| dc342 ~ Imperial 1841 - sgttodd (Sep 17, 2010, 5:24 pm) |
All the orders are in, so we'll get on with it:
The deadline for Fall 1841 orders is: Wednesday, September 22th (at)
2359 UTC.
Unit locations:
Austria: A Berlin, A Loango, A Bavaria, A Croatia, F Adriatic Sea.
Britain: A Edinburgh, A Ontario, A Cape Colony, F Malaysia, A
Lucknow, F Labrador Sea, F North Sea, F N.Atlantic Ocean, F Bay of
Florida, F Arabian Sea, F Barrier Sea.
China: A Beijing, A Xining, A Korea, A Yunnan, A Formosa.
France: F Antilles, A Guinea, F Maldives, A Metz, A Switzerland, F
English Channel, F Mid-Atlantic Ocean, F Mozabaique Channel, F
W.Pacific Ocean.
Holland: F Holland, A Natal, F New Guinea, A Edo, A Sumatra, A
Amazona, F China Sea.
Ottoman: A Greece, A Nubia, A Syria, A Nejaaz, F Eastern
Mediterranean.
Russia: A St Petersburg, A Warsaw, A Orenburg, F Rumania, A
Krasnoyarsk, F Gulf of Bothnia.
Spain: F Cuba, F Phillipines, A Catalunia, A Mozambique, A Bahia,
F Equador, A Guatemala, A Oregon Terr., F Bay of Biscay.
USA: A Missouri Terr., F Florida, A Chicago, F Maritimes.
Movement results for Spring of 1841.
Austria: A Berlin - Kiel (*Bounce*).
Austria: A Budapest - Croatia.
Austria: F Venice - Adriatic Sea.
Austria: A Vienna - Bavaria.
Austria: A Loango - Biafra (*Bounce*).
Britain: F London - North Sea.
Britain: F Dublin - N.Atlantic Ocean.
Britain: A Edinburgh Hold.
Britain: F Quebec - Labrador Sea.
Britain: A Ontario Hold.
Britain: F Bahama Islands - Bay of Florida.
Britain: A Cape Colony Hold.
Britain: F Bombay - Arabian Sea.
Britain: A Delhi - Lucknow.
Britain: F Malaysia - N.E.Indian Ocean (*Bounce*).
Britain: F New South Wales - Barrier Sea.
China: A Beijing - Xining.
China: A Chongqing - Yunnan.
China: A Guangdong - Formosa.
China: A Shanghai - Beijing.
China: A Yongmingcheng - Korea.
France: A Paris - Metz.
France: F Nantes - English Channel.
France: A Marseilles - Switzerland.
France: F Antilles - Eastern Carribean (*Bounce*).
France: F Sierra Leone - Mid-Atlantic Ocean.
France: A Guinea - Biafra (*Bounce*).
France: F Madagascar - Mozabaique Channel.
France: F Maldives - N.E.Indian Ocean (*Bounce*).
France: F Society Islands - W.Pacific Ocean.
Holland: F Holland - Kiel(wc) (*Bounce*).
Holland: A Dutch Guiana - Amazona.
Holland: A Natal Hold.
Holland: A Kagoshima - Edo.
Holland: A Java - Sumatra.
Holland: F Borneo - China Sea.
Holland: F New Guinea - Celebes Sea (*Bounce*).
Ottoman: A Angora - Syria.
Ottoman: A Bagdad - Nejaaz.
Ottoman: F Constantinople - Eastern Mediterranean.
Ottoman: A Egypt - Nubia.
Ottoman: A Sofia - Greece.
Russia: A Moskow - St Petersburg.
Russia: F Sevastopol - Rumania.
Russia: F St Petersburg(wc) - Gulf of Bothnia.
Russia: A Warsaw Hold.
Russia: A Irkutsk - Krasnoyarsk.
Russia: A Orenburg Hold.
Spain: A Madrid - Catalunia.
Spain: F Lisbon - Bay of Biscay.
Spain: F Cuba - Eastern Carribean (*Bounce*).
Spain: A Mexico City - Guatemala.
Spain: A Monterey - Oregon Terr..
Spain: F Columbia(sc) - Equador.
Spain: A Rio de Janeiro - Bahia.
Spain: A Zanguebar - Mozambique.
Spain: F Phillipines - Celebes Sea (*Bounce*).
USA: F Boston - Maritimes.
USA: F Charleston - Florida.
USA: A New Orleans - Missouri Terr..
USA: A New York City - Chicago.
The deadline for Fall 1841 orders is: Wednesday, September 22th (at)
2359 UTC.
files: http://mainecav.org/diplomacy
Select DC342.
Click on the Last Modified heading until the most recent files
appear at the top of the listing.
dc342sp41moves.gif - map with owner colors turned off and orders
(arrows) shown.
dc342sp41.gif - map with moves resolved and owner colors turned on.
dc342.txt - orders as they were received and entered into RW.
dc342.dpw - The RW file up to the current move.[Reply] |
| [DC 328] Fall 1905 Abjudication - alwayshunted (Sep 17, 2010, 3:13 pm) |
Moscow is fine Ben, thanks.
Warren
[Reply] |
| 1936: France's Levantine Army - charlesf (Sep 17, 2010, 1:56 pm) |
Hi Sun,
glad to have you join the discussion. Comments inserted below:
There's been a lot of discussion here about France, and I personally
have had a closer perspective on that power (although not as close as
Nick!) I think I agree that France is a bit hampered, but not to the
degree that has been expressed here.
That has also been my view, basically. I dare say though that after the
extra muscle I've given France in v1.4, the grande nation will be viewed
in another light.
But I think Beirut is an issue for France. If Turkey wanted to boot
France out of the Mideast, France has no option BUT to appeal to
Britain. And unless Britain steps up, France will lose Beirut. Italy
is too far away to do something in year 1 and USSR could threaten
Turkish space from the north, but again, it won't stop Turkey from
taking Beirut. The fleet in Suez is the only potential help that
France has.
I doubt many Turks will devote two units during the first year to the
task of taking Beirut. If either unit gets bounced, then it can no
longer be done. Add to that that A Beirut isn't such a lethal threat to
Kemal's republic than the country's other rivals in the region.
Generally I'd say there are better hunting grounds for a young Turk.
Besides, what about Soviet A Stalingrad-Eastern Anatolia? That would
force a Turkey (even if he made into both EAS and Alex) to choose
whether to push on to Beirut or defend his capital. I count such a
threat as an effective defence ploy. So I simply don't agree with your
assertion that Britain's the only one who might help out in the anyway
unlikely event of Turkey going "all-in" vs. Beirut during 1936.
But this adds a weird dynamic in the sense that it commits France
and Britain to be friendly in the main theater (Western) based upon
the potential situation in a secondary theater (Near East). Also,
unless Suez moves right away, again it'll arrive too late to help
Beirut if Turkey moves two on that center.
As Pr?sident, I wouldn't have the fate of a remote outpost dictate my
foreign policy. One should not get too hung up on the fate of the French
Levant.
I know in Diplomacy there are lots of situations where a power can
commit more resources over a rival and who ever loses out in gaining
the tempo advantage loses, but in this case France can only count on
Britain to help out and forgo any other action. In a situation where
France knew Turkey was going to attack him, France only has two
options - bounce Turkey in Alexandretta or get British help to move
Suez to the north. Normally that's not an issue, but here, France
can't reinforce his position in Beirut. Again, without friendly
British help. And so even if France guessed right and bounced Turkey
from having two on Beirut, it'll only forestall it until the following
year.
I fail to see how this might be a problem (and it's really not quite an
accurate description of the situation anyway as I've argued further above).
Against an undistracted and focused Turkey, France won't be able to hold
Beirut indefinitely. Perhaps this explains why France ceded what's
basically the Alexandretta buffer province to Turkey during the 30s
(with the intermediary step of the independent Hatay Republic).
This all can be filed under "works as intended".
I think one potential option could be to have Iraq border Beirut and
then France could use diplomacy to enlist other friendly powers to use
DPs to aid Beirut in the case of a Turkish threat. But I guess it
could cut both ways and Turkey or Britain can use the neutral to
support an attack into Beirut with just one unit.
Again, I don't share there's a problem here. In any case, as France, I'd
generally not want a neighbouring minor power endanger my holdings.
That's what the Brits have to contend with in Suez. Doesn't make for a
particularly comfortable situation. One reason why Britain might put a
premium on taking out Egypt as an independent player in the region (F
Gibraltar being sent round the Cape of Good Hope to that end).
Net net, I don't know if the army in Beirut really aids France and
actually hurts the French position
Aids.
since 1) France can only appeal to Britain if Turkey attacks his position
Well, we're talking a lot of IFs here (first year, Turkey intent on
taking Beirut). And then there's still the Soviet Union.
and 2) if France loses out and still has his army there, it becomes a
resource drain on France
True. But that would require for the French army to already have moved
away from Beirut as otherwise the Pr?sident might simply disband the unit.
If this is such a major concern for a player, then he'd better make sure
his Levantine army will have to be dislodged in the event of the fall of
Beirut. But as the Pr?sident, I wouldn't be losing much sleep over this
eventuality.
and 3) France has no way to reinforcing or reallocating that unit
effectively by itself.
...at least for not for the foreseeable future. Later on in the game,
France might actually move other forces into the region.
Anyway, it is indeed quite true that event in the Levant might indeed
have repercussions for Metropolitan France (even negative ones if the
scenario you describe comes to pass). But A Beirut nonetheless remains a
valuable French asset. This whole discussion reminds me of a similar one
I once had with someone about 1648, who asserted that A Flanders
presented a liability for Spain. Couldn't disagree more with that claim
or indeed the analogous one regarding 1936's A Beirut.
Charles[Reply] |
| 1936 v1.4 - charlesf (Sep 17, 2010, 12:06 pm) |
Hi guys,
I've now decided to run with the various changes I discussed in my
past mail and implemented those on the below v1.4 map. Here a
summary of the changes:
- Both Algiers and Suez are no longer marked with a red
circle as they're now regular HSCs.
- The Tyrrhenian Sea has been divided into Northern and Southern
Tyrrhenian Sea spaces.
- Tuscany makes a comeback.
- The Adriatic now adjoins Greece.
- I've removed the Abruzzi buffer province that was geared to
facilitate an amphibious landing in Italy. Given the redrawn
Adriatic adds to Italy's defense worries in the East, I felt I
might help out Italy be removing that landing-site.
- I also cut out the now fairly redundant-seeming Ligurian Sea
space. As the SC-space ratio is already pretty high at 1:2.56, I
felt it wise to not further increase the number of overall spaces.
Standard has a ratio of 1:2.2. Plainly 1936 is a whole lot more
fluid variant, though some of 1936's spaces (e.g. Iceland, Kuweit,
Caspian) are only of very marginal use. So the "effective" ratio
is arguably somewhat lower.
All-in-all, I'd say that Franco-Italian tension is increased in
Africa (owing to the threat potential of the Algiers HSC), while
round Piedmont it has been reduced by a fair amount. To the East,
Turkish-Italian rivalry over Greece has been intensified.
I'd be interested to hear your take on these recalibration measures
in the wake of Algiers and Suez being promoted to HSC status.
Charles[Reply] |
| 1936 v1.4 (dc319) dknemeyer Sep 18, 10:58 am |
Hi Charles,
These are interesting changes. Some flash feedback:
- I think this makes the Italian position weaker. Italy simply can't have France building fleets in Alg given access to the STS. And with Tuscany, A Rom is channeled - almost forced - to either go to the Balkans or Swi only. There is not an attack avenue on France. So this map would seem to prevent Italy from channeling force and instead to make a series of very defensive decisions: to parry French or Turkish naval threats? Can't do both, and whichever is ignored is in trouble. Indeed, this makes France and Turkey - in my view - natural allies. Good news for France, terrible for the USSR.
- Making Sue a build location is interesting, but I think is a case where more strength on the board translates into diplomatic weakness. If I'm Turkey I no longer want Sue out of greed but out of self-preservation. That is a much sharper motive, and one that might railroad more behaviour particularly in light of the fertile FT possibilities and increased shared interest.
I suppose my biggest concern is that the USSR remains underpowered, and the changes may further compromise their position. Surely if you can justify Turkey being a 3 SC power Russia could be a 4. No special rules, create an SC for the Urals or something and done. This seems the one gaping hole, despite your bullishness over their 6 SC high water mark in 1937. In fact I would challenge a truly top, expert player to take the current position on a challenge and see what they could do with it. I think it is terribly weak relative to the situation of the other powers.
Another small change to consider with USSR is to not have Len and NRG touch. It only compounds the potential or deep misery for the Soviets, the nice jumping off point to blitz the British in the mid-game notwithstanding.
Despite my sharing the concern of others that France was underpowered, as you know Charles France is one of the powers I most want to play in this variant. Well, I have to say, even these subtle changes make me think that now France could be a premier power. Not sure the impact that would have on poor little Italy, but it may help justify having Italy control the Nationalists, providing an interesting counterweight in the far western Med.
Dirk
On Sep 17, 2010, at 1:06 PM, Charles Féaux de la Croix wrote:
Hi guys,
I've now decided to run with the various changes I discussed in my
past mail and implemented those on the below v1.4 map. Here a
summary of the changes:
- Both Algiers and Suez are no longer marked with a red
circle as they're now regular HSCs.
- The Tyrrhenian Sea has been divided into Northern and Southern
Tyrrhenian Sea spaces.
- Tuscany makes a comeback.
- The Adriatic now adjoins Greece.
- I've removed the Abruzzi buffer province that was geared to
facilitate an amphibious landing in Italy. Given the redrawn
Adriatic adds to Italy's defense worries in the East, I felt I
might help out Italy be removing that landing-site.
- I also cut out the now fairly redundant-seeming Ligurian Sea
space. As the SC-space ratio is already pretty high at 1:2.56, I
felt it wise to not further increase the number of overall spaces.
Standard has a ratio of 1:2.2. Plainly 1936 is a whole lot more
fluid variant, though some of 1936's spaces (e.g. Iceland, Kuweit,
Caspian) are only of very marginal use. So the "effective" ratio
is arguably somewhat lower.
All-in-all, I'd say that Franco-Italian tension is increased in
Africa (owing to the threat potential of the Algiers HSC), while
round Piedmont it has been reduced by a fair amount. To the East,
Turkish-Italian rivalry over Greece has been intensified.
I'd be interested to hear your take on these recalibration measures
in the wake of Algiers and Suez being promoted to HSC status.
Charles
<1936_14.jpg> |
| 1936 v1.4 (dc319) buyz2men Oct 01, 03:41 am |
| hi am glad to be here good work keep it on |
| 1936 v1.4 (dc319) charlesf Sep 18, 02:27 pm |
Dirk and all,
thanks for your feedback. Always good to have many "second
opinions" when operating on a patient.
The map I sent you is more of a draft for v1.4 than being
definitive. Particularly since my conviction on the merits of the
changes vary on each one.
A key question here is whether the changes strike a good balance
between a westerly and an easterly orientation of Italy. In other
words: whether the respective Franco-Italian and Turkish-Italian
friction levels are within a desirable range.
And there's another question that follows on from this: Is Italy
(and I'm factoring Nat.Spain, of course) sufficiently strong?
FRENCH ALGERIA
- I think this makes the Italian position weaker. Italy
simply can't have France building fleets in Alg given access to
the STS.
Having Algiers present a far more substantial danger to Italy indeed
does. But I don't agree that Italy cannot afford a French fleet
being built there. First of all, only Naples can be reached by such
a fleet within two moves (leaving aside Algiers-Tunis-Tripoli). So
in this regard, such a fleet build is no different from an army in
Marseilles marching on Milan.
It is more a later movement by such a fleet into NTS or ION that is
dangerous. Fortunately, a fleet build in Algiers gives the Duce a
clear warning. And unless Italy's totally committed in other
directions, a bounce in STS ought to be not so difficult to
engineer.
I'd suggest that Italy would do well to any of the following:
- ensure a French unit keeps blocking the Algiers build site
- have France agree not to build fleets there
- attack Algiers in an effort to make sure it's blocked by a French
unit or have it fall to Italy.
A Tripoli can do much to keep France honest - and more.
THE ALPINE FRONT
And with Tuscany, A Rom is channeled - almost forced - to
either go to the Balkans or Swi only.
I'd say A Rome's viable openings include moves to Croatia, Slovenia,
Austria and South Tyrol (thus pivotting towards Switzerland).
Remaining in place and supporting Austria is another good option
(kinda historically Italy's standing order until 193 .
That's a pretty broad range of options. The unit just doesn't have
all that much of an anti-French use anymore (other than perhaps a
move to Naples in preparation for a convoy over to Algiers, though
I'd say that's probably not the best use of the unit early on.
One weighty reason why I've given A Rome a more easterly bent is
that in turn for greater friction over Algiers, I needed to reduce
Franco-Italian tensions in the Alps. Otherwise friction levels would
have gone through the roof.
So basically four sound opening move options remain for A Rome.
That's a healthy number. And two quite different directions:
striking out into the Balkans or up north into the alps
(Switzerland, Austria).
There is not an attack avenue on France.
Not for A Rome, no. But A Milan can gun for Marseilles immediately.
It's just that without Swiss help you cannot engineer a supported
move on Piedmont.
However, this somewhat diminished offensive potential in the Alps
also means that Piedmont's no longer an Italian soft-spot (i.e. a
locale adjacent to 2+ of her initial SCs).
I'd argue this somewhat decreased offensive potential is not much of
a loss for Italy (if you want to attack Marseilles, investing in
Switzerland may go a long way to defeating a French offensive in
Piedmont - and if France isn't doing that, you don't need a
supported attack anyway). But Italy gains CONSIDERABLY in terms of
security as Rome can't be taken by France in 1936.
Very much a net plus for Italy, methinks. And also for France,
because Italy won't be as paranoid about Piedmont with the redrawn
map.
So this map would seem to prevent Italy from channeling
force and instead to make a series of very defensive decisions:
to parry French or Turkish naval threats? Can't do both, and
whichever is ignored is in trouble.
Italy can mount exactly the same attack it was able to launch in
past versions. Just without A Rome and A Milan combining (hardly
much of a difference as A Switzerland is most likely to be decisive
in a clash over Piedmont).
TURKEY ETC.
Indeed, this makes France and Turkey - in my view - natural
allies. Good news for France, terrible for the USSR.
Oh, I've always considered those two well-suited to another. Their
relationship is characterised by second-degree proximity, which
tends to go hand-in-hand with good alliance potential. And no, A
Beirut, doesn't in my book transform that relationship into one of
first-degree proximity. If players nonetheless view Franco-Turkish
relations in that light, they're plainly misinterpreting what A
Beirut brings table.
Of course, much as France/Turkey enjoy good ally potential on
account of their second-degree proximity, so does the Italy/USSR
pairing (at least if players don't let Spanish affairs overly colour
their relationship).
Italy may also find in Britain now a more useful ally owing to its
more robust presence in the Near East. Perhaps also more of a rival,
but on the whole I'd rate this development as good news for Italy.
- Making Sue a build location is interesting, but I think is
a case where more strength on the board translates into
diplomatic weakness. If I'm Turkey I no longer want Sue out of
greed but out of self-preservation.
Aye, Anglo-Turkish relations are complicated by Britain's enhanced
role in Turkey's backyard. It's indeed something I was gunning for
and that also made me comfortable giving Britain this additional
capability.
That is a much sharper motive, and one that might railroad
more behaviour particularly in light of the fertile FT
possibilities and increased shared interest.
Conversely, that may in turn be met by an Anglo-Italian block.
All that being said, I do wonder if the redrawn Adriatic does overly
heighten IT friction. It's the one change I've been least certain
about. And indeed, I'm now thinking that I may well have turned
Greece into a space that pulls in Italy and Turkey into conflict
much in the way the old Ukraine space did with Poland and Turkey.
So, right now I'm leaning towards undoing the Adriatic change.
The one major motivation for it was that I wanted to further pull
Italy away from France. Perhaps that was overdoing it.
I suppose my biggest concern is that the USSR remains
underpowered, and the changes may further compromise their
position.
If anything, Turkey facing greater challenges HELPS Uncle Joe.
Surely if you can justify Turkey being a 3 SC power Russia
could be a 4.
Oh, an earlier version of 1936 had indeed 4 SCs. I cut it down to
three as you can see. Works better and also reprects the Soviet
weakness with all those purges going on.
SOVIET UNION
No special rules, create an SC for the Urals or something
and done. This seems the one gaping hole, despite your
bullishness over their 6 SC high water mark in 1937. In fact I
would challenge a truly top, expert player to take the current
position on a challenge and see what they could do with it. I
think it is terribly weak relative to the situation of the other
powers.
Piano, piano.  As you know, I'm not in the least worried. In this
I'm as firm as I am about England's much-derided viability and
strength in 1648.
Another small change to consider with USSR is to not have Len
and NRG touch. It only compounds the potential or deep misery
for the Soviets, the nice jumping off point to blitz the British
in the mid-game notwithstanding.
Ah, I love that tension in the Far North! It's historical and makes
for more interesting gaming.
Despite my sharing the concern of others that France was
underpowered, as you know Charles France is one of the powers I
most want to play in this variant. Well, I have to say, even
these subtle changes make me think that now France could be a
premier power.
I'm in the camp of those who considered v1.3's France not too weak.
And now that I've given Algiers build site status, I take solace in
France's poor performance to date. My hope (and belief) is that I
haven't overpowered France.
Not sure the impact that would have on poor little Italy,
but it may help justify having Italy control the Nationalists,
providing an interesting counterweight in the far western Med.
The Nationalist presence of course very much has to be factored into
the Italian power calculation. And having that small base out West
comes also with the hefty potential of a united Spain.
Perhaps 1636's Italy is a power that either does very well or gets
squashed by neighbouring powers. With fairly little middle-ground.
In any case, I've enjoyed this exchange as well as the wider variant
discussion (as I trust you can tell by my long and numerous posts).
I'd love to hear more views on these changes. Just note that the
operating assumption here ought be that the Adriatic will be
returned to its original shape since that's where I am right now on
that question.
Cheers,
Charles
Dirk
On Sep 17, 2010, at 1:06 PM, Charles Féaux de la Croix
wrote:
Hi guys,
I've now decided to run with the various changes I
discussed in my past mail and implemented those on the
below v1.4 map. Here a summary of the changes:
- Both Algiers and Suez are no longer marked
with a red circle as they're now regular HSCs.
- The Tyrrhenian Sea has been divided into Northern and
Southern Tyrrhenian Sea spaces.
- Tuscany makes a comeback.
- The Adriatic now adjoins Greece.
- I've removed the Abruzzi buffer province that was
geared to facilitate an amphibious landing in Italy.
Given the redrawn Adriatic adds to Italy's defense
worries in the East, I felt I might help out Italy be
removing that landing-site.
- I also cut out the now fairly redundant-seeming
Ligurian Sea space. As the SC-space ratio is already
pretty high at 1:2.56, I felt it wise to not further
increase the number of overall spaces. Standard has a
ratio of 1:2.2. Plainly 1936 is a whole lot more fluid
variant, though some of 1936's spaces (e.g. Iceland,
Kuweit, Caspian) are only of very marginal use. So the
"effective" ratio is arguably somewhat lower.
All-in-all, I'd say that Franco-Italian tension is
increased in Africa (owing to the threat potential of the
Algiers HSC), while round Piedmont it has been reduced by
a fair amount. To the East, Turkish-Italian rivalry over
Greece has been intensified.
I'd be interested to hear your take on these recalibration
measures in the wake of Algiers and Suez being promoted to
HSC status.
Charles
<1936_14.jpg> |
| 1936 v1.4 (dc319) Nigs Sep 18, 04:18 pm |
Charles,
for what it's worth, I think the SU is underpowered (surprise, surprise) and Poland unhistorically strong. The changes to France may indirectly help, but a weak SU so far from Spain with a Italy in arguably a better position and closer to Spain directly, makes the civil war a distraction for the SU, and maybe even a disadvantage.
I'm not sure how much the last game is useful for typical lessons as to how things would play out again.
Nigs
Date: Sat, 18 Sep 2010 21:27:17 +0200
From: charlesf(at)web.de
To: dirk(at)knemeyer.com
CC: wesaq(at)list.ru; tomjnkns.IL(at)gmail.com; Jimmy.Ghostine(at)vtmednet.org; jlqueiros3(at)hotmail.com; dc319(at)diplomaticcorp.com; davidchegould(at)bigpond.com; c.p.mcinerney(at)gmail.com; dipping_chris(at)yahoo.com; ndeily(at)yahoo.com; congressofvienna1814(at)yahoo.com; VonPowell(at)aol.com; screwtape777(at)gmail.com; max.luckey(at)googlemail.com; mellinger(at)blitzbardgett.com; jamie_nordli(at)hotmail.com; nephilli99(at)hotmail.com; smileyrob68(at)gmail.com; sun.chung(at)gmail.com; nick.s.powell(at)gmail.com; wmysonski(at)gmail.com; karsten.nitsch(at)gmx.de; psychosis(at)sky.com; timothy.d.hayward(at)googlemail.com
Subject: Re: 1936 v1.4
Dirk and all,
thanks for your feedback. Always good to have many "second
opinions" when operating on a patient.
The map I sent you is more of a draft for v1.4 than being
definitive. Particularly since my conviction on the merits of the
changes vary on each one.
A key question here is whether the changes strike a good balance
between a westerly and an easterly orientation of Italy. In other
words: whether the respective Franco-Italian and Turkish-Italian
friction levels are within a desirable range.
And there's another question that follows on from this: Is Italy
(and I'm factoring Nat.Spain, of course) sufficiently strong?
FRENCH ALGERIA
- I think this makes the Italian position weaker. Italy
simply can't have France building fleets in Alg given access to
the STS.
Having Algiers present a far more substantial danger to Italy indeed
does. But I don't agree that Italy cannot afford a French fleet
being built there. First of all, only Naples can be reached by such
a fleet within two moves (leaving aside Algiers-Tunis-Tripoli). So
in this regard, such a fleet build is no different from an army in
Marseilles marching on Milan.
It is more a later movement by such a fleet into NTS or ION that is
dangerous. Fortunately, a fleet build in Algiers gives the Duce a
clear warning. And unless Italy's totally committed in other
directions, a bounce in STS ought to be not so difficult to
engineer.
I'd suggest that Italy would do well to any of the following:
- ensure a French unit keeps blocking the Algiers build site
- have France agree not to build fleets there
- attack Algiers in an effort to make sure it's blocked by a French
unit or have it fall to Italy.
A Tripoli can do much to keep France honest - and more.
THE ALPINE FRONT
And with Tuscany, A Rom is channeled - almost forced - to
either go to the Balkans or Swi only.
I'd say A Rome's viable openings include moves to Croatia, Slovenia,
Austria and South Tyrol (thus pivotting towards Switzerland).
Remaining in place and supporting Austria is another good option
(kinda historically Italy's standing order until 193.
That's a pretty broad range of options. The unit just doesn't have
all that much of an anti-French use anymore (other than perhaps a
move to Naples in preparation for a convoy over to Algiers, though
I'd say that's probably not the best use of the unit early on.
One weighty reason why I've given A Rome a more easterly bent is
that in turn for greater friction over Algiers, I needed to reduce
Franco-Italian tensions in the Alps. Otherwise friction levels would
have gone through the roof.
So basically four sound opening move options remain for A Rome.
That's a healthy number. And two quite different directions:
striking out into the Balkans or up north into the alps
(Switzerland, Austria).
There is not an attack avenue on France.
Not for A Rome, no. But A Milan can gun for Marseilles immediately.
It's just that without Swiss help you cannot engineer a supported
move on Piedmont.
However, this somewhat diminished offensive potential in the Alps
also means that Piedmont's no longer an Italian soft-spot (i.e. a
locale adjacent to 2+ of her initial SCs).
I'd argue this somewhat decreased offensive potential is not much of
a loss for Italy (if you want to attack Marseilles, investing in
Switzerland may go a long way to defeating a French offensive in
Piedmont - and if France isn't doing that, you don't need a
supported attack anyway). But Italy gains CONSIDERABLY in terms of
security as Rome can't be taken by France in 1936.
Very much a net plus for Italy, methinks. And also for France,
because Italy won't be as paranoid about Piedmont with the redrawn
map.
So this map would seem to prevent Italy from channeling
force and instead to make a series of very defensive decisions:
to parry French or Turkish naval threats? Can't do both, and
whichever is ignored is in trouble.
Italy can mount exactly the same attack it was able to launch in
past versions. Just without A Rome and A Milan combining (hardly
much of a difference as A Switzerland is most likely to be decisive
in a clash over Piedmont).
TURKEY ETC.
Indeed, this makes France and Turkey - in my view - natural
allies. Good news for France, terrible for the USSR.
Oh, I've always considered those two well-suited to another. Their
relationship is characterised by second-degree proximity, which
tends to go hand-in-hand with good alliance potential. And no, A
Beirut, doesn't in my book transform that relationship into one of
first-degree proximity. If players nonetheless view Franco-Turkish
relations in that light, they're plainly misinterpreting what A
Beirut brings table.
Of course, much as France/Turkey enjoy good ally potential on
account of their second-degree proximity, so does the Italy/USSR
pairing (at least if players don't let Spanish affairs overly colour
their relationship).
Italy may also find in Britain now a more useful ally owing to its
more robust presence in the Near East. Perhaps also more of a rival,
but on the whole I'd rate this development as good news for Italy.
- Making Sue a build location is interesting, but I think is
a case where more strength on the board translates into
diplomatic weakness. If I'm Turkey I no longer want Sue out of
greed but out of self-preservation.
Aye, Anglo-Turkish relations are complicated by Britain's enhanced
role in Turkey's backyard. It's indeed something I was gunning for
and that also made me comfortable giving Britain this additional
capability.
That is a much sharper motive, and one that might railroad
more behaviour particularly in light of the fertile FT
possibilities and increased shared interest.
Conversely, that may in turn be met by an Anglo-Italian block.
All that being said, I do wonder if the redrawn Adriatic does overly
heighten IT friction. It's the one change I've been least certain
about. And indeed, I'm now thinking that I may well have turned
Greece into a space that pulls in Italy and Turkey into conflict
much in the way the old Ukraine space did with Poland and Turkey.
So, right now I'm leaning towards undoing the Adriatic change.
The one major motivation for it was that I wanted to further pull
Italy away from France. Perhaps that was overdoing it.
I suppose my biggest concern is that the USSR remains
underpowered, and the changes may further compromise their
position.
If anything, Turkey facing greater challenges HELPS Uncle Joe.
Surely if you can justify Turkey being a 3 SC power Russia
could be a 4.
Oh, an earlier version of 1936 had indeed 4 SCs. I cut it down to
three as you can see. Works better and also reprects the Soviet
weakness with all those purges going on.
SOVIET UNION
No special rules, create an SC for the Urals or something
and done. This seems the one gaping hole, despite your
bullishness over their 6 SC high water mark in 1937. In fact I
would challenge a truly top, expert player to take the current
position on a challenge and see what they could do with it. I
think it is terribly weak relative to the situation of the other
powers.
Piano, piano. As you know, I'm not in the least worried. In this
I'm as firm as I am about England's much-derided viability and
strength in 1648.
Another small change to consider with USSR is to not have Len
and NRG touch. It only compounds the potential or deep misery
for the Soviets, the nice jumping off point to blitz the British
in the mid-game notwithstanding.
Ah, I love that tension in the Far North! It's historical and makes
for more interesting gaming.
Despite my sharing the concern of others that France was
underpowered, as you know Charles France is one of the powers I
most want to play in this variant. Well, I have to say, even
these subtle changes make me think that now France could be a
premier power.
I'm in the camp of those who considered v1.3's France not too weak.
And now that I've given Algiers build site status, I take solace in
France's poor performance to date. My hope (and belief) is that I
haven't overpowered France.
Not sure the impact that would have on poor little Italy,
but it may help justify having Italy control the Nationalists,
providing an interesting counterweight in the far western Med.
The Nationalist presence of course very much has to be factored into
the Italian power calculation. And having that small base out West
comes also with the hefty potential of a united Spain.
Perhaps 1636's Italy is a power that either does very well or gets
squashed by neighbouring powers. With fairly little middle-ground.
In any case, I've enjoyed this exchange as well as the wider variant
discussion (as I trust you can tell by my long and numerous posts).
I'd love to hear more views on these changes. Just note that the
operating assumption here ought be that the Adriatic will be
returned to its original shape since that's where I am right now on
that question.
Cheers,
Charles
Dirk
On Sep 17, 2010, at 1:06 PM, Charles Féaux de la Croix
wrote:
Hi guys,
I've now decided to run with the various changes I
discussed in my past mail and implemented those on the
below v1.4 map. Here a summary of the changes:
- Both Algiers and Suez are no longer marked
with a red circle as they're now regular HSCs.
- The Tyrrhenian Sea has been divided into Northern and
Southern Tyrrhenian Sea spaces.
- Tuscany makes a comeback.
- The Adriatic now adjoins Greece.
- I've removed the Abruzzi buffer province that was
geared to facilitate an amphibious landing in Italy.
Given the redrawn Adriatic adds to Italy's defense
worries in the East, I felt I might help out Italy be
removing that landing-site.
- I also cut out the now fairly redundant-seeming
Ligurian Sea space. As the SC-space ratio is already
pretty high at 1:2.56, I felt it wise to not further
increase the number of overall spaces. Standard has a
ratio of 1:2.2. Plainly 1936 is a whole lot more fluid
variant, though some of 1936's spaces (e.g. Iceland,
Kuweit, Caspian) are only of very marginal use. So the
"effective" ratio is arguably somewhat lower.
All-in-all, I'd say that Franco-Italian tension is
increased in Africa (owing to the threat potential of the
Algiers HSC), while round Piedmont it has been reduced by
a fair amount. To the East, Turkish-Italian rivalry over
Greece has been intensified.
I'd be interested to hear your take on these recalibration
measures in the wake of Algiers and Suez being promoted to
HSC status.
Charles
<1936_14.jpg> |
| 1936 v1.4 (dc319) Nitsch Sep 19, 06:39 am |
Gentlemen,
having the chance to lead USSR to it's doom in the current game, I thought
I add my 2 cents considering the balance in the east:
I found it rather hard to find a position for my soviet armies in the very
early game, that did not leave another front totally vulnerable (well, the
two times I was daring enough to do it both were followed by my neighbors
jumping exactly on me exactly there... but that could have to do with the
diplomatic situation as well). Heading south, you forfeit your options in
Scandinavia and with some bad luck, you lose the Baltic states and have
Britain knocking on your door with two tempi and neutral support in
Leningrad. Heading completely north, you forfeit Iraq and Iran, having
Turkey eying Stalingrad directly, able to support themselves in easily.
Sending one unit south, one north and on west makes you completely
depending on DP and other player's help (where I managed to get screwed,
say... three times?).
There are two major weak points that can be very easily addressed inmho:
1.) NRG borders LEN. This does give the British player a major advantage
in taking Scanfinavia, as he will almost for sure have a fleet sitting in
NRG, which is in fact necessary to take Norway - but does put constant
pressure on LEN. a USSR fleet build LEN(nc) in case you have an early gain
is not only the most direct declaration of war to britain, but cannot be
used for anything else than northern Scandinavia, while Soviet armies are
desperately needed everywhere on the map. Removing Len(nc) is not an
option, but reacing it via ARO and Finland (not to forget it's baltic
borders) should suffice to balance the region. Thus, I would relocate NRG
to not border LEN.
2.) The second, I even think grave problem is the "claim" the map gives
Poland on the Baltic states, which makes it difficult to dip about their
fate. They are polish home SC right now, and that will always make Poland
want them badly. It does in the end give you more flexibility to build.
Yet as three of them is much too much - it does neither reflect Poland's
situation in the era, nor does it by any means reflect the importance of
the SC that are flagged "build SC" in the Baltic. Yet simply removing one
or two pink circles does not do the job for me, as any expansion of both
USSR and Poland will still result in a clash there with units, that cannot
be send elsewhere easily. So what I would do redrawing the map is:
- Remove SC LAT completely. It didn't have that much importance
historically, and for the sake of the game's balance in the region this
serves as well.
- Create an SC EUK, not being a build SC for anyone.
- redraw WUK and STA so EUK does no longer touch Moscow.
- optional: redraw STA to not have an (wc) and make EUK a build SC (home
of the Black Sea fleet)
This does result, in terms of tempi, almost in the same location:
bordering a single Soviet home SC and a neutral (polish build option) SC,
which is another move away from a Polish home Sc. Moreover, this gives the
Russian player a single option to take an easy SC, but having to forfeit
concentrating his troops on the north or the Baltic in the first turn. It
will as well never be a completely safe SC, as it is not to far away from
Turkey. And thus it serves to have another reason for Turkey and USSR to
fight over, as an IRAQ/IRAN agreement now can be done too easily imho. As
a plus, it gives a strategic very important region the role it deserves -
just think of the battles of Sevastopol and Kharkov, both EUk.
Just my 2 cents, but happy to read some responses...
Best,
Karsten |
| 1936 v1.4 (dc319) charlesf Sep 19, 09:08 am |
Karsten,
thanks for your input. As you shall see, I once thought not so
unlike you...
having
the chance to lead USSR to it's doom in the current game, I
thought I add my 2 cents considering the balance in the east:
I found it rather hard to find a position for my soviet armies in
the very early game, that did not leave another front totally
vulnerable (well, the two times I was daring enough to do it both
were followed by my neighbors jumping exactly on me exactly
there... but that could have to do with the diplomatic situation
as well).
Nigel managed to gain three SCs in his first year. All in different
regions: Up north Finland, further south Latvia and in the Near-East
Iran. Nor did he lose any of his home SCs while making those gains.
It can be done.
But is the USSR quite vulnerable at game-start? Yes. That's how I
want it to be. I want players to feel the same kind of paranoia as
Uncle Joe felt about a possible anti-Soviet capitalist crusade. The
communists hadn't yet forgotten that the great powers had intervened
on the Whites' side during the Russian Civil War...
In game-terms, this is the price the Soviet Union pays for enjoying
a board-edge position. Uncle Joe doesn't have to maintain a 360
degress defence as most other powers have to. That has long-term
advantages.
Heading south, you forfeit your options in Scandinavia and with
some bad luck, you lose the Baltic states and have Britain
knocking on your door with two tempi and neutral support in
Leningrad. Heading completely north, you forfeit Iraq and Iran,
having Turkey eying Stalingrad directly, able to support
themselves in easily. Sending one unit south, one north and on
west makes you completely depending on DP and other player's help
(where I managed to get screwed, say... three times?).
The USSR will have to decide where it wants to focus its energies.
There are basically five general directions towards which one can
make a play during the first year:
1. Scandinavia (Finland/Sweden)
2. Latvia
3. Rumania/Cracow
4. Near-East (Iran/Ankara)
Obviously the USSR cannot make a play for all of those. The question
then is whether it goes for two or three out of these four.
As for "Turkey eying Stalingrad directly", here's one idea how you
might neutralise that threat:
Offer France favours by Republican Spain (e.g. support into Madrid)
in exchange for her arranging a bounce with Turkey over Alexandretta
(or for her simply moving there). That'd tie down A Ankara very
nicely.
Incidentally on of the was how the Republicans can be used to
further Soviet interests...
There
are two major weak points that can be very easily addressed inmho:
1.) NRG borders LEN. This does give the British player a major
advantage in taking Scanfinavia, as he will almost for sure have a
fleet sitting in NRG, which is in fact necessary to take Norway
Britain could take Norway via NTH, provided it gets minor power
support.
In any case, Britain need not gun for Norway in the first year.
London might decide to make more of a play for any of
Den/Net/Bel/Bre instead.
Perhaps the USSR could get the Brits to not enter NRG in return for
Uncle Joe doing Britain a favour in Spain or the Near-East.
Considering how Britain is bound to fear Turkish expansion into the
Near-East and have a considerable interest in having Spanish affairs
working out in a way amenable to Britain, I dare say Moscow has got
a number of diplomatic cards to play.
-
but does put constant pressure on LEN. a USSR fleet build LEN(nc)
in case you have an early gain is not only the most direct
declaration of war to britain, but cannot be used for anything
else than northern Scandinavia, while Soviet armies are
desperately needed everywhere on the map. Removing Len(nc) is not
an option, but reacing it via ARO and Finland (not to forget it's
baltic borders) should suffice to balance the region. Thus, I
would relocate NRG to not border LEN.
We'll have to agree to disagree there. I love that the Western-most
and Eastern-most powers are quite close to another in the Far North.
As they might ultimately be in the Near-East.
Gives you added diplomatic complexity and does justice to the high
Anglo-Soviet tensions during the interwar period.
2.)
The second,? I even think grave problem is the "claim" the map
gives Poland on the Baltic states, which makes it difficult to dip
about their fate.
Poland's in a pole-position regarding these two SCs. Much as say
Germany is when it comes to Denmark and the Netherlands. To expect
say an equal division of those two SCs, is to expect quite much.
That's like say Britain expecting to get Belgium in Standard. It
ain't the norm.
They
are polish home SC right now, and that will always make Poland
want them badly. It does in the end give you more flexibility to
build. Yet as three of them is much too much - it does neither
reflect Poland's situation in the era, nor does it by any means
reflect the importance of the SC that are flagged "build SC" in
the Baltic.
Poland's diplomatic position is not set in stone in this game.
Historically Poland horribly bungled its interwar diplomacy, if you
ask me. The "Jagiellonian dream" of establishing a Polish-led
power-block on territory once belonging to the Polish-Lithuanian
Commonwealth wasn't a pipedream. In light of the precarious
independence many states gained on account of German and Russian
defeat, whilst those countries were bound to reemerge from a period
weakness, I think there indeed existed a quite compelling
pull-factor for these states to form a confederation led by the
region's most powerful state: Poland.
Of course, Poland made a royal mess of it by picking fights with
almost all her neighbours. That's what thwarted the Intermarum
project. I chose to not burden my Polish player with the same
unenlightened greed that kept such alliances and confederations
largely merely on the drawing-board.
Yet
simply removing one or two pink circles does not do the job for
me, as any expansion of both USSR and Poland will still result in
a clash there with units, that cannot be send elsewhere easily. So
what I would do redrawing the map is:
- Remove SC LAT completely. It didn't have that much importance
historically,
Riga's been a key city for centuries. Had Peter the Great taken
Riga, he'd have made that his capital, I understand. Saint
Petersburg was a poor substitute.
? and
for the sake of the game's balance in the region this serves as
well.
If one subscribes to the thesis that the balance is off in the first
place.
-
Create an SC EUK, not being a build SC for anyone.
- redraw WUK and STA so EUK does no longer touch Moscow.
- optional: redraw STA to not have an (wc) and make EUK a build SC
(home of the Black Sea fleet)
You might be interested to see how this part of the map looked like
in the variant's very first draft back in 2004. Sounds like it was a
mirror-image of what you propose (save for Latvia, that is):
As you can tell by the variant having evolved further, I didn't
particularly like this arrangement. I've long-since paired down both
the USSR and Germany to 3-SC powers. Works IMO much better and as I
read more about the times, the more comfortable I felt with me doing
so.
And
thus [a Sevastopol SC] serves to have another reason for Turkey
and USSR to fight over, as an IRAQ/IRAN agreement now can be done
too easily imho.
Easily done? I think the whole issue is very tricky for both Turkey
and the USSR.
Indeed, one reason why I scaled the USSR down to three SCs is that I
didn't like the then overly antagonistic Soviet-Turkish relations. I
wanted the Black Sea to be initially quiescent rather than a
battleground for F Sevastopol and F Ankara (the shift of the Turkish
fleet to Izmir is also one reason why I prefered a 3-SC Russia. Much
better there!).
As a
plus, it gives a strategic very important region the role it
deserves - just think of the battles of Sevastopol and Kharkov,
both EUk.
It's already pretty important a space. But if you look at the map,
you'll see that only the three major German objectives in the USSR
(Moscow, Leningrad and Stalingrad) have SC status. I happen to like
that.
Good discussion.
Cheers,
Charles |
| 1936: Suez, French Algeria and the wider Med - sunchung (Sep 17, 2010, 11:56 am) |
Charles and all,
I've been refraining from publicly commenting on my observations since 1) I'm probably colored by the actions in DC330 and would prefer to comment at the end of that game and 2) many of the observers are also in DC330 and even though the game seems to be heading towards the end stage, I wouldn't want to give anything too much away! [Note, I'm playing Britain in DC330, the v1.3 version of this variant]
However, I'll just make some comments limited to the start of the game, and in particular France.
There's been a lot of discussion here about France, and I personally have had a closer perspective on that power (although not as close as Nick!) I think I agree that France is a bit hampered, but not to the degree that has been expressed here. In DC330, Italy made a strong move to attack France from the start. Even though Italy had a tactical advantage, France as able to stymie Italy as long as Britain (myself) didn't intervene. However, the far flung army out in Beirut was treated as a bargaining chip only and didn't actually do much to dictate the events in the east.
But I think Beirut is an issue for France. If Turkey wanted to boot France out of the Mideast, France has no option BUT to appeal to Britain. And unless Britain steps up, France will lose Beirut. Italy is too far away to do something in year 1 and USSR could threaten Turkish space from the north, but again, it won't stop Turkey from taking Beirut. The fleet in Suez is the only potential help that France has. But this adds a weird dynamic in the sense that it commits France and Britain to be friendly in the main theater (Western) based upon the potential situation in a secondary theater (Near East). Also, unless Suez moves right away, again it'll arrive too late to help Beirut if Turkey moves two on that center.
I know in Diplomacy there are lots of situations where a power can commit more resources over a rival and who ever loses out in gaining the tempo advantage loses, but in this case France can only count on Britain to help out and forgo any other action. In a situation where France knew Turkey was going to attack him, France only has two options - bounce Turkey in Alexandretta or get British help to move Suez to the north. Normally that's not an issue, but here, France can't reinforce his position in Beirut. Again, without friendly British help. And so even if France guessed right and bounced Turkey from having two on Beirut, it'll only forestall it until the following year.
I think one potential option could be to have Iraq border Beirut and then France could use diplomacy to enlist other friendly powers to use DPs to aid Beirut in the case of a Turkish threat. But I guess it could cut both ways and Turkey or Britain can use the neutral to support an attack into Beirut with just one unit.
Net net, I don't know if the army in Beirut really aids France and actually hurts the French position since 1) France can only appeal to Britain if Turkey attacks his position and 2) if France loses out and still has his army there, it becomes a resource drain on France and 3) France has no way to reinforcing or reallocating that unit effectively by itself. In DC330, if France could rebuild a fleet or another army in his battle against Italy, then the results of the Italian/French war would've turned out differently.
Sun
2010/9/17 Charles Féaux de la Croix <charlesf(at)web.de>
I don't understand the proposed change to suez.
Jimmy, Suez becomes a British Home Supply Centre. In other words, it becomes a British build site.
I strongly recommend a French med fleet whether in Algiers or toulon/Marseilles
I've already noted in past mails why I've not chosen to do so. And it sure wouldn't help France's prospects. I'm sticking to the unit setup which follows in the footsteps of the 1900 variant. It believe it works best.
But with the promotion of Algiers to a French HSC, you'd be able to build a fleet there and have it sortie as early as Spring '37. Same is true for Marseilles, of course.
And yes, I remain a Dippy traditionalist in the naming of that space. In the case of Kiel/Hamburg I did however depart from the Standard mould. Just felt the more centrally located Hamburg looked better on the map than an awkwardly-perched Kiel.
Cheers,
Charles[Reply] |
| Will someone run a priivate game? - MrSmiley (Sep 17, 2010, 10:58 am) |
Garry,
Yes! They would be signing up at DC! They have been looking over the site for the last couple weeks.
So that I know what to tell the other players, could we get someone to fill in while you are being strangled...eh hem, I mean getting married? Just kidding. Congrats on the big day coming up!
Will[Reply] |
| Will someone run a priivate game? (Community) garry.bledsoe Sep 20, 10:18 am |
Hey...my time away will be from the 13th of Oct to approx. the 29th of Oct. So there would be nothing completed during that time. Other than that I am ready to run it.
g |
| Will someone run a priivate game? (Community) dknemeyer Sep 20, 12:22 pm |
| While I didn't want to take on another full game I would actually be happy to adjudicate in Garry's absence so this game can continued uninterrupted, if it is OK with Garry... |
| [DC 328] Fall 1905 Abjudication - dreamsynergy (Sep 17, 2010, 7:41 am) |
Sorry for the one day delay, was nursing a fever and a sore throat...and everyone gets a new toy this winter
Fall 1905 Orders
England:
F Barents Sea Supports F Livonia - St Petersburg(sc)
F Brest Supports A Burgundy - Gascony
F Mid-Atlantic Ocean - Spain(nc) (*Bounce*)
F Norway Supports F Livonia - St Petersburg(sc)
F Sweden - Finland (*Bounce*)
France:
A Gascony, no move received (*Disbanded*)
A Marseilles, no move received
A Paris, no move received
F Portugal, no move received
Germany:
A Berlin - Prussia (*Fails*)
A Burgundy - Gascony
F Livonia - St Petersburg(sc)
A Munich Supports A Silesia - Bohemia
F Prussia - Livonia (*Fails*)
A Silesia - Bohemia (*Fails*)
Italy:
F Adriatic Sea - Ionian Sea
A Bulgaria Hold
F North Africa - Mid-Atlantic Ocean (*Fails*)
A Serbia - Trieste
A Tyrolia Supports A Vienna - Bohemia
F Tyrrhenian Sea - Gulf of Lyon
A Vienna - Bohemia
F Western Mediterranean - Spain(sc) (*Bounce*)
Russia:
F Black Sea - Ankara
A Galicia Supports A Vienna - Bohemia
A Moscow - Livonia
A St Petersburg - Finland (*Dislodged*)
A Warsaw Supports A Moscow - Livonia
Turkey:
F Aegean Sea, no move received
F Constantinople, no move received
F Eastern Mediterranean, no move received
Retreats Required
French A Gascony has no retreats, disbanded.
Russian A St Petersburg can retreat to Moscow.
I will move A St Petersburg to Moscow, so that we can move on straight to Winter builds. If Russia wants A St Petersburg to go off the board for some reason, do let me know and I will change it accordingly.
Winter Adjustments
Adjustments:
Austria: Supp 0 Unit 0 Build 0
England: Supp 6 Unit 5 Build 1
France: Supp 4 Unit 3 Build 0
Germany: Supp 7 Unit 6 Build 1
Italy: Supp 9 Unit 8 Build 1
Russia: Supp 6 Unit 5 Build 1
Turkey: Supp 2 Unit 3 Remove 1
All remaining active players get a build. Deadline for Winter Builds will be Monday 20th September 13:00 GMT
Regards,
Ben[Reply] |
| [DC 328] Fall 1905 Abjudication (dc328) alwayshunted Sep 17, 03:13 pm |
Moscow is fine Ben, thanks.
Warren
|
| 1936: Suez, French Algeria and the wider Med - charlesf (Sep 17, 2010, 7:19 am) |
> I don't understand the proposed change to suez.
Jimmy, Suez becomes a British Home Supply Centre. In other words, it
becomes a British build site.
I strongly recommend a French med fleet whether in Algiers or toulon/Marseilles
I've already noted in past mails why I've not chosen to do so. And it
sure wouldn't help France's prospects. I'm sticking to the unit setup
which follows in the footsteps of the 1900 variant. It believe it works
best.
But with the promotion of Algiers to a French HSC, you'd be able to
build a fleet there and have it sortie as early as Spring '37. Same is
true for Marseilles, of course.
And yes, I remain a Dippy traditionalist in the naming of that space. In
the case of Kiel/Hamburg I did however depart from the Standard mould.
Just felt the more centrally located Hamburg looked better on the map
than an awkwardly-perched Kiel.
Cheers,
Charles[Reply] |
| dc337 - Spring 1902 Results - z93blom (Sep 17, 2010, 7:15 am) |
Diplomats,
Your orders are due in a few hours.
Next turn: Fall 1902 MovementNext Deadline: Friday, 17th of September 2010, 18:00 GMT (6PM).
/Fredrik
2010/9/14 Fredrik Blom <fredrik(at)familjenblom.se>
Diplomats,
Waiting those 12 hours might have lessened the mistakes, but unfortunately I still made a small mistake.
Sun had ordered his Vienna army to Tyrolia, not to Trieste as I had entered it. The move caused his unit to bounce with Dirk's movement north from Milan and Rome, causing both those units to halt in their tracks. As far as I can tell there were no further consequences of the mistake.
You should find an updated image with the final positions of all units along with this mail.
Next turn: Fall 1902 Movement
Next Deadline: Friday, 17th of September 2010, 18:00 GMT (6PM).
Austria:
A Vienna - Tyrolia (*Bounce*)
Italy:
A Milan - Tyrolia (*Bounce*)A Rome - Milan (*Fails*)
/Fredrik[Reply] |
| 1936: Suez, French Algeria and the wider Med - charlesf (Sep 17, 2010, 5:55 am) |
Hi guys,
all this design talk has had me cast another critical look at the 1936
map. While I'm not in the least worried that the balance between Poland
and the Soviet Union might be off as many of you assert, I do hear what
you're saying about Turkey and France.
Yet the more I look at France's and Turkey's internal make-up and their
immediate surroundings, the more I remain convinced of the present
lay-of-the-land. There are very good reasons why say Lorraine's shaped
as it is, Paris and Marseilles don't adjoin another and Ankara abuts
Istanbul - just to name a few things I've re-examined.
So if I'm so very happy about say the space adjacencies in Turkey's
environs, what options other than redrawing the map might I use to reign
the Kemalist state in a bit? This train of thought had me consider the
basic issue that had allowed Turkey to rapidly consolidate her hold over
her Near-Eastern backyard:
Unlike on her Northern and Western flanks, the opposition to Turkish
expansion's rather soft towards the South. France's Lebanese garrison is
an isolated outpost and Britain might often lack the muscle or
motivation to go toe-to-toe with Turkey in a bid for Near-Eastern
hegemony. Now I do think Prime Ministers have neglected the Near-East to
their detriment. The region's readily reinforceable and promises
lucrative spoils.
But Britain will typically view this region of the map as subservient to
her interests closer to home. Why pick a fight with say Turkey or Italy
down there? Why not simply exchange Near-Eastern SCs for favours
elsewhere? Suez may in this context be appreciated for its strategic
value, but doesn't have much greater value to the Britain than any other
SC. So rather than the Suez Canal Zone serving as the lynchpin of
empire, British units might as well "migrate" elsewhere.
Clearly this wasn't doing justice to Britain's jealous guarding of the
Canal that connected her to the Crown Jewel of her empire, India, as
well as the white dominions in the Southern hemisphere. So turning Suez
into a British home SC struck me as both an adequate means of making
Turkey's expansion into her backyard more challenging as well as giving
Britain a more robust and more historical role in the Near-East.
Indeed, this had me thinking that my British grandfather's deployments
during WW2 nicely illustrated how the Suez Canal Zone (and also
Alexandria) served as a real pivot-point for British actions in the
region. Whether he was sent to Abyssinia, Syria, Greece or Libya, it was
always from there and always the point of return thereafter (iirc).
Gotta admit that I'm liking this simple change a lot! Turkey immediately
feels more constrained by British imperialism and more hemmed in. The
contemporary anti-imperialistic motivation comes more to the fore and
also had me rethink that Turkey's otherwise historically overly generous
allotment of three SCs might also well be seen as representing the fact
that nationalists throughout the Middle-East looked to the Kemalist
republic in their own anti-imperialist struggles. If you think of those
Turkish SCs partially representing that wider rising anti-imperialistic
movement down there, those three SCs no longer seem as a historical
stretch.
Next to the repercussions for Turkey, how might this change impact on
others? Obviously it enhances Britain's military capabilities, but also
complicates her diplomatic situation by having Turkey and to a lesser
extent Italy worry more about the British presence in the Near-East.
What about France? I'd argue it tends to strengthen France's hand as
this change is more likely to pull F Gibraltar towards the Near-East
than presently is the case. Also, the very fact that Suez then means
more to Britain also means that France gains a little more leverage on
Britain by the possible threat A Beirut presents to Suez.
I like to think this change turns Suez (sorta "India's outpost" into
something akin to what the Nationalists and Republicans mean to their
respective patron powers: considerable opportunity, but also additional
responsibility that might complicate wider diplomatic efforts.
FRENCH ALGERIA
An other idea also occurred to me (not sure which germinated first,
actually). How about also turning Algiers into a French home SC?
The historical rationale is clear. French Algeria was an integral part
of France, rather than having the status of a mere French colony. A good
10% of Algeria's population was ethnically European. So one might
elevate Algiers into being a proper home SC.
The question of course is whether that'd serve the game well. Were I to
go down that route, the map would have to be adjusted to reduce the
otherwise too great Franco-Italian tension.
Of course one could simply defuse tension over the Tyrrhenian by no
longer making it adjacent to Algiers. Yet I very much like this
anti-French opening alternative to probably the more common Ionian
opening. I want each and every unit in my variants to have multiple
viable openings rather than boring ole no-brainer default moves.
So, if not defusing Franco-Italian tension in that manner, how else
might one go about it?
One way to go about it would be to split the Tyrrhenian into a Northern
and a Southern space between Sardinia and Naples. That'd make what then
would be the Southern Tyrrhenian into less of a hot-spot as Rome would
be shielded by the Northern Tyrrhenian.
This measure might be accompanied by good ole Tuscany being restored.
A more indirect measure I'm contemplating gives Italy a more Eastern
bent: Redrawing the Adriatic Sea to touch Greece! This would make Greece
more of a concern to Italy than it already is as it'd not only serve an
enemy (i.e. Turkey) as a spring-board into the Ionian, but also into the
Adriatic! So that further heighten Turkish-Italian tension.
Now having outlined the possible follow-on changes upon a move to grant
Algiers HSC status, I do have to say that I remain undecided whether
this whole measure's the way to go or not (unlike the Suez change, which
I'm very bullish about). So I especially appeal to you guys to say what
you think about such a change and its ripple-effects.
Cheers,
Charles[Reply] |
| 1936: Suez, French Algeria and the wider Med (dc319) charlesf Sep 17, 07:19 am |
> I don't understand the proposed change to suez.
Jimmy, Suez becomes a British Home Supply Centre. In other words, it
becomes a British build site.
I strongly recommend a French med fleet whether in Algiers or toulon/Marseilles
I've already noted in past mails why I've not chosen to do so. And it
sure wouldn't help France's prospects. I'm sticking to the unit setup
which follows in the footsteps of the 1900 variant. It believe it works
best.
But with the promotion of Algiers to a French HSC, you'd be able to
build a fleet there and have it sortie as early as Spring '37. Same is
true for Marseilles, of course.
And yes, I remain a Dippy traditionalist in the naming of that space. In
the case of Kiel/Hamburg I did however depart from the Standard mould.
Just felt the more centrally located Hamburg looked better on the map
than an awkwardly-perched Kiel.
Cheers,
Charles |
| 1936: Suez, French Algeria and the wider Med (dc319) sunchung Sep 17, 11:56 am |
Charles and all,
I've been refraining from publicly commenting on my observations since 1) I'm probably colored by the actions in DC330 and would prefer to comment at the end of that game and 2) many of the observers are also in DC330 and even though the game seems to be heading towards the end stage, I wouldn't want to give anything too much away! [Note, I'm playing Britain in DC330, the v1.3 version of this variant]
However, I'll just make some comments limited to the start of the game, and in particular France.
There's been a lot of discussion here about France, and I personally have had a closer perspective on that power (although not as close as Nick!) I think I agree that France is a bit hampered, but not to the degree that has been expressed here. In DC330, Italy made a strong move to attack France from the start. Even though Italy had a tactical advantage, France as able to stymie Italy as long as Britain (myself) didn't intervene. However, the far flung army out in Beirut was treated as a bargaining chip only and didn't actually do much to dictate the events in the east.
But I think Beirut is an issue for France. If Turkey wanted to boot France out of the Mideast, France has no option BUT to appeal to Britain. And unless Britain steps up, France will lose Beirut. Italy is too far away to do something in year 1 and USSR could threaten Turkish space from the north, but again, it won't stop Turkey from taking Beirut. The fleet in Suez is the only potential help that France has. But this adds a weird dynamic in the sense that it commits France and Britain to be friendly in the main theater (Western) based upon the potential situation in a secondary theater (Near East). Also, unless Suez moves right away, again it'll arrive too late to help Beirut if Turkey moves two on that center.
I know in Diplomacy there are lots of situations where a power can commit more resources over a rival and who ever loses out in gaining the tempo advantage loses, but in this case France can only count on Britain to help out and forgo any other action. In a situation where France knew Turkey was going to attack him, France only has two options - bounce Turkey in Alexandretta or get British help to move Suez to the north. Normally that's not an issue, but here, France can't reinforce his position in Beirut. Again, without friendly British help. And so even if France guessed right and bounced Turkey from having two on Beirut, it'll only forestall it until the following year.
I think one potential option could be to have Iraq border Beirut and then France could use diplomacy to enlist other friendly powers to use DPs to aid Beirut in the case of a Turkish threat. But I guess it could cut both ways and Turkey or Britain can use the neutral to support an attack into Beirut with just one unit.
Net net, I don't know if the army in Beirut really aids France and actually hurts the French position since 1) France can only appeal to Britain if Turkey attacks his position and 2) if France loses out and still has his army there, it becomes a resource drain on France and 3) France has no way to reinforcing or reallocating that unit effectively by itself. In DC330, if France could rebuild a fleet or another army in his battle against Italy, then the results of the Italian/French war would've turned out differently.
Sun
2010/9/17 Charles Féaux de la Croix <charlesf(at)web.de>
I don't understand the proposed change to suez.
Jimmy, Suez becomes a British Home Supply Centre. In other words, it becomes a British build site.
I strongly recommend a French med fleet whether in Algiers or toulon/Marseilles
I've already noted in past mails why I've not chosen to do so. And it sure wouldn't help France's prospects. I'm sticking to the unit setup which follows in the footsteps of the 1900 variant. It believe it works best.
But with the promotion of Algiers to a French HSC, you'd be able to build a fleet there and have it sortie as early as Spring '37. Same is true for Marseilles, of course.
And yes, I remain a Dippy traditionalist in the naming of that space. In the case of Kiel/Hamburg I did however depart from the Standard mould. Just felt the more centrally located Hamburg looked better on the map than an awkwardly-perched Kiel.
Cheers,
Charles |
| DC 333, Winter 1903 - alwayshunted (Sep 16, 2010, 10:51 pm) |
Wow, is it only the end of 1903? Weird.
Anyhow, sorry for the delay. On we go. Adjustments received from everyone, thanks.
---------------------------------
France:
Build F Marseilles
Germany:
Remove A Ruhr
Remove F English Channel
Italy:
Remove F Adriatic Sea
Russia:
Build F St Petersburg(nc)
Turkey:
Build F Smyrna
Build A Ankara
Spring 1904 is due in one week, Thursday September 23, 17:00 MDT.
-----------------------------
There you are. Maps are attached. Have fun.
Warren[Reply] |
| Will someone run a priivate game? - garry.bledsoe (Sep 16, 2010, 10:06 pm) |
Will,
I will run your game with two stipulations:
1. I am on wedding/honeymoon for basically the second half of October.
2. I want them to sign up for DC! 
Sorry...couldn't resist.
Garry[Reply] |
| Will someone run a priivate game? (Community) MrSmiley Sep 17, 10:58 am |
Garry,
Yes! They would be signing up at DC! They have been looking over the site for the last couple weeks.
So that I know what to tell the other players, could we get someone to fill in while you are being strangled...eh hem, I mean getting married? Just kidding. Congrats on the big day coming up!
Will |
| Will someone run a priivate game? (Community) garry.bledsoe Sep 20, 10:18 am |
Hey...my time away will be from the 13th of Oct to approx. the 29th of Oct. So there would be nothing completed during that time. Other than that I am ready to run it.
g |
| Will someone run a priivate game? (Community) dknemeyer Sep 20, 12:22 pm |
| While I didn't want to take on another full game I would actually be happy to adjudicate in Garry's absence so this game can continued uninterrupted, if it is OK with Garry... |
| dc340 DCI 2010 - F01 Results - Good Times? - garry.bledsoe (Sep 16, 2010, 9:58 pm) |
From: kielmarch(at)hotmail.com
To: smegdwarf(at)yahoo.com; camorse22(at)yahoo.com; dirk(at)knemeyer.com; jhack16(at)gmail.com; kodiplomacy(at)gmail.com; m_don_j(at)hotmail.com; mike(at)fuzzylogicllc.net; untitled36(at)hotmail.com; michael.alan.walters(at)gmail.com
Subject: dc340 DCI 2010 - F01 Results - Good Times?
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2010 22:55:58 -0400
.ExternalClass .ecxhmmessage P
{padding:0px;}
.ExternalClass body.ecxhmmessage
{font-size:10pt;font-family:Tahoma;}
Versions Abound - I Cannot Imagine the Negotiating Based on the Number of Changes I ReceivedOr Are You Just THAT Fickle?Bourgogne Tries Its Hand at Spanish Wine Making in SantanderBlack Sea Powers Play NiceHungary and Sicily Honor Venezian IndependenceBurgundy or Burmany?Byzantium Bears?How Many Polish Armies Does It Take...Wait, They Actually GAIN CentersPoland and Ukraine Fighting for Russian Dominance?Building 2 Seems All the Rage But Bourgogne and Polandia Buck the Trend!
All,What a thoroughly fun turn to watch from the sidelines. I can only guess the full extent of the fun based on the snippits that I get every now and again. We have no retreats so we move to Winter. We DO have some active SC's:
Burgundy - Build 3Sicily - Build 2Eire - Build 2Hungary - Build 2Israel - Build 2Poland - Build 3Spain - Build 2Ukraine - Build 2Byzantium - Build 2
Let's have builds by Tuesday the 21st at 6pm CST. Happy building!
Lord of the March
Burgundy: A Gascony - SantanderF Helgoland Bight - DenmarkA Ruhr - Bavaria
Sicily: F Malta Sea - TunisiaA Tuscany - PiedmontF Tyrrhenian Sea - Utica Sea
Eire: F Irish Sea - Mid-Atlantic OceanF North Sea - NorwayA Yorkshire - Wessex
Hungary: F Adriatic Sea - Ionian SeaA Austria - BohemiaA Budapest - Austria
Israel: A Arabia - MesopotamiaF Libyan Sea - CyrenaicaA Syria - Armenia
Poland: F Baltic Sea - SwedenA Novgorod - Muscovy (*Bounce*)A Silesia - Saxony
Spain: F Bay of Biscay - BrittanyA Santander - PortugalF Western Mediterranean - Morroco
Ukraine: F East Black Sea - GeorgiaA Kiev - Muscovy (*Bounce*)A Rumania Hold
Byzantium: F Aegean Sea supports the Chicago BearsF Anatolia Supports A Syria - ArmeniaA Bulgaria Supports A Rumania[Reply] |
| dc342 ~ Imperial 1841 - sgttodd (Sep 16, 2010, 9:26 pm) |
Well gents, we're short one set of orders, so I'll extend the deadline to tomorrow, Friday, the 17th at 6:59pm EDT (2359 UTC).
If that missing set isn't in by then, we'll have to find a replacement.
Jerry[Reply] |
| DC 333, Fall 1903 - alwayshunted (Sep 16, 2010, 7:43 pm) |
Hey folks. Had to go AWOL for a couple of days. Work has taken over briefly. I'll get winter out late tonight sometime and we'll get rolling again.
Thanks for your infinite patience.....
Warren
[Reply] |
| DC332 - Fall 1905 Adjudication - cfisher6 (Sep 16, 2010, 6:10 pm) |
Fall 1905 sees conflict all across Europe and several regions switch hands. The Russians lose their Black Sea port in Sevastopol to a combined Turkish/Austrian movement, but pick up England's last vestige of power in Norway. Elsewhere Turkish naval units launch an assault on Naples but are beat off by the Italian defenders. French military forces are still on the move and push both deeper into the Mediteranean and farther north, into the Norwegian Sea. French marines also land in Holland, but at the cost of a German presence in Burgundy.
Autumn 1905 Retreats are due Saturday 23:59 GMT. There are two retreats.
German F Holland can retreat to Helgoland Bight.
Russian F Sevastopol can retreat to Armenia.
Austria:
A Galicia - Ukraine (*Fails*)
A Rumania - Sevastopol
F Trieste Supports A Venice
A Vienna - Tyrolia
England:
F Baltic Sea - Kiel (*Bounce*)
France:
A Belgium Supports F North Sea - Holland
F Edinburgh - Norwegian Sea
F English Channel Supports A Belgium
F Gulf of Lyon Supports F Western Mediterranean - Tyrrhenian Sea
A Marseilles Hold
F North Sea - Holland
A Tunis Hold
F Western Mediterranean - Tyrrhenian Sea
A Yorkshire Hold
Germany:
F Denmark - Kiel (*Bounce*)
F Holland - Belgium (*Dislodged*)
A Munich Supports A Ruhr - Burgundy
A Ruhr - Burgundy
A Venice Supports F Trieste
Italy:
F Naples Hold
A Piedmont Hold
A Rome Supports F Naples
Russia:
F Norway Supports F North Sea - Denmark (*Fails*)
F Sevastopol Supports A Ukraine (*Dislodged*)
F Sweden Supports F Norway
A Ukraine Supports F Sevastopol (*Cut*)
A Warsaw Hold
Turkey:
F Aegean Sea, no move received
A Apulia Supports F Ionian Sea - Naples
F Black Sea Supports A Rumania - Sevastopol
F Greece - Ionian Sea (*Fails*)
F Ionian Sea - Naples (*Fails*)
A Serbia - Bulgaria[Reply] |
| DC319: More variant discussion - dknemeyer (Sep 16, 2010, 4:38 pm) |
Hi Folks,
Some responses to Charles' questions on the variant:
- 18 VPs required to solo rather than 15 (I am as yet not sure what'd make for the ideal victory threshold and am hence especially curious about how you view the matter).
I think more testing is necessary to ascertain the ideal victory threshold, but I think it is clear that for *Diplomacy* - a game with the stated objective of a solo victory - 15 is broken. I look forward to seeing how 18 plays out in dc330.
All of these changes have a considerable impact on the powers' positions. (See the attached map further below.)
I think the new map is a marked improvement, but I don't think it solves the balance issues. While we may be responding to too small of a data size I am hearing consistency among the players as to which are over/under powered.
I was concerned that the Polish-Soviet relationship was overly antagonistic and war at some point unavoidable. I think both Poland's now greater proximity to Germany and the (Western) Ukraine not being as critical space as it was before, makes a constructive Warsaw-Moscow relationship far more viable.
While again a data point of 1, it didn't seem to matter in dc330.
The increased German-Italian tension (and Germany's greater proximity to Poland) also improves France's diplomatic position, I am convinced. Is it enough to avoid France also doing poorly in future? I genuinely believe so. Yet one possible way to further help France might be to make Marseille and Paris adjacent. Thoughts?
I prefer the notion of a Parisian fleet in the Med. At least one.
As for the "Spanish Question", it's by no means a given that either faction will ever emerge as the master of Spain's three SCs. Far too many sharks in the tank... A long stalemate or the Iberian peninsula falling under the sway of the original great powers strike me as at least as likely outcomes. To no little extent because I generally judge it in Britain's and France's interests not to let either faction emerge as a major player (btw, in DC330, the Republicans trounced the Nationalists and have united the country). Indeed, I'd suggest both France and Britain having done poorly in DC319, has much to do what role they chose to play in the Spanish peninsula.
Among Jimmy's many interesting ideas was the notion of having Spain be special but ultimately a neutral power and not controlled by any one player. There was some really nice thinking there.
There are many excellent observers on this list and it would be interesting to hear some of their perspectives, too.
Dirk[Reply] |
| Behold! dc339 w220bc builds! - mjn82 (Sep 16, 2010, 3:48 pm) |
From: Michael Sims <mike(at)fuzzylogicllc.net>
To: coebq(at)yahoo.com; hancockfc(at)yahoo.com; justin(at)darkenedpath.com; mjn82(at)yahoo.com; ross826(at)gmail.com; mlb767(at)aim.com; clockheardt(at)yahoo.com; fredrik(at)familjenblom.se
Cc: dc339 <dc339(at)diplomaticcorp.com>
Sent: Sat, September 11, 2010 9:51:41 AM
Subject: Behold! dc339 w220bc builds!
Spring 219 BC is heredby due Friday 9/17, 3pm Central!
Carthage: Build F Cartenna, F Carthage
Gaul: Build A Lutetia
Germania: Build A Biskupin
Macedonia: Build F Athens, A Pella
Persia: Build F Attaleia, A Antiochia
Rome: Build F Roma, A Genua, A Aqueleia
[Reply] |
| Will someone run a priivate game? - MrSmiley (Sep 16, 2010, 3:47 pm) |
Hello! I have six friends that I've been able to introduce to the game of Diplomacy and they would like to give an email game a try! For this to happen, I am in need of a moderator to run the game for us. Is anyone here willing to do this for us? We would like to start the game on October 1st and we have some basic parameters in mind. Please respond here or send email to wtfleming(at)msn.com if you would be willing to run our game for us. We would greatly appreciate it! I am hoping to bring six new Diplomacy lovers on-board! Thank you very much!
Will[Reply] |
| Will someone run a priivate game? (Community) garry.bledsoe Sep 16, 10:06 pm |
Will,
I will run your game with two stipulations:
1. I am on wedding/honeymoon for basically the second half of October.
2. I want them to sign up for DC!
Sorry...couldn't resist.
Garry |
| Will someone run a priivate game? (Community) MrSmiley Sep 17, 10:58 am |
Garry,
Yes! They would be signing up at DC! They have been looking over the site for the last couple weeks.
So that I know what to tell the other players, could we get someone to fill in while you are being strangled...eh hem, I mean getting married? Just kidding. Congrats on the big day coming up!
Will |
| Will someone run a priivate game? (Community) garry.bledsoe Sep 20, 10:18 am |
Hey...my time away will be from the 13th of Oct to approx. the 29th of Oct. So there would be nothing completed during that time. Other than that I am ready to run it.
g |
| Will someone run a priivate game? (Community) dknemeyer Sep 20, 12:22 pm |
| While I didn't want to take on another full game I would actually be happy to adjudicate in Garry's absence so this game can continued uninterrupted, if it is OK with Garry... |
| DC 338 Spring 02 Results - derekthefeared2 (Sep 16, 2010, 2:52 pm) |
I am on the ball today. Here are the results for Spring 02. Fall 02 Moves will be due next Wednesday at 3:00 PM US Eastern time. Best of luck to you all and don't forget your prelims.
No retreats needed.
Austria:
A Budapest - Serbia
A Galicia Supports A Bulgaria - Rumania (*Cut*)
F Greece - Aegean Sea
A Serbia - Greece
A Vienna - Tyrolia
England:
F Edinburgh - North Sea
F North Sea - Helgoland Bight
A Norway Supports F Sweden
F Norwegian Sea Supports A Norway
France:
A Belgium Hold
F Brest - Picardy
F Marseilles - Spain(sc)
A Paris - Burgundy
F Portugal - Mid-Atlantic Ocean
A Spain - Gascony
Germany:
A Denmark - Sweden (*Fails*)
A Holland Hold
F Kiel - Baltic Sea
A Munich - Silesia
F Skagerrak Supports A Denmark - Sweden
Italy:
A Apulia - Tunis
F Ionian Sea Convoys A Apulia - Tunis
A Tuscany - Venice
Russia:
A Livonia Hold
F Rumania Supports F Sevastopol - Black Sea (*Cut*)
F Sevastopol - Black Sea (*Fails*)
F Sweden Hold
A Ukraine - Sevastopol (*Bounce*)
A Warsaw - Galicia (*Fails*)
Turkey:
A Armenia - Sevastopol (*Bounce*)
F Black Sea Supports A Bulgaria - Rumania (*Cut*)
A Bulgaria - Rumania (*Fails*)
A Constantinople - Bulgaria (*Fails*)[Reply] |
| Next GM? - alhabashi (Sep 16, 2010, 1:44 pm) |
I am only 10 SC's away from my solo in DC333 (ho ho ho) and will run a Stonehenge or Dark Ages game then, providing I can load all the software and so on.
Open games is looking sparse.
al Habashi[Reply] |
| Next GM? (Community) FuzzyLogic Sep 18, 11:37 am |
It is indeed! Either a Stonehenge or Dark Ages would probly fill fast.
We still need Standard game GMs! Our queue is down to 0 ready in the wings...
-mike |
| Next GM? (Community) alwayshunted Sep 21, 06:09 pm |
| Put me on the list for another if you like Mike. |
| Next GM? (Community) FuzzyLogic Sep 23, 12:57 pm |
Woohoo!
Glad to have ya. Who's after Warren?
Any takers??
-mike |
| Next GM? (Community) Sean2010 Sep 24, 03:39 pm |
Michael,
I'm interested in taking a shot at GMing standard since this will be my first attempt at Gming. |
| DC309 Spring 1909 Results - Game Over - TheWhiteWolf (Sep 16, 2010, 1:04 pm) |
Hate to say it guys, but after having my hindquarters handed to me several times now, I'm going to have to step away from the table. Thanks for all the fun, and I enjoyed following this one to its conclusion. Good luck to any who do go on!
Andy
I'm a Firefly fan and proud! Read my fiction:
http://www.fanfiction.net/u/1369632/
From: John R <untitled36(at)yahoo.com>
To: mike Tombu <mtombu(at)gmail.com>
Cc: The White Wolf <cloudhurler77(at)yahoo.com>; Dan Dzikowicz <ddz999cat23(at)yahoo.com>; Philip King <ilovethechiefs(at)gmail.com>; Sean Cable <blueinva(at)cox.net>; Raymond Setzer <mczet99(at)gmail.com>; NathanDeily <ndeily(at)yahoo.com>; "<dc309(at)diplomaticcorp.com>" <dc309(at)diplomaticcorp.com>
Sent: Thu, September 16, 2010 9:42:05 AM
Subject: Re: DC309 Spring 1909 Results - Game Over
Anyone up for round.... um... what number are we on? Like round 5 now? Anyway, anyone up for a rematch?
John
From: mike Tombu <mtombu(at)gmail.com>
To: mike Tombu <mtombu(at)gmail.com>
Cc: The White Wolf <cloudhurler77(at)yahoo.com>; Dan Dzikowicz <ddz999cat23(at)yahoo.com>; John R <untitled36(at)yahoo.com>; Philip King <ilovethechiefs(at)gmail.com>; Sean Cable <blueinva(at)cox.net>; Raymond Setzer <mczet99(at)gmail.com>; NathanDeily <ndeily(at)yahoo.com>; "<dc309(at)diplomaticcorp.com>" <dc309(at)diplomaticcorp.com>
Sent: Wed, September 15, 2010 8:11:01 PM
Subject: DC309 Spring 1909 Results - Game Over
Hey All,
After nine years, a compromise to end the war in Europe has finally been reached. The governments of France, Austria, Italy and Russia have agreed to a four way draw. However, the proposal to reveal past votes fails. I have it on good authority that the reason for past draw failures will be revealed now that hostilities have ended.
Thanks to everyone for playing! It was fun to watch you all duke it out - especially after having just played with many of you!
I usually publish EOGs a week after a game I'm running ends. If you want to do it that way, send your thoughts to me, and I'll send everybody's out next Wednesday. Alternatively, you can all start broadcasting now!
I'll send some of my thoughts out later on. The pregnant wife wants to watch TV!
Best,
Mike
The players:
Austria: Phil <ilovethechiefs(at)gmail.com>
England: Andy <cloudhurler77(at)yahoo.com> *eliminated Winter 1905*
France: Dan <ddz999cat23(at)yahoo.com>
Germany: Ray <mczet99(at)gmail.com> *eliminated Winter 1906*
Italy: Blue <blueinva(at)cox.net>
Russia: John <untitled36(at)yahoo.com>
Turkey: Nathan <ndeily(at)yahoo.com> *eliminated Winter 1904*
Draw proposal:
FAIR draw proposal passed.
Other proposals:
Reveal passed (failed) draw votes proposal fails.
Deadlines:
EOGs are due next Wednesday at 9 pm. or not if you'd rather broadcast! [Reply] |
| DC309 Spring 1909 Results - Game Over - untitled36 (Sep 16, 2010, 8:42 am) |
Anyone up for round.... um... what number are we on? Like round 5 now? Anyway, anyone up for a rematch?
John
From: mike Tombu <mtombu(at)gmail.com>
To: mike Tombu <mtombu(at)gmail.com>
Cc: The White Wolf <cloudhurler77(at)yahoo.com>; Dan Dzikowicz <ddz999cat23(at)yahoo.com>; John R <untitled36(at)yahoo.com>; Philip King <ilovethechiefs(at)gmail.com>; Sean Cable <blueinva(at)cox.net>; Raymond Setzer <mczet99(at)gmail.com>; NathanDeily <ndeily(at)yahoo.com>; "<dc309(at)diplomaticcorp.com>" <dc309(at)diplomaticcorp.com>
Sent: Wed, September 15, 2010 8:11:01 PM
Subject: DC309 Spring 1909 Results - Game Over
Hey All,
After nine years, a compromise to end the war in Europe has finally been reached. The governments of France, Austria, Italy and Russia have agreed to a four way draw. However, the proposal to reveal past votes fails. I have it on good authority that the reason for past draw failures will be revealed now that hostilities have ended.
Thanks to everyone for playing! It was fun to watch you all duke it out - especially after having just played with many of you!
I usually publish EOGs a week after a game I'm running ends. If you want to do it that way, send your thoughts to me, and I'll send everybody's out next Wednesday. Alternatively, you can all start broadcasting now!
I'll send some of my thoughts out later on. The pregnant wife wants to watch TV!
Best,
Mike
The players:
Austria: Phil <ilovethechiefs(at)gmail.com>
England: Andy <cloudhurler77(at)yahoo.com> *eliminated Winter 1905*
France: Dan <ddz999cat23(at)yahoo.com>
Germany: Ray <mczet99(at)gmail.com> *eliminated Winter 1906*
Italy: Blue <blueinva(at)cox.net>
Russia: John <untitled36(at)yahoo.com>
Turkey: Nathan <ndeily(at)yahoo.com> *eliminated Winter 1904*
Draw proposal:
FAIR draw proposal passed.
Other proposals:
Reveal passed (failed) draw votes proposal fails.
Deadlines:
EOGs are due next Wednesday at 9 pm. or not if you'd rather broadcast! [Reply] |
| DC309 Spring 1909 Results - Game Over - untitled36 (Sep 15, 2010, 11:10 pm) |
Constantinople is the name of my poodle. I gave him to sean after he decided to get on board with us.
From: Philip King <ilovethechiefs(at)gmail.com>
To: Sean Cable <blueinva(at)cox.net>
Cc: mike Tombu <mtombu(at)gmail.com>; The White Wolf <cloudhurler77(at)yahoo.com>; Dan Dzikowicz <ddz999cat23(at)yahoo.com>; John R <untitled36(at)yahoo.com>; Raymond Setzer <mczet99(at)gmail.com>; NathanDeily <ndeily(at)yahoo.com>; dc309(at)diplomaticcorp.com
Sent: Wed, September 15, 2010 10:45:04 PM
Subject: Re: DC309 Spring 1909 Results - Game Over
Actually Sean, the quote I'm referring to is:
"I was always taught that you stab when your victim is losing SCs. I will be down a max of one am now publicly stating that I will be pulling all of my fleets off the Western front and
won't be stopping until Constantinople is mine. Dan, John, you got your wish guys - I'm onboard with taking Austria down."
I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure that if you took Constantinople, I would have been in trouble.
--Phil
On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 9:39 PM, Sean Cable <blueinva(at)cox.net> wrote:
Guys,
I know Phil wishes it was me that had said I'd wipe him off the board, but my exact words were that: "You have now sealed the end of your game. You will be able to wound me - take a SC here and there, but I will be giving France full rein to push into your middle whilst you struggle to deal with the fleets that will pour back East. Never stab in the spring... position, position, position." Prophetic huh? Your game ended on that turn when you dove one turn too early for the solo and ended up with a four way draw. If Phil had stuck to the agreement we shared, he probably could have soloed by grabbing Dan and John SCs faster than I could keep up, as it was, a four way draw is probably the best he could have hoped for - if Dan hadn't shown himself to be such an awesome player I might have trusted him enough to have pushed to take Turkey off the board and out of the
draw.
Phil, no worries about the voting down of the draw, you had to hope that one of us got as greedy as you did! *grin*
Blue
From: Philip King
Sent: Wednesday, September 15, 2010 9:43 PM
To: mike Tombu
Cc: The White Wolf ; Dan Dzikowicz ; John R ; Sean Cable ; Raymond Setzer ; NathanDeily ;
CTRL + Click to follow link" href="mailto:dc309(at)diplomaticcorp.com%3E" rel=nofollow target=_blank ymailto="mailto:dc309(at)diplomaticcorp.com%3E"><dc309(at)diplomaticcorp.com>
Subject: Re: DC309 Spring 1909 Results - Game Over
Well, I certainly won't apologize for holding up the ending of this game by a couple of extra turns. With all of Sean's trash talking about how he was going to wipe me off the face of the board, I had to give him the opportunity to try. Fortunately for everyone, except me obviously, you three held together. So, you guys have fun bashing me for turning the screws on your impromptu alliance. I just had to see what would happen.
--Phil
On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 8:11 PM, mike Tombu <mtombu(at)gmail.com> wrote:
Hey All,
After nine years, a compromise to end the war in Europe has finally been reached. The governments of France, Austria, Italy and Russia have agreed to a four way draw. However, the proposal to reveal past votes fails. I have it on good authority that the reason for past draw failures will be revealed now that hostilities have ended.
Thanks to everyone for playing! It was fun to watch you all duke it out - especially after having just played with many of you!
I usually publish EOGs a week after a game I'm running ends. If you want to do it that way, send your thoughts to me, and I'll send everybody's out next Wednesday. Alternatively, you can all start broadcasting now!
I'll send some of my thoughts out later on. The pregnant wife wants to watch TV!
Best,
Mike
The players:
Austria: Phil <ilovethechiefs(at)gmail.com>
England: Andy <cloudhurler77(at)yahoo.com> *eliminated Winter 1905*
France: Dan <ddz999cat23(at)yahoo.com>
Germany: Ray <mczet99(at)gmail.com> *eliminated Winter 1906*
Italy: Blue <blueinva(at)cox.net>
Russia: John <untitled36(at)yahoo.com>
Turkey: Nathan <ndeily(at)yahoo.com> *eliminated Winter 1904*
Draw proposal:
FAIR draw proposal passed.
Other proposals:
Reveal passed (failed) draw votes proposal fails.
Deadlines:
EOGs are due next Wednesday at 9 pm. or not if you'd rather broadcast! [Reply] |
| DC309 Spring 1909 Results - Game Over - ilovethechiefs (Sep 15, 2010, 10:45 pm) |
Actually Sean, the quote I'm referring to is:
"I was always taught that you stab when your victim is
losing SCs. I will be down a max of one am now publicly stating that I will be
pulling all of my fleets off the Western front and won't be stopping until
Constantinople is mine. Dan, John, you got your wish guys - I'm onboard with
taking Austria down."
I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure that if you took Constantinople, I would have been in trouble.
--Phil
On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 9:39 PM, Sean Cable <blueinva(at)cox.net> wrote:
Guys,
I know Phil wishes it was me that had said I'd wipe him
off the board, but my exact words were that: "You have now sealed the end of
your game. You will be able to wound me - take a SC here and there, but I will
be giving France full rein to push into your middle whilst you struggle to deal
with the fleets that will pour back East. Never stab in the spring... position,
position, position." Prophetic huh? Your
game ended on that turn when you dove one turn too early for the solo and ended
up with a four way draw. If Phil had stuck to the agreement we
shared, he probably could have soloed by grabbing Dan and John SCs faster
than I could keep up, as it was, a four way draw is probably the best he
could have hoped for - if Dan hadn't shown himself to be such an awesome player
I might have trusted him enough to have pushed to take Turkey off the board
and out of the draw.
Phil, no worries about the voting down of the draw, you
had to hope that one of us got as greedy as you did! *grin*
Blue
From: Philip King
Sent: Wednesday, September 15, 2010 9:43 PM
To: mike Tombu
Cc: The White Wolf ; Dan
Dzikowicz ; John R ; Sean Cable ; Raymond Setzer ; NathanDeily ; <dc309(at)diplomaticcorp.com>
Subject: Re: DC309 Spring 1909 Results - Game Over
Well, I certainly won't apologize for holding up the ending of
this game by a couple of extra turns. With all of Sean's trash talking
about how he was going to wipe me off the face of the board, I had to give him
the opportunity to try. Fortunately for everyone, except me obviously, you
three held together. So, you guys have fun bashing me for turning the
screws on your impromptu alliance. I just had to see what would
happen.
--Phil
On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 8:11 PM, mike Tombu <mtombu(at)gmail.com>
wrote:
Hey All,
After nine years, a compromise to end the
war in Europe has finally been reached. The governments of France, Austria,
Italy and Russia have agreed to a four way draw. However, the proposal to
reveal past votes fails. I have it on good authority that the reason for past
draw failures will be revealed now that hostilities have
ended.
Thanks to everyone for playing! It was fun
to watch you all duke it out - especially after having just played with many
of you!
I usually publish EOGs a week after a game
I'm running ends. If you want to do it that way, send your thoughts to me, and
I'll send everybody's out next Wednesday. Alternatively, you can all start
broadcasting now!
I'll send some of my thoughts out later
on. The pregnant wife wants to watch TV!
Best,
Mike
The players:
Austria:
Phil <ilovethechiefs(at)gmail.com>
England:
Andy <cloudhurler77(at)yahoo.com>
*eliminated Winter 1905*
France: Dan
<ddz999cat23(at)yahoo.com>
Germany:
Ray <mczet99(at)gmail.com>
*eliminated Winter 1906*
Italy: Blue
<blueinva(at)cox.net>
Russia:
John <untitled36(at)yahoo.com>
Turkey:
Nathan <ndeily(at)yahoo.com>
*eliminated Winter 1904*
Draw
proposal:
FAIR draw
proposal passed.
Other proposals:
Reveal passed (failed) draw votes proposal
fails.
Deadlines:
EOGs are due next Wednesday at 9 pm. or not if you'd
rather broadcast!
[Reply] |
