING UNITS WERE DISLODGED:
Austrian A
Constantinople can retreat to Bosnia.
British-Hanoverian A Hesse-Westphalia
can retreat to Lusatia or Hanover.
British-Hanoverian A Mecklenburg can
retreat to Hanover.
AUTUMN 1773 RETREATS:
Austria: A Constantinople
- Bosnia.
Britain: A Hesse-Westphalia - Lusatia.
Britain: A Mecklenburg
- Hanover.
UNIT LOCATIONS:
Austria: A
Baden-Wuerttemberg, A Bosnia, A Budapest, A Dresden, A Milan, A
Switzerland,
A Tyrol, A Republic of Venice.
Britain: F Austrian Netherlands,
A Hanover, F Irish Sea, A Lusatia, F North
Sea, F United
Provinces.
France: F Brest, A Burgundy, F Gulf of Lyon, A
Hesse-Westphalia, A Ireland,
F
Mid-Atlantic Ocean, A Paris, A Savoy, A Tuscany.
Russia:
F Ankara, F Baltic Sea, A Berlin, A Breslau, A Christiania, A
Constantinople, A Copenhagen, A Galicia, A Mecklenburg, F Norwegian
Sea, A
Syria.
Sweden: A Stockholm.
Turkey:
F Adriatic Sea, F Ionian Sea, F Morocco, A Papal States, F Western
Mediterranean.
OWNERSHIP OF SUPPLY CENTERS:
Austria
(10-2=: Baden-Wuerttemberg, Bavaria, /-Breslau/, Budapest,
/-Constantinople/,
Dresden,
Milan, Switzerland, Republic of Venice, Vienna.
Britain
(6-1+1=6): Edinburgh, Hanover, Liverpool, London, /-Mecklenburg/,
United Provinces. +Austrian Netherlands
France (10-1=9):
/-Austrian Netherlands/, Barcelona, Brest, Hesse-Westphalia, Madrid,
Marseilles,
Paris, Portugal, Savoy, Tuscany.
Russia (12+3=15): Abo,
Ankara, Berlin, Christiania, Copenhagen, Courland, Crimea,
Kiev,
Koenigsburg, Moscow, St Petersburg, Warsaw. +Breslau, +Constantinople,
+Mecklenburg
Sweden (1+0=1): Stockholm.
Turkey
(5+0=5): Algiers, Morocco, Papal States, Tunis, Two
Sicilies.
Austria: 8 Supply centers, 8
Units: Builds 0 units.
Britain: 6
Supply centers, 6 Units: Builds 0
units.
Denmark: 0 Supply centers, 0 Units:
Builds 0 units.
France: 9 Supply
centers, 9 Units: Builds 0
units.
Prussia: 0 Supply centers, 0 Units:
Builds 0 units.
Russia: 15 Supply centers, 11
Units: Builds 4 units.
VICTORY!!!
Saxony: 0 Supply centers, 0
Units: Builds 0
units.
Spain: 0 Supply centers, 0
Units: Builds 0 units.
Sweden: 1
Supply center, 1 Unit: Builds 0
units.
Turkey: 5 Supply centers, 5
Units: Builds 0 units.
BUILD CENTERS:
Austria:
Budapest, Milan, Vienna
Britain: Edinburgh, Hanover, Liverpool,
London
France: Brest, Marseilles, Paris
Russia: Crimea, Kiev, Moscow,
St. Petersburg
Sweden: Abo, Stockholm
Turkey: Ankara, Constantinople,
Tunis[Reply] |
| DC386: Fall 1773 adjudication; Game Over - Russian... - smileyrob (Oct 04, 2011, 8:22 pm) |
[Reply] |
| DC386: Fall 1773 adjudication; Game Over - Russian Solo (dc386) raybrucea Oct 05, 08:58 am |
Dirk,
I'm obviously very dense. Please again explain to me how I don't
understand that you have no intention of soloing in this game, or ever, since
our goals differ so greatly. Thank you.
Ray
In a message dated 10/4/2011 9:22:07 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
smileyrob68(at)gmail.com writes:
The
three end game proposals all fail, but it makes no difference as Dirk claims
the three centers needed to give Russia a solo victory. Congratulations to
Dirk for a well deserved solo victory, and thank you all for playing. I
enjoyed GMing this game, and I hope you enjoyed playing it. I'd very much
appreciate end of game statements from each of, at your
convenience.
There were possible retreats from Britain and Austria, but
as they would not change the result of a Russian solo, I took the liberty of
auto-retreating the units so that all three remained on the board. If for some
reason either Michael or Sun would prefer to retreat off the board, let me
know and I'll amend the final map. But if you do so, please be aware there
will still be no winter builds, so you will not be able to rebuild that
unit.
DC386 FALL 1773 ADJUDICATION
PLAYERS:
Austria-Hapsburg:
Arandia / Adriaan Tichler / arandia.t(at)gmail.com
(resigned Summer 1766)
from Fall 1766: sunchung/ Sun Chung /
sun.chung(at)gmail.com
Britain-Hanover:
psychosis1973 / Michael Thompson / psychosis(at)sky.com
Denmark-Norway: Josiah / Josiah
Henderson / josiah.henderson(at)gmail.com (abandoned Spring
1766)
France: alwayshunted / Warren Fleming / alwayshunted(at)hotmail.com
Ottoman Empire: Lane / Aidan
Slattery / aislattery(at)aol.com
Poland-Saxony: raybrucea / Bruce Ray /
raybrucea(at)aol.com (eliminated Fall 1772)
Prussia:
DrSwordopolis / Nick Powell / nick.s.powell(at)gmail.com (eliminated Fall 1767)
Russian
Empire: dknemeyer / Dirk Knemeyer / dirk(at)knemeyer.com (solo
victory, Winter 1773)
Spain: Brstd46 / Richard Aldous / aldous(at)xtra.co.nz (eliminated Winter 1767)
Sweden:
Wladimir7 / Wladimir Mysonski / wmysonski(at)gmail.com
HEADLINES:
Russia seizes
Breslau, Constantinople and Mecklenburg. Achieves
Victory.
ORDERS:
FALL 1773:
Austria: A Baden-Wuerttemberg
Supports A Austrian Netherlands -
Hesse-Westphalia.
Austria: A Budapest - Vienna (*Bounce*).
Austria: A
Constantinople Hold (*Dislodged*).
Austria: A Dresden Supports A Austrian
Netherlands - Hesse-Westphalia.
Austria: A Milan Supports A Republic of
Venice.
Austria: A Switzerland Supports A Milan.
Austria: A Tyrol -
Vienna (*Bounce*).
Austria: A Republic of Venice Supports A Milan
(*Cut*).
Britain: F English Channel - Austrian Netherlands.
Britain:
F Helgoland Bight - United Provinces.
Britain: A Hesse-Westphalia Supports
F English Channel - Austrian Netherlands
(*Dislodged*).
Britain: A Mecklenburg Hold (*Dislodged*).
Britain: F
North Atlantic Ocean - Irish Sea.
Britain: F North Sea Supports F Helgoland
Bight - United Provinces.
France: A Austrian Netherlands -
Hesse-Westphalia.
France: A Brest - Ireland.
France: F Gascony -
Brest.
France: F Gulf of Lyon Supports A Savoy.
France: A Languedoc -
Burgundy.
France: F Mid-Atlantic Ocean Convoys A Brest -
Ireland.
France: A Paris Supports A Languedoc - Burgundy.
France: A
Savoy Supports A Tuscany.
France: A Tuscany Supports A Savoy.
France: A
United Provinces Supports A Austrian Netherlands - Hesse-Westphalia
(*Disbanded*).
Russia: F Ankara Supports A Wallachia -
Constantinople.
Russia: F Baltic Sea Supports A Holstein -
Mecklenburg.
Russia: A Berlin Supports F Helgoland Bight - Hesse-Westphalia
(*Void*).
Russia: F Christiania - Norwegian Sea.
Russia: A Holstein -
Mecklenburg.
Russia: A Lapland - Christiania.
Russia: A Lithuania -
Galicia.
Russia: A Lusatia - Breslau.
Russia: A Scania -
Copenhagen.
Russia: A Syria Hold.
Russia: A Wallachia -
Constantinople.
Sweden: A Stockholm Hold.
Turkey: F Adriatic Sea
Supports A Budapest - Republic of Venice (*Void*).
Turkey: F Ionian Sea
Hold.
Turkey: F Morocco Supports F Mid-Atlantic Ocean.
Turkey: A Papal
States - Republic of Venice (*Fails*).
Turkey: F Tyrrhenian Sea - Western
Mediterranean.
THE FOLLOWING UNITS WERE DISLODGED:
Austrian A
Constantinople can retreat to Bosnia.
British-Hanoverian A Hesse-Westphalia
can retreat to Lusatia or Hanover.
British-Hanoverian A Mecklenburg can
retreat to Hanover.
AUTUMN 1773 RETREATS:
Austria: A Constantinople
- Bosnia.
Britain: A Hesse-Westphalia - Lusatia.
Britain: A Mecklenburg
- Hanover.
UNIT LOCATIONS:
Austria: A
Baden-Wuerttemberg, A Bosnia, A Budapest, A Dresden, A Milan, A
Switzerland,
A Tyrol, A Republic of Venice.
Britain: F Austrian Netherlands,
A Hanover, F Irish Sea, A Lusatia, F North
Sea, F United
Provinces.
France: F Brest, A Burgundy, F Gulf of Lyon, A
Hesse-Westphalia, A Ireland,
F
Mid-Atlantic Ocean, A Paris, A Savoy, A Tuscany.
Russia:
F Ankara, F Baltic Sea, A Berlin, A Breslau, A Christiania, A
Constantinople, A Copenhagen, A Galicia, A Mecklenburg, F Norwegian
Sea, A
Syria.
Sweden: A Stockholm.
Turkey:
F Adriatic Sea, F Ionian Sea, F Morocco, A Papal States, F Western
Mediterranean.
OWNERSHIP OF SUPPLY CENTERS:
Austria
(10-2=: Baden-Wuerttemberg, Bavaria, /-Breslau/, Budapest,
/-Constantinople/,
Dresden,
Milan, Switzerland, Republic of Venice, Vienna.
Britain
(6-1+1=6): Edinburgh, Hanover, Liverpool, London, /-Mecklenburg/,
United Provinces. +Austrian Netherlands
France (10-1=9):
/-Austrian Netherlands/, Barcelona, Brest, Hesse-Westphalia, Madrid,
Marseilles,
Paris, Portugal, Savoy, Tuscany.
Russia (12+3=15): Abo,
Ankara, Berlin, Christiania, Copenhagen, Courland, Crimea,
Kiev,
Koenigsburg, Moscow, St Petersburg, Warsaw. +Breslau, +Constantinople,
+Mecklenburg
Sweden (1+0=1): Stockholm.
Turkey
(5+0=5): Algiers, Morocco, Papal States, Tunis, Two
Sicilies.
Austria: 8 Supply centers, 8
Units: Builds 0 units.
Britain: 6
Supply centers, 6 Units: Builds 0
units.
Denmark: 0 Supply centers, 0 Units:
Builds 0 units.
France: 9 Supply
centers, 9 Units: Builds 0
units.
Prussia: 0 Supply centers, 0 Units:
Builds 0 units.
Russia: 15 Supply centers, 11
Units: Builds 4 units.
VICTORY!!!
Saxony: 0 Supply centers, 0
Units: Builds 0
units.
Spain: 0 Supply centers, 0
Units: Builds 0 units.
Sweden: 1
Supply center, 1 Unit: Builds 0
units.
Turkey: 5 Supply centers, 5
Units: Builds 0 units.
BUILD CENTERS:
Austria:
Budapest, Milan, Vienna
Britain: Edinburgh, Hanover, Liverpool,
London
France: Brest, Marseilles, Paris
Russia: Crimea, Kiev, Moscow,
St. Petersburg
Sweden: Abo, Stockholm
Turkey: Ankara, Constantinople,
Tunis |
| DC386: Spring 1773 adjudication - smileyrob (Sep 27, 2011, 8:30 pm) |
[Reply] |
| DC386: Winter 1772 adjudication - smileyrob (Sep 22, 2011, 5:55 pm) |
[Reply] |
| DC386: Fall 1772 adjudication - raybrucea (Sep 21, 2011, 7:27 am) |
Dirk,
Congrats on the solo.
Ray
In a message dated 9/20/2011 8:46:15 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
smileyrob68(at)gmail.com writes:
As I
expected, things seem to be moving again after a few somewhat stagnant turns.
In the spring, the stalemate around Constantinople was broken, and this fall
Britain responds to the certain loss of its Scandinavian centers by turning
south. As a result, Saxony is finally eliminated. So this is goodbye to Ray.
Thank you for playing. You did an excellent job surviving with a single unit
as long as you did. The British moves to United Provinces and North Atlantic
Ocean seemingly signal a change in the relationship between Britain and
France, a change that France was perhaps not expecting. And does Russia's
support of Britain to Hanover mean these erstwhile enemies will now ally, or
just that Dirk was ready to see Saxony eliminated? Things do seem to be
getting interesting again.
I need adjustment orders from everyone who
is still alive except Warren. They are due by Thursday at 22:00 GMT. The
possibilities are:
Austria: Builds 3 units. (Can
only build in Budapest, thus 2 builds will be
unused)
Britain: Builds 1 unit. (Can build in
Edinburgh, Liverpool, or London)
Russia:
Builds 2 units. (Can build in Crimea, Kiev, Moscow, or St.
Petersburg)
Sweden: Builds 1 unit. (Can build in
Stockholm)
Turkey: Removes 1 unit.
DC386
FALL 1772 ADJUDICATION
PLAYERS:
Austria-Hapsburg: Arandia / Adriaan
Tichler / arandia.t(at)gmail.com
(resigned Summer 1766)
from Fall 1766: sunchung/ Sun Chung /
sun.chung(at)gmail.com
Britain-Hanover:
psychosis1973 / Michael Thompson / psychosis(at)sky.com
Denmark-Norway: Josiah / Josiah
Henderson / josiah.henderson(at)gmail.com (abandoned Spring
1766)
France: alwayshunted / Warren Fleming / alwayshunted(at)hotmail.com
Ottoman Empire: Lane / Aidan
Slattery / aislattery(at)aol.com
Poland-Saxony: raybrucea / Bruce Ray /
raybrucea(at)aol.com (eliminated Fall 1772)
Prussia:
DrSwordopolis / Nick Powell / nick.s.powell(at)gmail.com (eliminated Fall 1767)
Russian
Empire: dknemeyer / Dirk Knemeyer / dirk(at)knemeyer.com
Spain:
Brstd46 / Richard Aldous / aldous(at)xtra.co.nz
(eliminated Winter 1767)
Sweden: Wladimir7 / Wladimir Mysonski / wmysonski(at)gmail.com
HEADLINES:
British forces
reclaim Hanover and United Provinces, destroy final Saxon army.
Austrians
and French clash in Dresden, neither occupy city.
Russians careful to hold
their spring conquests.
Turkish assault on Venice
fails.
ORDERS:
Austria: A Baden-Wuerttemberg - Dresden
(*Bounce*).
Austria: A Bohemia Supports A Republic of Venice - Vienna
(*Fails*).
Austria: A Constantinople Hold.
Austria: A Milan - Republic
of Venice (*Bounce*).
Austria: A Switzerland Supports A Milan - Republic of
Venice.
Austria: A Republic of Venice - Vienna (*Bounce*).
Austria: A
Vienna - Budapest (*Bounce*).
Britain: A Holstein -
Hanover.
Britain: A Mecklenburg Supports A Holstein - Hanover.
Britain:
F North Sea - United Provinces.
Britain: F Norwegian Sea - North Atlantic
Ocean.
Britain: F Skagerrak - North Sea.
France: A Austrian
Netherlands Supports A Burgundy - Hesse-Westphalia (*Fails*).
France: F
Brest - Gascony.
France: A Burgundy - Hesse-Westphalia
(*Fails*).
France: F Gulf of Lyon Supports A Savoy.
France: A
Hesse-Westphalia - Dresden (*Bounce*).
France: A Marseilles -
Languedoc.
France: F Mid-Atlantic Ocean Hold.
France: A Picardy
Hold.
France: A Savoy Supports A Tuscany.
France: A Tuscany Supports A
Savoy.
Russia: A Ankara Supports A Constantinople.
Russia: F Baltic
Sea Supports A Copenhagen.
Russia: F Black Sea Supports A
Constantinople.
Russia: A Berlin Supports A Holstein - Hanover.
Russia:
A Christiania Hold.
Russia: A Copenhagen Hold.
Russia: A Lapland
Supports A Christiania.
Russia: A Lusatia Supports A Berlin.
Russia: F
Scania Supports A Christiania.
Russia: A Wallachia - Budapest
(*Bounce*).
Saxony: A Hanover Supports A Mecklenburg - Berlin
(*Disbanded*).
Turkey: F Adriatic Sea Supports A Papal States -
Republic of Venice.
Turkey: F Aegean Sea Hold.
Turkey: A Croatia -
Vienna (*Bounce*).
Turkey: F Morocco Hold.
Turkey: A Papal States -
Republic of Venice (*Bounce*).
Turkey: F Tyrrhenian Sea Hold.
UNIT
LOCATIONS:
Austria: A Baden-Wuerttemberg, A Bohemia, A
Constantinople, A Milan, A
Switzerland,
A Republic of Venice, A Vienna.
Britain: A Hanover, A
Mecklenburg, F North Atlantic Ocean, F North Sea, F
United
Provinces.
France: A Austrian Netherlands, A Burgundy, F
Gascony, F Gulf of Lyon, A
Hesse-Westphalia, A Languedoc, F Mid-Atlantic Ocean, A Picardy, A
Savoy, A
Tuscany.
Russia: A Ankara, F Baltic Sea, F Black Sea, A
Berlin, A Christiania, A
Copenhagen, A
Lapland, A Lusatia, F Scania, A Wallachia.
Turkey: F
Adriatic Sea, F Aegean Sea, A Croatia, F Morocco, A Papal States,
F Tyrrhenian
Sea.
OWNERSHIP OF SUPPLY CENTERS:
Austria (9+1=10):
Baden-Wuerttemberg, Bavaria, Breslau, Budapest, Dresden, Milan,
Switzerland,
Republic of Venice, Vienna. +Constantinople
Britain (6-2+2=6):
/-Christiania/, /-Copenhagen/, Edinburgh, Liverpool, London, Mecklenburg.
+Hanover, +United Provinces
France (10-1+1=10): Austrian
Netherlands, Barcelona, Brest, Madrid, Marseilles, Paris,
Portugal,
Savoy, Tuscany, /-United Provinces/. +Hesse-Westphalia
Russia
(10+2=12): Abo, Ankara, Berlin, Courland, Crimea, Kiev,
Koenigsburg, Moscow, St
Petersburg,
Warsaw. +Christiania, +Copenhagen
Saxony (2-2=0):
/-Hanover/, /-Hesse-Westphalia/.
Sweden (1+0=1):
Stockholm.
Turkey (6-1=5): Algiers, /-Constantinople/,
Morocco, Papal States, Tunis, Two Sicilies.
Austria: 10
Supply centers, 7 Units: Builds 3 units. (Can build in
Budapest)
Britain: 6 Supply centers, 5 Units:
Builds 1 unit. (Can build in Edinburgh, Liverpool, or
London)
Denmark: 0 Supply centers, 0 Units:
Builds 0 units.
France: 10 Supply centers, 10
Units: Builds 0 units.
Prussia: 0
Supply centers, 0 Units: Builds 0
units.
Russia: 12 Supply centers, 10 Units:
Builds 2 units. (Can build in Crimea, Kiev, Moscow, or St.
Petersburg)
Saxony: 0 Supply centers, 0
Units: Builds 0 units.
(Eliminated)
Spain: 0 Supply centers, 0
Units: Builds 0 units.
Sweden: 1
Supply center, 0 Units: Builds 1 unit. (Can
build in Stockholm)
Turkey: 5 Supply centers,
6 Units: Removes 1 unit.
BUILD CENTERS:
Austria:
Budapest, Milan, Vienna
Britain: Edinburgh, Hanover, Liverpool,
London
France: Brest, Marseilles, Paris
Russia: Crimea, Kiev, Moscow,
St. Petersburg
Saxony: Baden-Wuerttemberg, Dresden, Warsaw
Sweden: Abo,
Stockholm
Turkey: Ankara, Constantinople, Tunis
UPCOMING
DEADLINES:
Winter 1772
Adjustments
Thursday, September 22, 22:00 GMT
Spring 1773
Orders
Tuesday, September 27, 22:00 GMT
Summer 1773
retreats
Thursday, September 29, 22:00
GMT[Reply] |
| DC386: Fall 1772 adjudication - smileyrob (Sep 20, 2011, 7:46 pm) |
[Reply] |
| DC386: Fall 1772 adjudication (dc386) raybrucea Sep 21, 07:27 am |
Dirk,
Congrats on the solo.
Ray
In a message dated 9/20/2011 8:46:15 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
smileyrob68(at)gmail.com writes:
As I
expected, things seem to be moving again after a few somewhat stagnant turns.
In the spring, the stalemate around Constantinople was broken, and this fall
Britain responds to the certain loss of its Scandinavian centers by turning
south. As a result, Saxony is finally eliminated. So this is goodbye to Ray.
Thank you for playing. You did an excellent job surviving with a single unit
as long as you did. The British moves to United Provinces and North Atlantic
Ocean seemingly signal a change in the relationship between Britain and
France, a change that France was perhaps not expecting. And does Russia's
support of Britain to Hanover mean these erstwhile enemies will now ally, or
just that Dirk was ready to see Saxony eliminated? Things do seem to be
getting interesting again.
I need adjustment orders from everyone who
is still alive except Warren. They are due by Thursday at 22:00 GMT. The
possibilities are:
Austria: Builds 3 units. (Can
only build in Budapest, thus 2 builds will be
unused)
Britain: Builds 1 unit. (Can build in
Edinburgh, Liverpool, or London)
Russia:
Builds 2 units. (Can build in Crimea, Kiev, Moscow, or St.
Petersburg)
Sweden: Builds 1 unit. (Can build in
Stockholm)
Turkey: Removes 1 unit.
DC386
FALL 1772 ADJUDICATION
PLAYERS:
Austria-Hapsburg: Arandia / Adriaan
Tichler / arandia.t(at)gmail.com
(resigned Summer 1766)
from Fall 1766: sunchung/ Sun Chung /
sun.chung(at)gmail.com
Britain-Hanover:
psychosis1973 / Michael Thompson / psychosis(at)sky.com
Denmark-Norway: Josiah / Josiah
Henderson / josiah.henderson(at)gmail.com (abandoned Spring
1766)
France: alwayshunted / Warren Fleming / alwayshunted(at)hotmail.com
Ottoman Empire: Lane / Aidan
Slattery / aislattery(at)aol.com
Poland-Saxony: raybrucea / Bruce Ray /
raybrucea(at)aol.com (eliminated Fall 1772)
Prussia:
DrSwordopolis / Nick Powell / nick.s.powell(at)gmail.com (eliminated Fall 1767)
Russian
Empire: dknemeyer / Dirk Knemeyer / dirk(at)knemeyer.com
Spain:
Brstd46 / Richard Aldous / aldous(at)xtra.co.nz
(eliminated Winter 1767)
Sweden: Wladimir7 / Wladimir Mysonski / wmysonski(at)gmail.com
HEADLINES:
British forces
reclaim Hanover and United Provinces, destroy final Saxon army.
Austrians
and French clash in Dresden, neither occupy city.
Russians careful to hold
their spring conquests.
Turkish assault on Venice
fails.
ORDERS:
Austria: A Baden-Wuerttemberg - Dresden
(*Bounce*).
Austria: A Bohemia Supports A Republic of Venice - Vienna
(*Fails*).
Austria: A Constantinople Hold.
Austria: A Milan - Republic
of Venice (*Bounce*).
Austria: A Switzerland Supports A Milan - Republic of
Venice.
Austria: A Republic of Venice - Vienna (*Bounce*).
Austria: A
Vienna - Budapest (*Bounce*).
Britain: A Holstein -
Hanover.
Britain: A Mecklenburg Supports A Holstein - Hanover.
Britain:
F North Sea - United Provinces.
Britain: F Norwegian Sea - North Atlantic
Ocean.
Britain: F Skagerrak - North Sea.
France: A Austrian
Netherlands Supports A Burgundy - Hesse-Westphalia (*Fails*).
France: F
Brest - Gascony.
France: A Burgundy - Hesse-Westphalia
(*Fails*).
France: F Gulf of Lyon Supports A Savoy.
France: A
Hesse-Westphalia - Dresden (*Bounce*).
France: A Marseilles -
Languedoc.
France: F Mid-Atlantic Ocean Hold.
France: A Picardy
Hold.
France: A Savoy Supports A Tuscany.
France: A Tuscany Supports A
Savoy.
Russia: A Ankara Supports A Constantinople.
Russia: F Baltic
Sea Supports A Copenhagen.
Russia: F Black Sea Supports A
Constantinople.
Russia: A Berlin Supports A Holstein - Hanover.
Russia:
A Christiania Hold.
Russia: A Copenhagen Hold.
Russia: A Lapland
Supports A Christiania.
Russia: A Lusatia Supports A Berlin.
Russia: F
Scania Supports A Christiania.
Russia: A Wallachia - Budapest
(*Bounce*).
Saxony: A Hanover Supports A Mecklenburg - Berlin
(*Disbanded*).
Turkey: F Adriatic Sea Supports A Papal States -
Republic of Venice.
Turkey: F Aegean Sea Hold.
Turkey: A Croatia -
Vienna (*Bounce*).
Turkey: F Morocco Hold.
Turkey: A Papal States -
Republic of Venice (*Bounce*).
Turkey: F Tyrrhenian Sea Hold.
UNIT
LOCATIONS:
Austria: A Baden-Wuerttemberg, A Bohemia, A
Constantinople, A Milan, A
Switzerland,
A Republic of Venice, A Vienna.
Britain: A Hanover, A
Mecklenburg, F North Atlantic Ocean, F North Sea, F
United
Provinces.
France: A Austrian Netherlands, A Burgundy, F
Gascony, F Gulf of Lyon, A
Hesse-Westphalia, A Languedoc, F Mid-Atlantic Ocean, A Picardy, A
Savoy, A
Tuscany.
Russia: A Ankara, F Baltic Sea, F Black Sea, A
Berlin, A Christiania, A
Copenhagen, A
Lapland, A Lusatia, F Scania, A Wallachia.
Turkey: F
Adriatic Sea, F Aegean Sea, A Croatia, F Morocco, A Papal States,
F Tyrrhenian
Sea.
OWNERSHIP OF SUPPLY CENTERS:
Austria (9+1=10):
Baden-Wuerttemberg, Bavaria, Breslau, Budapest, Dresden, Milan,
Switzerland,
Republic of Venice, Vienna. +Constantinople
Britain (6-2+2=6):
/-Christiania/, /-Copenhagen/, Edinburgh, Liverpool, London, Mecklenburg.
+Hanover, +United Provinces
France (10-1+1=10): Austrian
Netherlands, Barcelona, Brest, Madrid, Marseilles, Paris,
Portugal,
Savoy, Tuscany, /-United Provinces/. +Hesse-Westphalia
Russia
(10+2=12): Abo, Ankara, Berlin, Courland, Crimea, Kiev,
Koenigsburg, Moscow, St
Petersburg,
Warsaw. +Christiania, +Copenhagen
Saxony (2-2=0):
/-Hanover/, /-Hesse-Westphalia/.
Sweden (1+0=1):
Stockholm.
Turkey (6-1=5): Algiers, /-Constantinople/,
Morocco, Papal States, Tunis, Two Sicilies.
Austria: 10
Supply centers, 7 Units: Builds 3 units. (Can build in
Budapest)
Britain: 6 Supply centers, 5 Units:
Builds 1 unit. (Can build in Edinburgh, Liverpool, or
London)
Denmark: 0 Supply centers, 0 Units:
Builds 0 units.
France: 10 Supply centers, 10
Units: Builds 0 units.
Prussia: 0
Supply centers, 0 Units: Builds 0
units.
Russia: 12 Supply centers, 10 Units:
Builds 2 units. (Can build in Crimea, Kiev, Moscow, or St.
Petersburg)
Saxony: 0 Supply centers, 0
Units: Builds 0 units.
(Eliminated)
Spain: 0 Supply centers, 0
Units: Builds 0 units.
Sweden: 1
Supply center, 0 Units: Builds 1 unit. (Can
build in Stockholm)
Turkey: 5 Supply centers,
6 Units: Removes 1 unit.
BUILD CENTERS:
Austria:
Budapest, Milan, Vienna
Britain: Edinburgh, Hanover, Liverpool,
London
France: Brest, Marseilles, Paris
Russia: Crimea, Kiev, Moscow,
St. Petersburg
Saxony: Baden-Wuerttemberg, Dresden, Warsaw
Sweden: Abo,
Stockholm
Turkey: Ankara, Constantinople, Tunis
UPCOMING
DEADLINES:
Winter 1772
Adjustments
Thursday, September 22, 22:00 GMT
Spring 1773
Orders
Tuesday, September 27, 22:00 GMT
Summer 1773
retreats
Thursday, September 29, 22:00
GMT |
