Welcome Guest!  [Log In]  [Sign Up]

Diplomaticcorp Discussion Forum:  dc330

(The forum for dc330, 1936.)

Subject:< DC330: End of Game Statement from Italy 
Topic:< dc330 >
Category:< Active Games >
Posted:Dec 14, 2010 at 6:22 pm
Viewed:1470 times

  [New Post]  [Reply]  [Quote]

End of Game Statement from Italy
Early game
From my first look at the board, I wanted to play the Italians, simply because I wanted very much to have a stake in the battle for Spain. Further, I felt that if I could win the battle for Spain, I would in effect have won the battle for the Mediterranean.
However, things went a little differently than I hoped.
My strategic decision was to attack France at the outset, with the hope that my decisive action would bring my allies, and specifically the alliance of Germany. This was nothing against Nick???it was just that on examination of the board it seemed that France was the best target from a tactical perspective. And my tactical position increasingly dictated by strategic decision making. Was that good or bad? I am not sure, but, given that I ended up on 13 centres, it worked out pretty well for me.
While my initial attack on France failed, with Nick defending hard and me unable to gain the diplomacy points that I needed for success in Spain or North Africa, my diplomacy and my actions gave me two neutral partners at the very least, Turkey and Poland. And I got a build in the Balkans. Britain also did not seem overly hostile. However, without Germany as an ally, I was feeling vulnerable.
However, I continued my attack on France. Foolishly, I also continued with my attempt to take Spain. In hindsight, I should have done a lot earlier what I did later: sacrifice the Nationalists for an ally in the Republicans. If I had done that, I think that France would have fallen much earlier and other opportunities would have opened up for me.
Middle game
Succeeding in getting the help of Britain in North Africa, picking up another centre in the Balkan regions and then creating an alliance with Republican Spain, enabling me to take Marseilles quickly made Italy a nation to be reckoned with.
But in the east, the combined might of Poland and Turkey was smashing the Soviets far more rapidly than I wished. And, with me at war with both France and Germany and soon to clash with Britain over North Africa and the Spanish question, my forces were spread thinly. It was at this juncture that the ???Serbian decision point??? came upon me: which major Eastern power was I to ally with, the Polish or the Turkish?
It was nice to be in the position of desired ally???especially given the alternative was to be that combination???s next victim!
Robert made a cogent argument: if Turkey got out of the box, he was going to be pretty much impregnable, with the only option available in the future containment???if possible. Further, the Polish build centres in the north were crucial to breaching British lines if my push out of the Mediterranean was to succeed.
However, my tactical position left me needing armies to deal with Germany, with my too few fleets required to support my beachhead in the fleshpots of the South of France and to prop up the shaky Republican government. If I was to fight Turkey, I would pretty much have to abandon the West, with Marseilles and the whole of Spain the likely costs.
So I felt that I had not much choice but to side with Turkey.
That is not to downplay Wladimir???s diplomacy, though: his clear demarcation of areas of influence, along with his expressed desire to not have the standard naval clash in the Mediterranean between Italy and Turkey, were strong influences on my decision.
And so Serbia fell under the Moslem yoke with Italian support.
After this, my game was not brilliantly played. Lots of misorders???and I mean lots???a failure to press home my advantage against Germany, a failure to convince Britain to seize centres on the continent until too late to help me, a failure to move decisively to position myself for a victory push ...
At one point, I was so depressed I was simply going to sit and put in draw proposals, but then I had two ideas, one tactical and one diplomatic. Both were designed to break the impasse over Munich and Czechia. The first involved giving Germany Austria; the second involved a fake war with my ally Spain???a fake war that I did not inform him of in advance, as I wanted the option of turning it into a real one if that suited me.
However, I did not???Karsten was a good ally and I was worried about fighting Turkey at this point. And given that Britain had moved on Germany and Munich had fallen to me, things were going well.
The stab by Turkey was expected???not this one specifically, but in general: the two-way or three-way proposals that you kept putting to me, Wladimir, were not realistic in my opinion and kept me suspicious for a long time???but I do think that he moved a year or possibly two years too soon. A breakthrough was about to occur in the assault on Poland, and if that had happened and then he had made gains against me 18 centres would have been much closer. I have to congratulate Sun on his contribution to getting Wladimir to move at this point, though???Sun???s position was a very difficult one in the latter period of the game, and this diplomatic success probably ensured his survival.
Wladimir???s stab gave me some freedom of action, as I no longer felt morally bound to the Turkish cause. And so I determined to have a victory shot of my own. I doubt, however, that anyone noticed, as due to a monumental stuff up in fleet orders it was over before it began. I am not certain whether Karsten would have kept to the notion of helping me to victory if he could not be part of the draw???I do not think so???but thanks for the offer in any case.
While I know that others hate the five-way draw, I felt that it was reasonable. A small power should be rewarded, in my opinion, for hanging on and being able to use the tensions between the larger powers as potential solo bids loom to get included. It is what I play for when I have been reduced in size, so I have no real problems with other players benefiting from that.

To Charles, I did seriously wish to ally with you, and I think that the German/Italian alliance on this board has great potential. It is a shame that other things intervened???I certainly understand the relative importance of a game in the scheme of things.
To Nick, sorry about the eternal enmity. I do make friends of foes in Diplomacy on a regular basis, but the right set of circumstances never arose in this case (at least in my perception). You fought hard until the end.
To Sun, while we were enemies and while I lied to you much, much too often, I enjoyed our conversations. You played well???your only error from my perspective was to not seize the continental centres at your mercy much earlier. While I was plotting to eliminate you with Spanish help, I do not think that it would have been easy.
To Robert, you and I obviously had the most difficult of relationships. My decision not to communicate with you after the stab was mainly because I did not quite know what to say other than, ???I???m your enemy,??? without continuing to lie. So, while you suggested that I was the least trustworthy player on the board, I did only lie to you twice???poor Sun copped it at least a dozen times, and probably much more than that. I am amazed that you managed to reach 13 centres despite the long-lasting war between us. Excellent play.
To Karsten, thank you for your alliance. I believe that it was the key to me gaining the position that I held at the end of the game, and I think that it was your best option to progress. I wonder how often such an alliance will be formed between Italy and the Republicans, given the initial starting circumstances. If I had realised its potential sooner, I would have pushed it from the start. But we did well in any case.
And to my excellent ally, Wladimir, thanks. We forged a strong partnership very early and this partnership lasted even during the period of the stab and my aborted victory march. The lack of a naval clash probably in the Mediterranean is certainly not historical for pretty much any period of European warfare, but it worked very well for both of us.
Thanks for everyone for playing, thanks to Charles for designing the variant, and thanks very much to Dirk for GMing???and especially for putting up with what must have at times been very annoying misorders from me, which did not make your job of adjudication any easier. If you are running any more games, I would very much like to play. I will try to read the board a little better, though!

There is 1 Message in this Thread:

DC330: End of Game Statement from Italy (raistlin) Dec 14, 06:22 pm

There are 110 Threads in dc330:

DC330: End of Game Statement from Italy (raistlin)

DC330: German EOG Statement & Designer Comments (charlesf)

DC330 British EOG Statement (sunchung)

dc330 Turkish EOG (Wladimir7)

dc330: Sp46 Deadline almost here! (dknemeyer)

dc330: Sp46 Deadline Looming (dknemeyer)

dc330: Wi45 Results (updated) (dknemeyer)

dc330: Wi45 Results! (dknemeyer)

dc330: New draw proposal (dknemeyer)

dc330: Fa45 Results! (dknemeyer)

dc330: Deadline today!!! (dknemeyer)

dc330: Draw proposals (dknemeyer)

dc330: Sp45 Results! (dknemeyer)

dc330: Deadline ~23 hours away! (dknemeyer)

dc330: Wi44 Results! (dknemeyer)

dc330: Fa44 Results! (dknemeyer) [3 Replies]

Fwd: dc330: Fa44 Results! (dknemeyer)

dc330: Deadline fast approaching! (dknemeyer) [2 Replies]

dc330: Game on! (dknemeyer)

dc330: Su44 Results! (dknemeyer)

1 - 20 of 110 shown [More]

Diplomacy games may contain lying, stabbing, or deliberately deceiving communications that may not be suitable for and may pose a hazard to young children, gullible adults, and small farm animals.

Powered by Fuzzy Logic · You are visitor number 55604 · Page loaded in 0.205 seconds by DESMOND