---------------------------------------- usef@devel.diplom.org http://www.diplom.org/ http://www.diplomacy-archive.com/resources/strategy.htm http://onesite.org/observer/request.php3?judge=USEF&gamename=crosstab ---------------------------------------- Austria Regent Karl England King M France Germany Italy King Vitto Russia Tsar Nicholas Turkey premier Kumalit O'Toole ---------------------------------------- Master 517 France move 7/7 165 Italy move 4/4 409 Russia move 6/6 184 England move 3/3 2441 Germany move 4/4 467 Turkey move 7/7 597 Austria move 3/3 156 Observer Observer Observer Observer ---------------------------------------- Broadcast message from Germany in 'crosstab': do we submit END OF GAME statements now? ---------------------------------------- Broadcast message from Master in 'crosstab': > Broadcast message from Germany in 'crosstab': > > > do we submit END OF GAME statements now? > Yes you do. Congratulations to all the combatants. It was a game well played and ran rather smoothly, from my point of view. Fewer abandonments than usual and one press goof early on. Its been a pleasure folks. Lou ---------------------------------------- Broadcast message from Master in 'crosstab': For you review, here is a copy of the game summary: Judge: USEF Game: Crosstab Variant: Standard Deadline: S1912MX Thu Jun 1 2000 23:30:00 PDT Game 'crosstab' has been terminated. Use the 'resume' command to start it back up. Summary of game 'crosstab' through F1911B. Master: Louis H London lhlondon@ix.netcom.com Austria: Lee Hughes lhughes@jove.acs.unt.edu England: Michael R. Winans mrw@rochester.rr.com from S1902M: Ron Artigues ron_artigues@intuit.com,artigues@san.rr.com France: Matthew Welch daffyduckx@hotmail.com Germany: Sachin Singhal Italy: Timothy R. Quinn trquinn@lost.net.au Russia: Roger Dickerhoof therog40@hotmail.com Turkey: Jack Brennen jack@babybean.com Game parameters are/were as follows: Move clock 1410 min 12.00 next 71.00 grace 48.00 delay 0.50 days -mTWTF- Retreat clock -1 min 0.00 next 47.00 grace 48.00 delay 0.50 days -mTWTF- Adjust clock -1 min 0.00 next 47.00 grace 48.00 delay 0.50 days -mTWTF- Access: Different-site, Level: Any, Moderated, Dedication: 50. Variant: Standard. Flags: NoNMR, NoProxy, DIAS. Press: White, Partial Allowed, No Fake. Winning Centers: 18. Index: 52 Judge: USEF. Game Started: Wed Jan 12 21:57:51 2000 Draw declared: Wed May 31 08:39:29 2000 The game was declared a draw between France, Italy, Russia and Turkey. This game is a 72 hour white press game for experienced, dedicated players. If you do not have a dedication of at least 50, I will resign you. SInce you're all experienced, we will limit the rules to the EP House Rules, common sense and courtesy. Keep it clean and stab away. Lou Historical Supply Center Summary -------------------------------- Ven Nap Edi Lvp Par Por Bel Mun Ber Swe Stp Mos Con Smy Rum Ser Vie Year Rom Tun Lon Bre Mar Spa Hol Kie Den Nor War Sev Ank Bul Gre Bud Tri 1900 I I I . E E E F F F . . . . G G G . . . R R R R T T T . . . . A A A 1901 I I I I E E E F F F F F F G G G G G R E R R R R T T T T R A A A A A 1902 I I I I E E E F F F F F F G G G G G R E E R R T T T T T T A A A A A 1903 I A I I E E E F F F F F G G G G G G R R R E T T T T T T A A A A A A 1904 I I I F E E E F F F F F F E G G G R R R R E T T T T T A T A A A A A 1905 I I I F E E E F F F F F F G G G G R R R R E R T T T T T T I A A A A 1906 I I I F E E E F F F F F F G G G G R R R R R R T T T T T T I T A A A 1907 I I I F E E E F F F F F F G G G G R R R R R R T T T T T T I T T A I 1908 I I I F E R E F F F F F F F F G G R R R R R R T T T T T T I T T A T 1909 I I I F E F E F F F F F F F F F F G R R R R R T T T T T T T T T A I 1910 I I I F E F F F F F F F F F F F F F R R R R R T T T T T T T T T T I 1911 I I I F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F R R R R R T T T T T T T T T T I History of Supply Center Counts ------------------------------- Power 1900 '01 '02 '03 '04 '05 '06 '07 '08 '09 Player Austria 3 5 5 7 6 4 3 1 1 1 Lee Hughes England 3 4 \ Michael R. Winans 5 4 5 4 3 3 2 2 Ron Artigues France 3 6 6 5 7 7 7 7 9 12 Matthew Welch Germany 3 5 5 6 3 4 4 4 2 1 Sachin Singhal Italy 3 4 4 3 3 4 4 5 4 4 Timothy R. Quinn Russia 4 6 3 3 4 5 6 6 7 5 Roger Dickerhoof Turkey 3 4 6* 6 6 6 7 8 9 9 Jack Brennen Index: 10 24 24 25 25 24 26 28 33 38 Power 1910 '11 Player England 1 Ron Artigues France 14 15 Matthew Welch Italy 4 4 Timothy R. Quinn Russia 5 5 Roger Dickerhoof Turkey 10 10 Jack Brennen Index: 48 52 * = 1 unused build. Index is the sum of squares of the number of supply centers divided by the number of players. It is a measure of how far the game has progressed. ---------------------------------------- signon fcrosstab broadcast Well, it's been a fun game. Thanks to everyone for playing. Thanks to our game Master for keeping things running smoothly. And a special thanks to our England who came in and replaced the real loser we started with who quit after a year because, boo hoo things weren't going his way (by the way, I looked him up on the Diplomacy Resignation Record and found that he's started four games and resigned from three of them). During the game I've been doing a brief analysis of everybody's position each turn. I will post the file at my website which is at http://home.att.net/~daffy-duck/diplom/diplom.htm and also includes analysis from a previous game of mine. If you don't find Crosstab there give me a day, I won't be able to post it until tonight. One thing I want to make absolutely clear is that this is really just a record of my thoughts at the time during the game. If I call you names in my analysis it's more likely because I was frustrated with something you did, not because you actually did anything bad. Please don't take offense at anything I've written. Also, half the time I've gotten something totally wrong. I'll make a bold prediction about the future of the game only to say the exact opposite a year later. The real reason I'm posting it for you to read is that I'm hoping you can fill in the gaps in my information and let me know where I was wrong in my analysis. Rereading that file I find that my biggest and longest running mistake was my total misread of Turkey's intentions. I kept figuring he was doing so well why wouldn't he keep going and try for more, go for the solo. But as I look through my notes and review the history of the game I see that he played like a total carebear from start to finish. He never once attacked someone without them attacking him first. He was always a faithful ally. He never seemed to break an agreement, even when it would benefit him greatly. But I just kept figuring he'd do it sometime. Part of my misread, though, had to be due to the fact that I almost never heard from him. Other than his (I think) three broadcast messages I haven't heard a peep from him since spring of 1902. And before that all I had gotten was a hello message at the beginning of the game. Turkey!? Turkey!? Are you out there? Why did you never write back to me? So here's the short version of what I was thinking through the game: In fall 1902 Italy came after me and I started to get really pessimistic about my chances in the game. Italy told me that since Austria had grown so strong (he had at that point) he didn't want to make him mad by fighting him, so he came after me. I guess he didn't care if he made me mad. At that point I also thought Russia was pretty much dead (great oracle that I am). So I started talking to Austria a lot and telling him how much he could gain by attacking Italy while his back was turned. It worked, and in spring 1903 Italy kept coming after me while Austria took Venice. Also at this time I had a really great plan for taking London that would have totally changed the face of the game. I would have gotten an army on to the island early and made life really hard on the English, but Germany didn't do his part, insisting instead on an attack on Norway that I knew would be fruitless. That drove me nuts, but seemed prefectly logical next turn when he attacked me. He had had plenty of opportunity to do this so it didn't come as much of a surprise, but would have been the end of me if Italy hadn't turned around to strike back at Austria. By the way, Italy, if you had just waited one turn longer before attacking me I am convinced you would have succeeded. I had planned to send the Atlantic fleet north into the Irish Sea, where it would have been too far away to defend against you. But as it was I was just able to keep you out of my centers by the skin of my teeth. One turn more and you would have been guaranteed either Marseilles or Spain and basically that would have been it for me. But since you backed off and Germany didn't carry through his attack very well I was able to get my feet back under me and by spring 1904 I was optimistic about my prospects for rebuilding. At that point Germany began his long, slow self-destruction. That was a headache for me for a long time because I had no idea what to expect from him from one turn to the next. I had no idea what he was trying to accomplish so I had no way to predict his movements. Having a neighbor like that can be tyring but eventually we started communicating better and eventually he started working for me to a great extent. By fall 1905 I was feeling pretty good about my progress and was poised to move against England when he pulled the slickest move of the whole game by guessing my self bounce and providing unwanted support for one of the units. That just blew me away. That was such a cool move. Even though it really messed me up and slowed down my attack on him for years I've got to admit that it was a great move. The disappointing thing was that his very next turn was so lifeless. He had a shot at taking away Spain or Portugal, maybe with a long convoy, but instead sailed into the Mediterranean where the fleet was absolutely useless and offered me a very weak and easily stopped attack on Belgium. If you're still here England, why did you do that? What was your plan for that fleet? To be honest that was a let-down after such a good move the turn before. Spring 1906 also saw England finally lose Warsaw. He took it in fall 1903 and immediately removed the army that had taken it. So he basically had a free unit until someone took Warsaw. That annoyed me but I figured it wouldn't last long. But it was two and a half years before anyone walked into that wide open supply center. That drove me nuts. Every turn I would just about cry when I read that another turn had gone by without anyone relieveing me of that extra English unit. The whole time there were armies right next to it who could just walk in there but nobody did. Was that planned? Russia? Turkey? Germany? Did you guys just want to keep the English pressure on me? Two whole build phases went by where he should by all rights have lost a unit but didn't because of that stupid Warsaw. In fall 1906 I was feeling a lot better about how I was doing against England but still felt I was moving to slowly. In spring 1907 I was starting to straighten things out positionally but in fall 1907 England broke up my convoy and set me back a bit. England was playing very well, almost never missing a chance to mess things up for me. It was about this time that Germany started listening to my suggestions. My suggestions were mostly anti-Russian, even though I was being nice to Russia in my messages to him. We were working together to figure out how to eliminate England and Germany, but I was really beginning to work out how I could use Germany against Russia. I wasn't seeing specifics for my stab yet, but was trying to slow down Russia while I made gains. Also in fall 1907 I got Germany and Austria together to keep Italy out of Vienna. At this point Austria was in bad shape and Italy was expecting to take Vienna from him. At this point Italy and I were on really good terms, trading information and analysis every move. But I didn't want him to get too strong, in case he'd come after me again. So I decided that I basically wanted him to be tough enough to hold Turkey back from me, but not big enough to becom a real threat himself. So I figured out how to use Germany, who had been attacking Austria, to save Austria. As time went on I would regret not getting Italy onto a more even footing with Turkey, but at the time it was just what I wanted. Italy did just fine on his own though. A couple more turns went by and it looked like our best hope to stop Turkish expansion was for Italy and I to mesh our units together into a tight defensive line. But then Italy pulled a great move and took Trieste. But that push was short lived as the very next turn I pulled my big stab of Russia. I had been planning this in detail for about a year. I floated a test balloon to Italy and he shot it right down, but I went ahead and did it anyway. It was my best hope for a solo. If Turkey had made even a slight attempt at a grab of his own I might have made it work. But turkey played ball faithfully, effectively eliminating my chance at a solo. I stirred up enough distrust in spring 1911 to pull everyone off me briefly, but since Turkey remained faithful there was little left for me to do. The delay I caused, though, did buy me enough time to be sure to get to my stalemate line if you guys hadn't voted for the draw. For the record the line I was aiming for didn't include Berlin, Munich, or Tunis, so I was perfectly happy to fall back from them this next turn if it had come to that. So now that my "short" version has gotten really long I'll close. I'd love to hear from all the other players. The President endpress signoff ---------------------------------------- Broadcast message from Italy in 'crosstab': This has got rather long... much longer than the French EOG. Set aside a fair bit of time if you actually want to read this. * * * When I started this game my basic aim was to forge an alliance with Russia, take out Turkey and Austria, in that order and arrange things so that I was in a good position to do a big stab on Russia, or be secure in the east so I could go west in force... I know that most DipPouch articals say to keep your options open, and that is the way i play, and I have abandoned such plans, but i do like having them. Russia seemed interested in the idea when I suggested it. So it seemed likely that he hadn't rejected it out of hand. So I was working to get a RAI alliance up against Turkey. Unfortunitly the Austrian had ideas of his own. He managed to establish a fairly strong AT alliance in the first year. Now I actually like the AT alliance when I'm in it. It is a strong alliance with easy division of routes of expansion. But it is bad news for Italy and Russia. So once it became clear that there was a fairly solid AT going alliance with Russia became utterly vital. I moved to attack the AT, arriving near Bul and Gre in 1902. Unfortunitly the Russians efforts at defence were very poor. Very poor indeed. My understanding is that Austria kept telling Russia that he would turn around and not attack him. All lies, for several turns in a row. It was the diplomatic tactic Austria used on me when he attacked me. Russia kept believing the Austrian though, and the AT attack into Russia was well coordinated and very clever. It would have taken an aggressive defence to stop it, and Russia kept believing Austria so the defence was considerably less than aggressive. So by the time I reached the Aeg it was clear that Russia was not going to put up the sort of defence needed to make any attack by me on the AT alliance anything better than suicide. Englands rather insane attack on Russia in the north seemed to have split the Tsar's attention and I was unable to convince him to move units south in sufficient force. By the end of 1902 it was clear that attacking AT would be a terrible mistake for me. It would certainly cement the AT for a time, and my only hope at that point was an AT split. Attacking one or both would not have encouraged a split. Russia was not going to be able to help me against AT, and was at that time and over the next year moving to a northen position from which he eventually recovered rather nicely. Englands attack on Russia was collapesing in the face of the FG attack. Not wanting to attack AT, I really only had one option. France. It wasn't so much that I wanted an annoyed France rather than an annoyed Austria, it was a case of I could far more afford to annoy France than I could Austria. I had the position to possibly defeat France, whereas Austria would have crushed me. So I went west. I was doing well too. Right up until Austria stabbed me. It seems I have France to thank for that to some extent. I'm not surprised. I was hoping that AT would split, as they did around this time. I had been hearing reports that they were going that way for a while at that point, and I was certainly encouraging such a war. I know I was leaving myself exposed to Austria, but I was hoping that he would be so busy with Turkey for the next few years that I would be able to pursue a western effort without interference. Austria and Turkey were well balanced at that point. If they had of gone to war and not had any external interference they would have been locked together for years with no spare units to do any damage to anyone else. Unfortunitly Austria stabbed me just as my western offencive was about to pick up some momentum [or be stopped dead in it's tracks - France I think you were overly pessimistic about my ablity to take Mar or Spa. I had a chance, but if I missed it and you brought other units to help defend the south then you could have stopped me]. So with Austria occupying a home centre, Rome in the end, I had no choice but to turn around and try and get him out. I made a bad deal with France, promising him Tunis if he helped me against Austria, the biggest power at the time. It turned out that I didn't need any French help to get the Austrian out of my territory. He left, more or less, by himself. He had obviously seen the danger of fighting turkey and someone else at the same time. Perhaps the news, and the moves to make it a believible claim, that France was moving into the Med to help me out against him caused him to reconsider the war against me. I also feel that it was at this time, when my position was weakest that I had the most influence across the whole board. I was trying hard to maintain balance in the west, keeping alliances switching, doing what i could to convince various people to not take Warsaw. Trying to drag Germany east to some extent to reduce his influence in the west to give France a bit of a break [the initial FG had broken up at that point]. Frances position was not wonderful but I didn't want him to fall apart at that point. I also wanted to keep England strong, so I was discouraging people from taking Warsaw, or trying to arrange bounces there. At the time Warsaw was on the edge of all the major battles in the east. the AT fight, the RT fight and even the AG fight when that got going. I felt it was the fulcrum around which the whole of the east was fighting and that whoever took it would control the outcome of each of the major eastern fights. I wanted Warsaw to fall into hands friendly to me basicly. But not too soon, because I also wanted England to recieve the benifiet of the extra unit. In the end I think the whole warsaw issue played out quite well for me. The only problem was that by the time Russia did take Warsaw it has ceased to be such a vital point. Meanwhile back to 04 and 05, I was working hard to control a lot of units diplomaticly. In the end I had a wonderful plan to set Austria up for a serious stab by me. I was trying to control about 19 units at this point. My units, Austria and Turkey's units, and some Russian and German units. It all went rather well. Except that the Austrian didn't check his messages before one of the deadlines, which ment that he was not forced into a certain set of moves in the fall, when i planned to stab. I had managed to push Austria into following my instructions because otherwise I was going to side with Turkey against him, which would have killed him [as it ultimatly did]. Turkey was going along with me because I promised him revenge on Austria, and he was having difficulty communicating with other people, so by just talking to him I strongly suspect I was the only other power with any influence over his moves. And Russia wanted to grow again, and i was going to need him againt Turkey once Austria was delt with... I also needed to keep France off my back, so I did actually let him take Tunis. In hindsight I might have been better off bouncing him there. I would have had an extra unit to deal with France, and Austria and turkey would have been locked in an unproductive war while I discouraged France. Organising both sides of a war is hard work. Comming up with believible moves for both sides is not always easy. But until Austria missed a message that would have allowed him to stop a certain Turkish attack it was all working well. At that point I was ready to stab Austria. I think I didn't talk to him enough at this point, because he saw me comming, which slowed me down a lot. At the same time i had managed to seriously piss off England. My diplomatic efforts to maintain the western balance had come to the point were I needed to keep France and England distrustful of each other so they didn't just overrun a confusing German. I wanted war between them eventually, but probably not quite when it happened. A slightly stronger England, or perhaps just one not caught out quite so much would have been better. But it seems my words caused France to attack England, and when England found that out he was a little upset with me, and I don't really think I helped matters in my responses to him on the issue. In the east turkey and I gardually managed to grind Austia down, until I was in position to take Vienna, had aquired Greece and Trieste. When the seemingly irrational German supported Austria in place. Once again it looks like I have France to thank for that as well. But I have to admit that I didn't put enough diplomatic effort into Germany at that point to convince him that he really did want me to take Vienna. If I had of taken Vienna, my forces would have been linked up with Russias, and we would have been well positioned to grind Turkey down. It would have been a slow effort but we would have had the position and power to defeat Turkey eventually. I also would have had an extra fleet and could have seen about taking Tunis back, because France had almost nothing in the south at this point, he was heavily engaged with England, so i would have had no trouble gaining control of the central and western Med. I probably would not have mounted an offencive against Frances home centres or Iberia, but I would have had the power to attack at any time, or repell any French attack for some time to come. Getting the German to support Vienna was probably exactly the right thing for France to do. At that point France and Turkey were clearly the two biggest threats. After not gaining Vienna my own chances at arranging things so I could win had pretty much evaporated. However, if i could reestablish balance across the board I might have been able to swing something later. So I concieved of the super alliance EGRIA... with the intention of eliminating Austria when safe to do so. This never really stood a chance, but the reasoning behind it was sound so I hoped people would see that and come on board. If it had of come together we would have been able to reduce both Turkey and France, balance of some sort would have been re-established and I would have been back in with a chance at a win. That fell through and my only real option was survival, and possibly a draw, hence a suddern lack of interest in the actions of powers like Germany and Austria. They were simply no longer relevent. So I found myself fighting a numerically superior Turkey who would beat me eventually. I was finally able to with Austria again during this time... if only it had come a year eariler! So I was looking at getting into a draw between France and Turkey, and possibly Russia. Austria was helping hold Turkey off for a time, and France could see the danger and appeared to be quite willing to help build the stalemate line I proposed for the Med, stopping Turkey. Then France did me one of the biggest favors of the whole game. He stabbed Russia. What a wonderful break that was. France had a clear run to a solo. All he needed was the centres he owned plus a bunch in Scan, which no one was going to be able to stop him getting. So we established an eastern alliance, with the intention of forcing a draw... well that was _my_ intention. What I was actually saying was that with a little luck we might actually defeat France, which I was hoping would make Turkey feel happier about working with Russia and myself, and not stab us. :) In order to build a stalemate line we needed to take at least one centre off France that we could hold. The two obvious choices were Tunis and Berlin. But Tunis had the easiest stalemate line to build so that was what i was going for at first, and I seemed to more or less direct the eastern alliance in that direction. French moves created the oppertunity to take Berlin. French moves were actually remarkibly poor during this stage I thought. They created oppertunities that should have never been avalible to us. Austria was still kicking around, much to my surprise, and I suspect his own. But Turkey saw an oppertunity to eliminate him in a way which didn't compromise the construction of the stalemate line too badly, especially considering France's poor moves at that point. Now if the Turk had of warned either Russia or myself about his plan to do that I suspect we might not have become quite so paranoid in the following moves... not to the point of moving on him as we did in the end. That was really bad. After looking at the position that resulted the Tsar and myself both concluded taht we might have just given the game away to France. Fortunitly it turned out that wasn't the case. We still had Berlin avalible to take and hold if we went for it. Fortunitly we didn't have to prove that. It seems that France was more worried about being beaten in German and the Med, than seeing that he could have gotten to at least 17 centres. I think we faked you out there a bit France. We were not as powerful as you seemed to have feared... In the end a very good game. Quite excting for me. Kicking a foreign force out of my capital, and surviving wars with neighbours who were much more powerful than me. There were several times when I thought I was going to be eliminated, and survived anyway. When Austria first occupied Rome I didn't think I'd last more than another year or two, but then he built a fleet in Trieste of all things and I thought that I had a chance again. [serious capering resulted] My reads of the various players goes something like: First England; not around long enough to really work out, but not too good seems pretty obvious. Replacement England; Very good. Tacticly brillient. He never seemed to have much influence diplomaticly, though it's hard to tell because Germany was always very quiet, and there's no telling what really went on there... France; Yiks. One of the dominant diplomatic powers. If you wanted to know where the world was going and what was going to happen next you had to know what France was up to what he thought and what he was saying. Fairly trust worthy, but willing to do the stab for enough gain. You don't seem tacticly brillient, but I would not rely on that to keep my nation alive. Austria; Tacticly ok. Perhaps bold more than particularly brillient tacticly... It can be hard to tell. Diplomaticly you dominated in the east early, but persistant lying ment that everyone ended up distrusting you. Once that happened I think i dominated the east diplomaticly, although Turkey was the big power and was probably most important. A bit less lying and I think you would have been able to continue your early success through to quite possibly the end game. [that only relates to this game though... your diplomatic methods may work better, or even worse in other games] Germany; I have no idea. Tacticly competent at the least. Diplomaticly I don't think you said enough to have much impact or influence on the moves of other powers. I would love to see your EOG. A lot of what you did seemed irrational. I would love to know if that is what it was or if you actually had some plan behind most of what you did... The only thing that I think any of the rest of us worked out about you was that you were a bit of an oppertunist. If someone looked weak you would go for them. Or so it seemed to us a lot of the time. Russia; Got suckered by Austria at the beginning, possibly a little more than I really think he should have. I don't know that he had an oppertunity to display any great tactical brillience so I can't really say. Certainly competent. Never really controled things diplomaticly, but after the rapid collapes in the face the AT offencive at the beginning he may simply of not had the oppertunity. Turkey; Played well. Didn't talk much. In fact bearly at all. I understand his access was somewhat limited. I fact i know I used that when convincing Russia that we needed to take care of Austria before turkey, saying that Turkey doesn't talk to anyone so he won't be able to aquire allies after Austria is eliminated. It was an arguement that worked. :) So the lack of communication means I can't say anything about his diplomatic ability. Tacticly though he played well. There were even a few pieces of serious cleverness in there. I am seriously happy that his communication was so poor in this game... I hate to think how he might have done if he was communicating with other powers, particularly France. :) Myself; I don't know that i ever managed anything very brillient tacticly. To be honest I think I'm too conservative to be truly tacticly brillient. I did fairly well diplomaticly. I didn't have too many surprises. And only one or two that I didn't actually like. :) I usually knew what each power was planning to do and what it wanted to do, and I was able to have a great deal of influence and control. Certainly far out of proporsion with my actual, on the board, power. I know my actions started one or two fights that might not have occured when they did, or even at all otherwise. And those fights certainly were in Italy's interest. I fought all of my immediate neighbours at various stages, France, Austria and Turkey, and was always able to ally with them afterwards. Which is always good. :) My biggest mistake was not spotting the AT at the beginning quickly enough, and not finding a way of dealing with it. In this game I found that what works best for Italy, is not to think of it as part of the east, but to think of it as being between an east and west triangle, and trying to maintain the balance in both triangles. They should only unbalance because Italy is growing large and upsetting the balance. I did that fairly well in the west, up until Germany started playing seemingly irrationally anyway. I wasn't so successful in the east with Russia collapsing early. But adapting the idea to keeping Austria and turkey balanced, and then Turkey balanced with myself and Russia worked out fairly well... again German interference messed that up. Vienna would have let that work out just right. And one other thing I've decided about Italy is that Venice should move in spring 1901. Not to Tus or Tri [except to an arranged bounce], but to Pie or Tyr. It doesn't matter too much which, but one of them. Having that unit sit in Venice is not useful. It will provide far greater diplomatic leverage if it's in Pie ot Tyr in the fall... -- Introvert trquinn@lost.net.au www: http://www.lost.net.au/~trquinn/ Play Empire ---------------------------------------- signon fcrosstab broadcast Thanks for your EOG, Italy, it was very enlightening. Thanks also for your positive evaluation of my diplomatic skills. I actually always felt like things were just slightly out of my grip, diplomatically. That was mostly because I always thought that things were just slightly in your grip diplomatically. I often wondered how things would have gone if you had chosen a single direction militarily and stuck with it. I think you would have done very well. You lost milliary momentum every time you switched directions. Still, you always had a hand in what was going on all over the board. I want to clarify one of the things I said in my last message. I said that when Italy attacked me early in the game that if he had waited one turn longer he would have had me. What I meant is that if Italy had waited one turn longer before beginning to attack me I would have been hopelessly out of position to defend myself from him. I didn't mean that he would have me if he had kept on attacking for one turn longer. In fact, at that point I didn't think it mattered if he kept attacking me because I had gotten all my units into the places I wanted them to defend myself. But as Italy pointed out, it was more effective for me to encourage Austria to attack him than to do anything on the board. The point I was trying to make was that if Italy had just sat tight in fall 1902 and then come after me in spring 1903 I wouldn't have had the fleet in the Atlantic that was so crucial to my defense. And so it was Italy who kept Warsaw open all that time! Man, that drove me nuts for three full years. I knew it had to end sooner or later, no amount of diplomatic skill could keep it open forever. But what was interesting is that I had absolutely no idea that Italy was involved in that. I was intensely interested in Warsaw, for obvious reasons, and I talked to everyone about it. Now usually when you ask enough people often enough eventually you get some idea of what is going on. But everyone always had a pretty good reason for not entering Warsaw, mostly because of all the conflicts around it that Italy mentioned. As for my endgame philosophy, I want to explain it a little more. As the game wore on I was on pretty good terms with Italy and Russia. I began asking myself how this game would end. Italy and I weren't in a very good position to attack Turkey and push him back and Russia just didn't seem interested in doing it. At the same time Russia was doing well, but I felt he could really use my help to expand in the north. And, since Germany was really beginning to do anything I asked him to I figured that the time was ripe to set Russia up and take my shot at a solo. So at the same time I was planning how to execute the stab I was also working out what the possibilities were for after the stab. I always figured it would depend on how Turkey acted, since he was the other big milliary power. I figured his reaction would be one of two things, either he would jump into high gear himself and start racing me for supply centers, or he would get in an alliance to push me back first, then take his shot after I had been stopped. In any case I knew that I would be facing some stop-the-leader feelings once I did it. So before proceeding with the stab I chose a stalemate line that I could aim for in the worst case scenario. The worst case was that Turkey would never lash out and take a shot at soloing and I'd be left facing the rest of the board in a united effort to stop me, which is what ended up happening. That's a lot of opposition to face alone so I needed a stalemate line to ensure that I wouldn't get rolled over. The specific line I wanted was: Bar, Nor, Ska, Swe, Den, Kie, Hol, Ruh, Bur, Gas, Mar, Spa, Wes, Naf. That was a line I knew I could get to and hold. And if I could hold on to the rest of Germany and Tunis as well, then I would be close to the solo. The only way to take Germany from me was if Turkey remained faithful to Russia and Italy. I was hoping that he would take a shot at one or the other of them, but he didn't. So if the three of them were going to work together faithfully I probably couldn't push them back and solo. My best hope would be the lack of communication with Turkey, but defending against me was pretty straightforward and wouldn't require a lot of negotiating. So I made one last attempt to stir up distrust and buy myself some time. Since Turkey didn't bite on that big juicy opportunity, I figured he never would. The turn we waited through to eliminate England gave me a chance to see if Turkey would act out against the Russian and French distrust, but he didn't. At that point there really wasn't anything left but the big draw. So since Turkey never took a shot at Russia or Italy I was basically playing for the stalemate line. That's why I didn't try to push across the Mediterranean or make much effort to defend Germany. Italy wrote to me twice to say that I was playing poorly, in spring and fall of 1910. I was playing conservatively, but I don't think I was playing poorly. Italy, if there were any specific attacks you think I should have made, please do post them. I love analyzing tactical problems. I think the thing you missed was that until I saw some sign of disunity between Russia, Turkey and you, I was playing for the stalemate line. The President endpress signoff ---------------------------------------- Broadcast message from Austria in 'crosstab': Austria's END OF GAME Statement First, let me thank everyone for a great game. I really enjoyed this one, despite my failure in the end to survive. There were definitely some interesting quirks about this one. I've read France and Italy's statements, so I'll try to comment on some of their observations later on. In the beginning of the game, I actually hoped to make friends with Russia and Italy (or at least no enemies with Italy), and position to keep Turkey in check. Unfortunately, I approached the start with the attitude of not giving anything away to anybody until I knew who my friends were. The end result of this was being a little too paranoid in the beginning -- thus making NO true friends early on (Side note: In most games I've played, I seem to find a "friend" early on in one of my neighbors with whom I have a reasonable amount of trust and mutual security -- at various times in this game I thought it might be Russia [his move to Gal killed that one], Italy [my opportunism against his homeland killed that one], or Germany [his totally unexpected movement eastward killed that one]). As a result of not trusting anyone, I quickly gained a reputation in the Italy (and apparently Russia) of being untrustworthy. I always felt that Italy overstated the case a little (but this would be expected, I was in Rome) at the time. I actually did less lying and a lot of letting people believe what they wanted to believe -- but I did do a good amount of directing people to "think" I had told them I would or would not do something. But, the end result was a bad reputation and WAY too many enemies. ( Another sidenote: I recently finished another game in a 3-way that I might have had a chance to solo in if I had acted more boldly earlier in the game -- so I entered this game with the intention to not waiver at all but to make bold decisions from the beginning. It worked well for a while, but I ended up with no allies!). My early successes left me spread too thin and fighting on too many fronts. Turkey's success against Russia was of great concern to me (I might never have stabbed Italy if I had known that Turkey would be so successful). I also had counted on German support which never came about (By the way, Germany, I told you early on that Austrian and German fates were intertwined. I thought it was interesting that we were eliminated around the same time). Even though I occupied Rome, I had no way to eliminate Italy and deal with Turkey at the same time. Thus, by the time the build turn came, I built a fleet in hope that I could get into the eastern Med and destabilize Turkey (long-shot which turned out to be impossible). I had to retreat from Italy and accept his "alliance" (dictatorship?) in return for some hope against forestalling my total collapse in the face of a Turkish attack. I followed Italy's demands only so long as they served my interests, but I never trusted him (it was mutual at that point). In fact, I actually received the "missed message" that Italy talked about before the deadline, but chose to ignore it because it weakened my position (sorry, I guess I just strengthened your position that I lied too much!). By this point, I did what little I could to help Russia (who had made a remarkable comeback from the dead), but I was not in much position to help. Usually, one of the major currencies of exchange in a game is information, not just military help. I had Kumalit the Silent on one side of me, and Kaiser Unpredictible on the other. Neither of which put me in much of a position to help Russia (though I did use the Kaiser's love of the being disruptive to help keep me alive in Vienna). Other than that, I did what I could to use the Turkish/Italian war to keep me alive. It worked, at least until the alliance against France made me obsolete. But I lasted several more years than I expected to. Well, Italy gave his impressions of everyone -- so I'll do the same: Germany - Not too communicative and became predictably unpredictable as the game continued (if you wanted him to do something, it had to cause the greatest disruption to others and break the status quo) England #1 - Didn't have much contact, so not much to say. England #2 - Still never had much opportunity to interact with him. Turkey - Very quiet. This kept me from trusting him at all early on, though I might have been receptive to his plans had I been informed. Despite the lack of communication, played quite well militarily. Italy - I made the mistake of creating distrust between us early on (though I didn't realize my misdirections with Russia were so well known to the Italian -- I might have tempered my approach to Italy had I realized this. Although I lied outright to Russia in the beginning, I hadn't intended to go after Italy at all, but I sensed distrust and followed through when the advantage was mine). Most of the middle part of the game was spent paying for my attack on Italy and the lost credibility. In the end, we actually became fairly good allies despite my weak position (but I did make a pivotal support that really slowed Turkey down). Obviously, Italy played very well diplomatically and did well despite some very poor position early on. Congrats on bringing about a draw. Russia - The great comeback! I thought you were dead, and then you came back to be a major player in the end. Well done. I really hoped that we would have been allies early on, but you angered me and I didn't forgive you in time (speaking metaphorically of course, I was never really "angry"). France - Despite some scares early on, you were always one of the major threats in the game. In retrospect, I should have left Italy alone, but you did a great job of convincing me to attack him (ultimately to your advantage and my loss). I can honestly say that you were the only power with whom I had a good relationship throughout the entire game (though we never had units adjacent to one another, this could be why I never distrusted you!). Your diplomacy was good. I really thought you had a chance to win at the end. This was a very interesting game. Thanks to the Master for keeping it running smoothly and to all of you for making deadlines and preventing long delays. I had a great time all the way around. I hope to encounter you all again in future games. Lee Hughes lhughes@jove.acs.unt.edu ---------------------------------------- Broadcast message from Germany in 'crosstab': EOG: I kind of messed up in the 1902 when England would have been dead had I supported the French convoy but, I thought that France's invasion of England would go faster than my occupation of Scandinavia. I was worried that France would have all these units ready to attack me and use Russia as a way to sandwich which actually happened anyway. So Since I did not have very many winning chances, I decided to be as unpredicatble as possible and disrupt the game so that way perhaps I would have more chances that doing the normal line of play. This "crazy" character may create more imbalances in the middlegame which I may be able to use to my advantage. Of course that didn't work but it made the game more exciting to play. Good game. GERMANY ---------------------------------------- Broadcast message from Russia in 'crosstab': This was probably the most poorly played opening to a game that I have done. Austria and Italy both expressed interest in working with me towards the elimination of Turkey. Paranoia got the best of me and at the last moment I switched my moves to opening in Galicia. At this point I should have tried harder to talk Italy into switching targets towards Austria first. We discussed it a little, but neither of us would commit to it. Instead, I tried to make up with Austria and hope for the best. If I had denied the Black Sea again in the fall, I feel I may have come out better. As it turned out, I wound up with a temporary gain of Rumania, an angry A-T looking at me and England coming over the top. I thought my fate was sealed in '02. After sailing to the Turkish coast, Italy turns right back around and leaves me twisting in the wind. With nothing to distract the Turk, I decided to abandon the south and see if I could hold out in the north. I (finally!) did some good work in Scandinavia and managed to kick England out. Neither one of us was interested in continuing the fight, so we made peace and decided to turn southward. Meanwhile, Austria did me a favor by turning on both his neighbors. This tied up Kumalit's attention and I wound up retaking Moscow and Warsaw. I decided to side with France in his battle with England. I wound up falling into London and picking up a center. I was happy with the gain, but not how isolated it was. Germany had become a great source of frustration by thrashing about unpredictably and I was working towards his elimination. I had made peace with Turkey and thought I would be able to make some gains in the north until France pulled his nice move in '09. Being crippled, I was happy to sound the alarm and see if I could come up with enough friends to forge a draw. We seemed to have our act together, but Kumalit's unannounced elimination of Austria planted a little mistrust in our minds. France also egged on our paranoia a bit and it almost cost us as we backtracked a bit. I still think France could have soloed from this point, so I was more than happy to vote for the draw. That was a most interesting game, as I ran a full range of emotions. I went from early growth to near death to promising growth to being chopped down to size. I feel fortunate to be part of the draw after my poor early play. Thanks everyone for a good game. Thanks to the Master for running it smoothly. Tsar Nicholas (Roger Dickerhoof) ---------------------------------------- Broadcast message from Italy in 'crosstab': Looking at the EOG's from France and Austria I have this disturbing feeling that I was stuck inbetween two players who are actually better at this game than I am... :) My military toing and froing didn't help me at all. I'm well aware of that mistake. However, every time i did switch direction it was with the firm belief that continuing in the direction I was going would only be worse than changing. Austria is right, he didn't outright lie so much as allow people to believe what they wanted... however, it isn't hard to present that as lying to other powers, especially when one had an Austrian army in Rome to point at and say "look he lied to me and now has an army in Rome". :) Ignoring that "missed message" was very clever. I thought the moves suggested were reasonible, because I knew that you would not follow my instructions if you weren't gaining something from them... but as I recall you lost a centre from ignoring that message, and I never would have expected that. And so you had flexibility in your moves the next season that you otherwise would not have had. As for playing boldly, I think that's the only way to play Austria. Austria is so often someone elses breakfast or lunch that I've concluded that Austria must be brutal and aggressive. Both diplomaticly and militarily. The Germans actions make sense now. That's a relief. Doing unpredictible things to try and alter alliance structures and create oppertunity for yourself makes a lot of sense to me. I've done it myself before. Though not on the sort of scale Germany seems to have here. Being persistantly unpredictible for an extended length of time. I don't know that it really helps doing it that way. Everyone around you ends up just wanting to get rid of you. I think a short period of unpredictibility to try and alter alliance structures and board wide balance, combined with more diplomatic effort [which also aims at changing the current situation] and then a return to more obviously rational play works better... but that is only my opinion. :) Knowing France had a stalemate line he was ready to move back to means I have a better understanding of those moves of his which I thought poor. In the same position I would try for a stalemate line as far forward as possible, and there were other options futher forward for France. And if a forward stalemate line fails for whatever reason I would then fall back to one futher back... I would have expected something similar from France. Some of his moves that seemed so poor now no longer do... -- Introvert trquinn@lost.net.au www: http://www.lost.net.au/~trquinn/ Play Empire ----------------------------------------