| DC300 - Fall 1903 - deadline extended with 24 hrs - bielf11 (Mar 08, 2010, 12:22 am) |
| New deadline for Fall orders is Tuesday Mar 9 at 17:00 GMT.Frank [Reply] |
| DC289: 24h for Spring 1903 - Rocketship (Mar 07, 2010, 11:40 pm) |
Hi Folks,
This is your friendly 24h reminder for Spring, 1903. I'm still missing orders from France, Germany, Italy, and Turkey.
Cheers,
Matthew[Reply] |
| DC289: 24h for Spring 1903 (dc289) Rocketship Mar 09, 12:45 am |
Hi Folks,
Deadline has passed and I'm still without orders from France. I am invoking France's 24h grace period. If I do not have French orders within 24 hours, an NMR will be issued.
All other players are free to submit new orders during this time.
Cheers,
Matthew
On Mar 7, 2010, at 9:40 PM, Rocketship wrote:
Hi Folks,
This is your friendly 24h reminder for Spring, 1903. I'm still missing orders from France, Germany, Italy, and Turkey.
Cheers,
Matthew
|
| DC 306: Notes 5 - Neutrals may NOT be ordered to m... - Kenshi777 (Mar 07, 2010, 8:09 pm) |
This is a common mistake I have seen in multiple prelim DP allocations
and player negotiations. *Please* check the DipWiki.com entry for the
variant to ensure everyone is clear on the rules, I would hate to see
the deadline arrive and I have to adjudicate a bunch of orders as
invalid in the first season - I'm sure that would be very frustrating
for the players.
Illustration (hypothetical) of Valid and Invalid Orders for Neutrals:
VALID - (1 DP) A Settsu Holds
VALID - (2 DP) A Yamashiro S (Chosokabe) F Osaka Bay - Settsu
INVALID - (1 DP) A Yamashiro - Settsu (Neutrals cannot move)
INVALID - (1 DP) A Yamashiro S A Settsu - Kawachi (A Settsu cannot
move to Kawachi)
Neutrals cannot move - they can only be ordered to support other
*player's* units to move, or they can be ordered to hold.
Thanks -
B.
--
Diplomacy in Texas!
www.texasdiplomacy.com
http://nairenvorbeck.angelfire.com/
Realpolitik files available here for the Sengoku, Balkans1860, South
American Supremacy, and DarkAges Diplomacy Variants[Reply] |
| DC 306: Notes 4 - Cutting Neutral Supports - Kenshi777 (Mar 07, 2010, 7:54 pm) |
Next question answered for group benefit -
YES - Neutral units can have their support cut like any other unit.
Hypothetical Example:
Find Osaka Bay. Let us assume a Chosokabe fleet has there. Chosokabe
uses 1 DP point to influence A Yamashiro as follows: A Yamashiro S F
Osaka Bay - Settsu. No one else spends any DP points on the Army in
Yamashiro, so the move succeeds.
...but...
Let us assume Asakura does not want Chosokabe in Settsu. So he sends
A Omi - Yamashiro. The support from Yamashiro is then cut, and
Chosokabe bounces 1-1 with the neutral army in Settsu.
Keep 'em comin' - better to ask now than have ugly surprises after the
deadline...
B.
--
Diplomacy in Texas!
www.texasdiplomacy.com
http://nairenvorbeck.angelfire.com/
Realpolitik files available here for the Sengoku, Balkans1860, South
American Supremacy, and DarkAges Diplomacy Variants[Reply] |
| suggestions - bobbarkerfan1 (Mar 07, 2010, 1:21 pm) |
Hey everyone,
I was just thinking about some additional features that could be added to the site. Just wanted to see what people thought of these.
1) I think it would be cool to have a "rate your GM" or some kind of survey thing after a game is finished where people can give feedback to their GM and the site on ways the GM can make the game run better, and then keep track of each GM's scores or something to see who the best GMs are.
2) another survey, "rate your game experience" I think this would be helpful so the moderators and GMs can see how new players or veterans are enjoying their game experiences. They can write how much negotiating went on, or whatever they want.
Again, I just think these would be good additions to the site to give people more feedback on how games are running. Thanks.[Reply] |
| Re: suggestions (Help & Suggestions) FuzzyLogic Mar 08, 10:55 am |
I think I lean toward #2 personally. #1 has the potential to be discouraging and personal. GM's volunteer their time, so if a GM is new and trying it out, the last thing he would need is to get some flame ratings permanently attached to his profile for what might be a rocky first game.
Rating the game on the other hand is a bit more disconnected, and then you could have a "games list by most enjoyed game" sort of thing. This would allow GMs to possibly have a bad game, but then on the next game get better and have some really great games.
The drawback to #2 is it would open up the door for GMs to lobby their players to give them great ratings so that they could top this or that chart.
As we're working on a new message board system to ditch this clunky phpbb stuff, features like this could be tied in nicely w the site going forward... so if you have ideas bring'em up!
-mike
Hey everyone,
I was just thinking about some additional features that could be added to the site. Just wanted to see what people thought of these.
1) I think it would be cool to have a "rate your GM" or some kind of survey thing after a game is finished where people can give feedback to their GM and the site on ways the GM can make the game run better, and then keep track of each GM's scores or something to see who the best GMs are.
2) another survey, "rate your game experience" I think this would be helpful so the moderators and GMs can see how new players or veterans are enjoying their game experiences. They can write how much negotiating went on, or whatever they want.
Again, I just think these would be good additions to the site to give people more feedback on how games are running. Thanks. |
| Re: Suggestions (Help & Suggestions) AceRimmer Mar 08, 01:59 pm |
I like the feedback idea. Giving ideas to a GM on how to run a game better is definitely worthwhile. I think the club could have a role in this by promoting player feedback. Perhaps by providing a generic feedback form to GMs, which the GMs could then forward to players at the end of a game (but who'd design the form?). Or the club could contribute by having an online form (even anonymous drop box) where players are encouraged to leave comments for the GM. But I think the feedback should be strictly for the GM to read and learn from.
On numerical ratings, I agree with Mike... only more so. I wouldn't even want games rated. It is also my own experience that 1-to-5 ratings are minimally helpful. Numbers give a score but no practical advice for improvement. On evaluations, I always skip the numbers and read written comments where available. Again: I'd emphasize feedback over rating.
If there is a concern that a GM is bad -- really bad -- then I imagine players should notify the club Moderators. Let them deal with it.
Adam |
| Re: Suggestions (Help & Suggestions) bobbarkerfan1 Mar 08, 04:47 pm |
| Yeah, I agree with making it all anonymous and qualitative. I'm just throwing ideas out there. It would be nice though, as a GM, to gain feedback after a game to improve or whatever. |
| DC280 summer 1908 retreat - bobbarkerfan1 (Mar 07, 2010, 12:51 pm) |
Hey everyone,
The French have decided to retreat from Gulf of Lyon to Marseilles.
DEADLINE:
The deadline for Fall 1908 will be ***Friday, March 12th, 9:00pm EST*** Hopefully you have enough time, if not just ask for some extra. And please send me prelim orders to avoid NMRs, because only the Italians have a grace period left, so anyone else who misses a deadline will just get a NMR.
Have a good week!
Joey[Reply] |
| DC290 spring 1902 adjudications - bobbarkerfan1 (Mar 07, 2010, 12:46 pm) |
Goodday everyone,
Hope you all are having a good weekend. The orders are in and there was a lot of movement. Before we get to that though, I have some news and stuff to go through.
I have been getting a few questions regarding how my grace period system works, and I want to clarify all of it.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Let me define my grace period rule. Grace period is a 24 hour deadline extension, that all players are free to submit orders. Once player using grace period has orders in, or the 24 hours has expired, then I will adjudicate. Here are examples:
Harry Potter missed deadline, and gets orders in within grace period. His grace period is gone for next time.
Bella AND Harry both miss deadline another turn. A grace period begins. Same thing applies, except I adjudicate when I get Bella's orders or when 24 hours is up. If Harry gets orders in before I adjudicate, then they will be accepted. If I don't get his before I get Bella's, then Mr. Potter is outta luck, and should have saved his grace period.
Thomas the Tank Engine and Pee-Wee Herman both miss deadline for first time. I will adjudicate once I get both of their orders or after 24 hours. Doesn't matter when they get orders in after grace period is enacted. They both get 24 hours, and both lose grace period for next time.
And remember, all players are free to submit orders during grace periods, if you still have a grace period, if it is your grace period, or if it's someone else's grace period and you don't have yours.
Hopefully this clears things up for everybody. If you have further questions ask me. And I apologize fore not clearing this up earlier, but I thank you all for asking before these rules needed to be enacted.
and p.s. Ross. These rules are different than my DC280 rules. Keep that in mind. I think these work better than the rules I put in place in DC280.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
With that out of the way, we get back to the game. We have a lot of action in Scandinavia, but no movement. The Russians are only able to move to Warsaw. The Brits have a similar situation with a failed convoy as well, and only get a fleet into the North Sea. Germany begins to mobilize its army, while the French are shifting units around trying to get set up. The Turks rearrange everything, and in spite of a failed Italian support, they get a fleet into the Aegean Sea. With all of that going on around them, the Austrians slowly begin moving north. Tune in next week to see how things play out!
ORDERS:
Austria:
A Budapest - Galicia
F Greece - Albania
A Serbia - Trieste
A Trieste - Tyrolia
A Vienna Supports A Trieste - Tyrolia
England:
F English Channel Convoys A Wales - Picardy
F London - North Sea
F Norway - Barents Sea (*Bounce*)
A Wales - Picardy (*Bounce*)
France:
F Brest - Mid-Atlantic Ocean
A Burgundy - Picardy (*Bounce*)
F Marseilles - Spain(sc)
A Spain - Gascony
Germany:
A Berlin - Silesia
F Denmark - Sweden (*Fails*)
A Holland - Belgium
A Kiel - Ruhr
A Munich Supports A Kiel - Ruhr
Italy:
A Apulia - Venice
F Ionian Sea Supports A Constantinople - Aegean Sea (*Void*)
A Piedmont - Tyrolia (*Fails*)
Russia:
A Finland - Norway (*Fails*)
F St Petersburg(nc) - Barents Sea (*Bounce*)
F Sweden Supports A Finland - Norway (*Cut*)
A Ukraine - Warsaw
Turkey:
A Ankara - Armenia
A Bulgaria - Rumania
A Constantinople - Bulgaria
F Rumania - Black Sea
A Sevastopol Supports A Bulgaria - Rumania
F Smyrna - Aegean Sea
DEADLINE:
With all of the bouncing and movement of the spring, we have no retreats and move right to the fall. The fall 1902 deadline will be ***Friday, March 12th, 9:00pm EST*** We will be missing a player next weekend, so I have the deadline for Friday. If you need extra time let me know(asking for extra time doesn't cost a grace period), if you don't, get orders in!
PLAYERS:
Ctry : Italy
Name : Alex Maslow
Email : Blueraider0-at-gmail.com ([email]Blueraider0-at-gmail.com[/email])
Ctry : England
Name : Kyle Rudge
Email : krudge-at-goldenwestradio.com ([email]krudge-at-goldenwestradio.com[/email])
Ctry : Russia
Name : Justin Card
Email : justin-at-darkenedpath.com ([email]justin-at-darkenedpath.com[/email])
Ctry : France
Name : Ross Yaggy
Email : ross826-at-gmail.com ([email]ross826-at-gmail.com[/email])
Ctry : Austria
Name : Joe Rizzo
Email : kangaroohp-at-aol.com ([email]kangaroohp-at-aol.com[/email])
Ctry : Germany
Name : Matthew Stevenson
Email : rocketship.rocketship-at-gmail.com ([email]rocketship.rocketship-at-gmail.com[/email])
Ctry : Turkey
Name : Michael Walters
Email : michael.alan.walters-at-gmail.com ([email]michael.alan.walters-at-gmail.com[/email])
PRESS:
Published by TactPred - Tactical Predictions in the Practical Traditions, an independent intelligence agency working for a well informed humanity.
Title: Continental Concerns: Who is hungrier?
In the past year, as the European Powers have begun "military maneuvers," reports have been flying back and forth about the fate of Italy against an aggressive Austria and France against an agressive England. Pundits and politicians alike have been giving their opinions, usually of the inflammatory type. After all, politicians have voters to appease, and pundits have audiences to draw. But we at TactPred have desire only for truth. And our analysts have come up with some thoughts that are, as usual, highly contrary to "common sense." But we'd like to think by now we have proven the old adage that what is popular is not always right and what is right is not always popular.
French fears of England are entirely unfounded and can be dismissed wholesale. This is not to say the raising of a fleet in Marseilles was shortsighted, nor that said fleet is responsible for staying the thirst of England. No, it was the shocking builds of the Russians that have rendered the British impotent. Following tense negotiations, Russia has bowed to Turkish demands that they not work to regain their south. This aids the Turks in two ways - it frees up their hand instead of requiring them to defend their new gains, and it ensures England remains on the sidelines, which is ultimately the enemy of the Turks for continental domination. As an unintended consequence, it helps France. England is now stuck either trying to retake Norway or sacrificing the new build for a strategic reorganization. However, a 3 unit England is thoroughly crippled (even if the army is disbanded in the fall, which leaves them with 3 mobile but unthreatening fleets). England is not out of the game, but the idea England is still threatening France at the moment is absurd.
This leaves France with the choice to pounce on England, ram through Germany, or move south against the weaker Italian. While Italy seems like the best plan, it may not be strategically practical (for reasons we shall get to). Germany, with England engaged against Russia and Russia staking a huge claim in the north, might turn his attention to France. Attacking Russia has more longterm losses than shortterm gains. Once the army in Moscow dies, there is little stopping Turkey from gobbling up he majority of Russia, given that Russia's fleets can do absolutley nothing. Germany would have to be bold, indeed, to create such a vacuum without the resources to back it up. In any event, there is fear of a French move against Germany, or at least Belgium and Holland. That one army in Burgandy can cause quite some havoc without even moving. Germany would be wise to deal with France long before attacking Russia, which is playing a key role in directing power in the south east.
With Russia giving up southern claims, Turkey now has a chance to strike against Austria. Italian press has been very successful in painting the Austrian in a poor light, and Turkey could move against Austria "jointly" with Italy, feeding off the support Italy has worked hard to gain for itself. Italy would be hardpressed to defend against an Austrian offensive, and even harder to make an offensive against even a simple Austrian defense. Turkey has the greater ability to crush Austria, and therefore will overrun Austria with ease, and then moving against Italy (or Russia if desired). But then again, it is possible that Italy and Austria will see the rising threat and put past differences behind them to contain the Sultan's forces. Such a move directly supports Austria, but would also support Italian interests. A joint attack into the Aegean Sea would do much to hold Turkey back, but would ultimately help the Italians much more than Austria. In an Austrian/Turkish war without outside help, Turkey is poised for victory, or at least indefinate defense. If Austria fell, Italy would probably crumble next. But if Austria and Italy work to keep Turkey out of the Aegean, Turkey would only make gains in the north. Austria will still fall, but Italian forces could have time to take Tunis and organize a defense based on the Ionian Sea. And as long as Greece remains out of Turkish hands, Turkish efforts through the Mediterranean Sea could be stalled enough for a reorganization of Russian power.
Presuming success in the north for Russia, we expect to see Russia slowly reorganize its southern offensive. Russia would use the Norway build to make another fleet and secure its northern border and begin to move against England - Meanwhile that army in Finland will swing downward to make a show of force, and the next Russian build will assuredly be an army to counter the Turkish/Austrian forces (not joint forces, just whichever of those two forces are stronger by 1903 or 04). By then, Turkey and Austria will be locked in battle and Turkey will be frustrated against an Italian defense in the south (propping up Greece), but unable to withdraw fearing an Italian counter. Russia could work with Italy to exchange notes and use the battle to ensure their own gains - gains that once made will be difficult to lose again. Russia and Italy will not fight for quite some time, and Turkey and Austria will need quite a bit of cooperation - unlikely in the environment that by then will exist. And once Russia and Italy have defeated their mutual neighbors, they'll each go west, in their own way.
This is why earlier we had said France would be best served by attacking Italy. If France could get these growths for itself France would be better off. A strong Italy will be a disaster for France - once the Balkans have been sorted out, Italian fleets will have to go somewhere. But France can't really attack Italy any time soon because if Italy collapses Turkey will obliterate Austria, and the Turkish fleet production will far outsource the French fleets.
The key to domination in this worldview, for now, is control of Hungary. As long as Budapest remains under Austrian control, Turkey will be held back. If Turkey manages to get it, Austria will likely not recover. If Russia eventually gets Budapest, expect Italian and Russian forces to dominate their respective areas. If Italy gets Budapest, expect Russia and Italy to fight fiercely over their gains. We know Western Europe likes to take the spotlight, but in this case, it is the East that is where everyone's eyes ought to be......
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
DATELINE SWITZERLAND, Spring, 1902
Players, let's get back to DipJeopardy...
Bobbarkerfan: "We still have 3 categories... "Bodies of Water," "Liars & Cheats," and "Potpourri."
Bobbarkerfan: "Joe, as Patton told us, "All fame is fleeting." Select for us won't you?"
Joe: "I'll take 'Potpourri' for $100,"
Bobbarkerfan: "And the answer is...'Is that a rocket in your pocket or are you just glad to see me.'"
:::Kyle buzzes in:: "I'd like to buy a vowel."
Bobbarkerfan: "Sorry, Kyle, wrong segment of press..."
:::Joe buzzes in::: "What Austria was not happy to see when Germany's '01 builds were announced?"
Bobbarkerfan: "Select..."
Joe: "I'll take 'Potpourri' for $200, bobbarkerfan."
Bobbarkerfan: "And the answer is 'Stp(nc).'"
:::Kyle buzzes in::: "What is the stupidest build in the history of Diplomacy?"
Bobbarkerfan: "Possibly true, but not what we were looking for."
:::Russ buzzes in::: "What is the best build I could have hoped for?"
Bobbarkerfan: "That's it..."
Russ: "I'll take 'Potpourri' for $300."
Bobbarkerfan: "And the answer is...'Damn it, Jim, I'm a doctor, not a god.'"
:::Justin buzzes in::: "What the French will need if they louse up the defense of BUR?"
Bobbarkerfan: "Select..."
Justin: "I'll take 'Potpourri' for $400."
Bobbarkerfan: "And the answer is, 'Make him an offer he can't refuse.'"
:::Matthew buzzes in::: "What I told Italy to tell Austria on my behalf?"
Bobbarkerfan: "More specific information..."
:::buzz, buzz, buzz:::
:::Michael buzzes in::: "What is a line no less than four players have used to try to convince Austria to launch attacks against me?"
Bobbarkerfan: "That's amazing...it's almost as if you're reading their e-mail. Select..."
Michael: "I'm sure Austria would be happy if I would kill off 'Potpourri' for $500..."
Joe: "I told you...never use the words "kill off" and "Austria" in the same sentence. It makes me nervous."
Bobbarkerfan: "And the answer is, 'When it ABSOLUTELY, POSITIVELY has to be DESTROYED overnight.'"
:::Maslow buzzes in::: "What is that stupid French fleet in MAR?...talk about stupid builds. You are moving that to the west, right?"
Bobbarkerfan: "Let's take a break..."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
VIENNA, Spring, 1902
It seems Ferdy is holding up well. After hanging around the dungeon for the last few months, I'm starting to see progress. Turns out he has a rather high pain threshold. This is really tiring out my right arm.
On other topics, I'd like to thank all of the players that warned me about the imminent Turkish attack on my rear flanks. If only....if only there had been some sign...some indication of what was coming...
Mistress Lash
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"It's like in the great stories, Mr. Frodo. The ones that really mattered. Full of darkness and danger they were. and sometimes you didn't want to know the end because how could the end be happy? How could the world go back to the way it was when so much bad had happened? But in the end, it's only a passing thing. The shadow, even the darkness must pass. A new day will come. And when the sun shines it will shine out the clearer. Those were the stories that stayed with you - That meant something. Even if you were too small to understand why. But I think, Mr. Frodo, I do understand. I know now. Folk in those stories had lots of chances of turning back only they didn't. They kept going because they were holding onto something."
"What are we holding onto, Sam?"
"That there's some good in this world, Mr. Frodo. And it's worth fighting for."
END PRESS
Have a great week everybody, and get those orders/press in,
Joey[Reply] |
| Dc 277: Draw Proposal - AlanRFarrington (Mar 07, 2010, 12:28 pm) |
Forgot to mention that the draw failed.
--Alan
Hotmail: Free, trusted and rich email service. Get it now.[Reply] |
| Dc 277: Fall 2003 Adjudication - AlanRFarrington (Mar 07, 2010, 12:17 pm) |
Hello Everybody,
Sorry for the delay, had to use a grace period to get all the orders in. We officially say goodbye to the English position, while France picks up a couple more centers.
No retreats so we can boogie on into winter.
Next Deadline:
Winter 2003 Orders are due Tuesday, March 9th at Midnight GMT (7:00pm EST)
Orders:
Egypt:
A Adana - Armenia
F Adriatic Sea Supports A Serbia
F Aegean Sea Supports F Istanbul
A Anatolia - Adana
F Eastern Mediterannean - Ionian Sea
F Greece Supports F Istanbul
A Iran Supports A Adana - Armenia
F Istanbul, no move received
F Izmir Supports F Istanbul
A Kazakhstan - Volga (*Fails*)
A Macedonia Supports A Serbia
A Rome, no move received
A Serbia, no move received
F Tunisia, no move received
F Tyrrhenian Sea, no move received
France:
A Alsace Supports A Munich
F Bay of Biscay - English Channel
A Barcelona Hold
A Edinburgh Hold
F Gulf of Lyon - Ligurian Sea
A Hamburg Hold
F Ireland Hold
A Marseilles Supports A Piedmont - Monaco
A Munich Hold
F North Atlantic Ocean - Norwegian Sea
A Picardy - Belgium
A Piedmont - Monaco
F South Atlantic Ocean - Morroco
A Switzerland Supports A Munich (*Cut*)
Germany:
F Bornholm Sea Supports F Skagerrak - Sweden
F Denmark Supports A Hamburg
A Norway Supports F Skagerrak - Sweden
F Skagerrak - Sweden (*Fails*)
Italy:
A Croatia Hold
A Milan - Switzerland (*Fails*)
A Monaco - Marseilles (*Disbanded*)
F Venice Supports A Croatia
Poland:
A Austria - Milan (*Fails*)
F Baltic Sea Supports A Sweden
A Berlin, no move received
A Bielorussia - Moscow
A Czech Republic - Krakow
A Frankfurt Supports A Hamburg
F Gdansk - Prussia
F Gulf of Bothnia Supports A Sweden
A Krakow - Bielorussia
A Lapland Supports A Sweden
A Prussia - Silesia
A Saxony - Austria (*Fails*)
A Sweden Hold
Ukraine:
A Ankara Hold
A Bulgaria Supports A Hungary - Serbia
F Eastern Black Sea Supports A Ankara
A Georgia Supports A Ankara
A Hungary - Serbia (*Fails*)
A Podolia - Kiev
A Rumania Supports A Bulgaria
A Sevastopol - Donbas
A Volga - Kazakhstan (*Fails*)
F Western Black Sea Supports A Bulgaria
Players:
Britain: Andrew Tanner ( damienthryn(at)gmail.com ) [Stepped Down]
Jack McHugh ( jwmchughjr(at)gmail.com ) [Eliminated]
Egypt: Mick Cox ( mickstagman(at)aol.com )
France: Michael Thompson ( psychosis(at)sky.com )
Germany: Isaac Zinner ( isaac.zinner(at)gmail.com )
Italy: Manos Tagar ( etagarakis(at)hotmail.com )
Poland: Joey Pedicini ( bobbarkerfan1ped(at)yahoo.com )
Russia: Jeffrey Clay ( jmc66(at)mac.com ) [Eliminated]
Spain: Michael Sims ( mike(at)fuzzylogicllc.net ) [Eliminated]
Turkey: Joshua Tag ( sanjat312(at)yahoo.com ) [Eliminated]
Ukraine: Mikael Johansson ( m_don_j(at)hotmail.com )
If anyone spots a mistake with their orders let me know,
Thank you,
Alan Farrington Your E-mail and More On-the-Go. Get Windows Live Hotmail Free. Sign up now.[Reply] |
| DC 298 Spring 1908 reminder - untitled36 (Mar 07, 2010, 6:48 am) |
Hey all,
t minus 24ish hours until deadline. I've got a lot of orders in, but not all of 'em, so if you haven't email me.... you should!
John
Your E-mail and More On-the-Go. Get Windows Live Hotmail Free. Sign up now.[Reply] |
| DC290 grace period - bobbarkerfan1 (Mar 06, 2010, 8:25 pm) |
Hey everyone,
Due to a missing set of orders, you all have some extra time to change orders if you need to. This player is charged a grace period and will simply get a NMR the next time a deadline is missed.
If anyone still wants to send press in feel free. I will adjudicate as soon as I get the missing orders, or until 9:00pm EST tomorrow night if I don't receive the orders.
Joey[Reply] |
| DC290 grace period (dc290) bobbarkerfan1 Mar 13, 11:29 am |
I apologize everyone for not getting this out last night. The missing set of orders have until 9:00pm EST tonight. I will adjudicate as soon as I get them. And like always, you all can fix/edit orders if need be.
Again, sorry about not letting you know last night, I'll try to make a habit of at least checking if all orders are in before the deadline. Just been a hell of a week for me, but this upcoming week will be a nice change of pace for me.
Thanks,
Joey |
| 1926 091119: EOG Report - dknemeyer (Mar 06, 2010, 6:11 pm) |
Thanks for the great summary Charles. A few comments considering everyone else's contributions:
Charles, your comments on the strengths of the various powers has me wanting to play this variant again, right away, to see it all play out.  To clarify some of my comments, I never fully "got" the travel between Britain and the Suez. Once I was already down a diplomatic path that resulted in my abandoning the region I started asking Charles about it and he gave me the information on how it worked. But it's absence in the rules, at least so far as I was able to tell or find, kept it invisible from me. Even after Charles' informing me of how it worked, lacking an easy way to "check up on" the nuance of the rule kind of kept that strategy from seeming viable to me. Making this more explicit in the rules would not seem to have a down side.
I do want to echo Darryl's comments about the lack of territory designations on the map. I expect, given this is only one of three of Charles' games I've played, that I've spent more time on DipWiki pouring over the official maps than any other Internet site over the last year! This was at times not at all convenient, particularly when working on a small laptop screen and struggling to reconcile actual board situation with the labels. The counterbalance is that Charles' maps are quite lovely without the designations. Still, the usability would be increased by having at least a version that shows the board positions and the territory designations. It would just make these excellent variants even better!
I neglected in my summary to thank Darryl and Greg for helping us finish the game; it is much, much appreciated.
As a final comment, I've never heard myself called a "conservative" game player before. Certainly no insult taken, but it did make me cock my head and ask aloud, "really?!" I suspect it is more a product of my dislike of stabbing and preference for draws than the way in which I push the pieces around the board. I've been getting more stomach for it recently though and may just "go for it" next time...
Dirk
From: charlesf(at)web.de [mailto:charlesf(at)web.de]
Sent: Saturday, March 06, 2010 11:42 AM
To: Charles Féaux de la Croix; Darryl Good; Gregory Bim-Merle; Harvey Morris; Dirk Knemeyer; Mikael Johansson; Matt Kremer; Wladimir Mysonski; dc283(at)diplomaticcorp.com
Cc: Nathan Deily; Mark Duffield; Michael Thompson; Jorge Saralegui; Benjamin Hester; Roger Leroux
Subject: 1926 091119: EOG Report
Hi guys,
now it's time for the our game's closing chapter, the end-of-game reports. You might want to review the game by flipping through the adjucation slideshow on DC283's game page (now fully updated).
Perhaps some of you will be interested in following up on others' comments. If so, please respond to all and especially make sure you include the message board mail adress (dc283(at)diplomaticcorp.com ([email]dc283(at)diplomaticcorp.com[/email])) in the header.
[u:ed85bcd81b]Supply Centre Chart[/u:ed85bcd81b]
Note that we never reached Winter 1929. I merely added that year for the sake of interest (i.e. it's inofficial).
[u:ed85bcd81b]BRITAIN (Draw): Dirk Knemeyer[/u:ed85bcd81b]
This was an uneven game thanks to some of the lags in playing time based on players leaving and not being able to get prompt replacements. More than anything, for me, this defined the game. I'm glad I played because I do enjoy Charles' variants and was glad to test this, but ultimately the playing of it didn't turn out to be very much fun. A shame.
At the beginning of the game I forged a strong, direct relationship with France and a strong, less direct relationship with Poland and Turkey. I am a reliable ally in Diplomacy, so pretty early on I was already sweating, wondering how to architect a result that was not a bloated 4-way draw without stabbing.
Early on France and I worked well together. I liked my end of our strategic split of SC's - his getting much of Africa, my getting Iberia and the Lowlands - and felt well-positioned for a good result. When Germany built a fleet in Kie over my strenuous objections in Winter 1926 he became my target and I spent much of the next three years working myself and with others to bring about his demise. My premise was that, because he was a threat, I could simply use his spheres of influence as a path to growth without upsetting my alliances.
There were two major events that dictated my evolving strategy: first was the full-on assault of Russia by Germany, Poland and Turkey. I managed to cooperate with Mikael for a time without upsetting my allies and then toward the end game exchanged a guarantee of survival for getting to use his units as an extension of my own. This allowed me to keep Poland from growing too large too quickly, while having a greater reach to batter Germany with.
The other major event was France allowing himself to get stabbed by Turkey. This destabilized his African holdings and thus threatened to have a trickle-down effect that would result in his trying to get some of my territory in Iberia and the Lowlands. It quickly became clear that I would need to stab him in order to prevent his mistakes from diluting my position. However, the original player quit and I quickly liked working with Darryl, his replacement. This led me to try and cooperate with Darryl while staying loyal to Poland and Turkey *and* keeping Russia alive. It wasn't easy. My hope was the board situation would create a clear and justifiable path-to-action that would not constitute a stab.
The event that nearly turned the final result of the game on it's head was Poland blatantly lying to Turkey and I in 1929. Comparing notes and realizing this, Turkey and I prepared to pound him in the fall. However, some press from Poland to Turkey in the summer changed Harvey's mind and we simply worked with him to shatter the opposition and drive toward a triple, the vote for which was, as we now know, successful.
This variant turned out very differently from how I expected. I thought Turkey was easily the weakest power going in, but watching the game play out a little I felt the position was a lot stronger than it looked. Poland was the power I most wanted and the strength of that position when well-played came across in our result. Yet I felt the same way about Russia (my second choice) and he was functionally the first player out despite having a top player holding the reigns. Needless to say my assessment on relative strengths may be misguided.
This variant is similar to Standard with a few key differences:
1. The addition of neutral armies that can be influenced by DP's. This is a favourite mechanism of Charles in his variants and adds a lot more diplomatic intrigue. The only downside with it is that all of the neutrals are typically conquered in the first few years, making it an early game only mechanism
2. The replacement of Austria with Poland. This is the biggest difference because it moves that power's center of gravity from southwest by Italy and the Balkans up toward Russia in particular, as well as closer to Germany. I suspect this will almost always force an early Poland-Russia conflict that will define the game for both. It also takes some pressure off of Italy and shifts it onto Germany, but unfortunately that does not make things any easier for Italy because...
3. Britain, France and Italy each have African holdings, which collectively stretch across the Med. This is why I incorrectly thought Turkey was a poor position since both France and Britain are in it's back yard; as it turned out, the remote nature of the BF positions makes the eastern Med untenable against a competent Turkey player, even less against a talented player like Harvey. In turn this funnels all of those fleets right at Italy. While Italy starts with African holdings the Med the area is just too busy and contested, not giving him much room to play. These shifts in power and influence are not necessarily a good or bad thing, but I suspect that, compared to Standard, Germany, Italy and Russia are worse off while the other four are all better off. Further testing of this variant might challenge these assumptions which are obviously coloured by the result!
As I mentioned at the outset I did not ultimately enjoy this game because of the long delays. Regardless I do enjoy the variant and like much of what Charles does as a GM so will be happy to play it again in the future. Thank you, Charles, for creating and running the game; thanks to Harvey and Wladimir for both being enjoyable to blather on with over the months of the game; and thanks to all of the other players for this game.
[u:ed85bcd81b]FRANCE (Replacement/Survival): Darryl Good[/u:ed85bcd81b]
Not much to tell from my point of view. When I joined the game, it was obvious that Germany, Turkey and Poland were running away with the game. I contacted England, Italy, Germany and Turkey to see what sort of arrangements I could workout with them. England and Italy were very cordial and very interested in working with me. Germany and Turkey made it very clear they felt they could do better without me.
I felt very hampered by the fact that this game was not on a standard map. I did not know what provinces were what and communicating became a juggling act of flipping between the map with the abbreviations on it, the map with the units on it, and what I was typing on the computer screen (not something I could do quickly and covertly at work). It would have worked out better for me if the map with the current unit locations also had the province/sea zone abbreviations.
I can not comment on the interaction of the Neutral Countries and units as most of them were gone by the time I joined the game. However, I would like to try my hand at it sometime in the future.
Congratulations to Britain, Poland and Turkey for your Draw victory. In my opinion, this game had some more life too it. However, I voted for the draw because, once Britain started attacking France, I could not see a better outcome for me than to survive with 5 supply centers.
Best of luck to you all in the future!
[u:ed85bcd81b]GERMANY (Elimination): Matt Kremer[/u:ed85bcd81b]
My game got off to a good start when I made peace and DMZ with Poland and everyone seemed content to let me grab the neutrals that were around me. The problem was that I never got any further than that due to a misunderstanding with England; he was angered that I left my second fleet in Hamburg when I thought I was doing him a favor by doing so. He turned France against me and denied me Holland, which slowed my growth significantly. I was able to work against France with Italy for a bit but after that long break everyone turned against me and I got swallowed. I saw it coming from Poland when he wouldn't move on Turkey (who was clearly his biggest challenger for a solo should it ever have come to that), but I couldn't get the powers on my west to back off. I think the Italian replacements (I was on good terms with the first two whereas the third was a big part of my demise) and that long break really screwed up the flow of this game; I'd like a chance to play again without those issues.
[u:ed85bcd81b]ITALY (Replacement/Survival): Greg Bim-Merle[/u:ed85bcd81b]
GM Note: Perhaps we shall yet hear from Greg.
[u:ed85bcd81b]POLAND (Draw): Wladimir Mysonski[/u:ed85bcd81b]
Upon first seeing the map, I thought Poland would be a fun challenge to play. I was lucky enough to draw it since others seem to have also caught on to this idea.
From the beginning, it was clear that the USSR could only realistically grow through Poland so my first goal was to eliminate it. I offered Turkey Stalingrad in exchange for support into Moscow and essentially wrapping up that corner. Mikael sadly bore the brunt of my ambition and he has a legitimate gripe against me if he wishes to express it. One of us had to attack the other. I was quite proud of pushing for a Balkan peace accord wherein Germany, Poland, Italy, and Turkey peacefully divide the volatile Balkans amongst ourselves devoting little resources to that area. The powers seemed to play nice to me except for a few disagreements regarding Turkey and Italy.
My existing relationship with Britain and Turkey left me no choice but to march west on my German friend. Matt and I enjoyed a great DMZ and I am grateful for having it since it enabled me to go east full-throttle. My move on Germany though was surprisingly met with Italian presence. (This is a good time to thank Gregory and Darryl for taking over their troubled respective powers. They took them over in hard times and performed about as well as they could hope to given the circumstances. Thanks to you both.)
At this point, I had 9 SC's and hopes of drawing with Turkey on a stampede westward. I enjoyed good relations with Britain but eyed him warily after he insisted on a Soviet survival and did not move against the wide-open France. Harvey proposed a 3-way draw with Britain which I initially frowned upon. In my eyes, Turkey and Poland were the strongest powers combined and could easily roll west for a hard-fought draw. Knowing what I know now, I am grateful we ended when we did. Thanks to you all!
[u:ed85bcd81b]Thoughts on variant:[/u:ed85bcd81b]
1. I really enjoy the DP element but it does leave the game too early. Perhaps some powers require a triple to take it over making it harder to take them down so quickly. This has historical support in that Sweden is definitely more difficult to take over than Latvia and Spain would need more resources than Morocco. Just a thought.
2. The powers are fairly even but I do think the USSR and Poland are destined to fight which saddens me. I really do not see how they can cooperate.
Thanks for GMing Charles and adding interesting and fun press commentary. It was a lot of fun!
[u:ed85bcd81b]SOVIET UNION (Survival): Mikael Johansson[/u:ed85bcd81b][u:ed85bcd81b][/u:ed85bcd81b]
GM Note: Perhaps we shall yet hear from Mikael.
[u:ed85bcd81b]TURKEY (Draw): Harvey Morris[/u:ed85bcd81b]
From almost the very start my dilemma was Draw versus Solo, and it continued until the very end.
I quickly formed two very separate alliances - one with Poland, one with Britain - and at the end brought them together for the agreed three-way draw.
At the start I was very fortunate that Poland went after USSR, needing minimal help from me. This allowed me to push France out of the Middle East, with a great deal of behind the scenes help from Britain.
I was lucky to suddenly and quickly have no powers to my east or south, and (secret?) allies to the north and west.
Although Poland kept asking if I was still going to honor our alliance, my dedication to it, and to him, was never in doubt. There were moments, however, as we moved toward the most recent turns, when I began to fear the Poland was getting ready to try for the solo.
My coordination with Britain worked wonderfully. Together we were able to whittle away at French strength, while hopefully disguising the cooperation with one another.
When the new Italy came on board, I found myself quite angry at his failure to live up to his commitments. I’m not sure what the outcome would have been had he followed through on his announced plans for attacking France, but once he reneged (which was almost instantly) I decided that, no matter what, I was going to work for his elimination.
Draw versus Solo - It is never my style to stab allies. Although I got outside encouragement to attack Britain, from those who perhaps were unaware of all the help he was giving me, I just could not see myself doing that. In addition, especially when I began to think (rightly or wrongly) that Poland was positioning for the solo, I saw Britain as my insurance policy. And, at the very end it became clear that, whatever Poland’s earlier intentions, Wladimir was willing to help me against Italy, and was happy to take part in a draw.
I must admit that even at the end I was still considering going for the solo. However my misunderstanding about fleet movement from Egy to ATO lost me time. When Dirk proposed the three-way I hesitated to agree, thought about it overnight, and finally decided the time had come to accept a draw. I just did not have the energy (given both other game involvement and some non-game time commitments) to try to grab the solo. Nor did I believe I could succeed.
Thanks to all for a fun game. Thanks to those who kibitzed from the sidelines and gave me great suggestions and even better criticism. And special thanks to Charles for creating it, starting it, managing it and getting it moving again after it bogged down.
[u:ed85bcd81b]GM: Charles Féaux de la Croix[/u:ed85bcd81b]
Having kept track of all player correspondence forwarded to me, I assembled two charts indicating the number of mails each player sent to others, in total 941 individual mails (though these numbers may be somewhat skewed by no all players being as mindful of CCing me).
Though especially Darryl valiantly made a considerable effort upon joining as a replacement for a rather beleaguered France, already the 1928 stats are indicative of the clear dominance by the three first-tier powers (Turkey, Britain and Poland). At that stage the initially most talkative Stalin had arguably been reduced to vassal status and Matt's diplomatically isolated Germany was being ganged up upon. I suppose that also the delay in January might have had an effect.
Naturally, the first year or two of a diplomacy game almost invariably sport by far the biggest mail volume. 108 mails in the fourth year (given all but three powers being at that point also-rans) is probably within the bounds of what one would generally expect.
As for the evolution of the board, my sense is that the game's playtesting value was somewhat marred by our initial Duce playing a poor game, to the point of NBRing in the very first year. That really put Italy behind the curve. When Jack once again failed to meet the deadline in the next year, a reliable player had to be found in Greg. Yet Italy's relative decline to that date as well as the Soviets being reduced to Scandinavian exile really gave the Kemalist republic a massive head-start.
An additional factor in Turkey's rise was Britain being content to transfer her own domains in the Near-East to Turkey. Dirk wrote of Suez being a remote British outpost. I disagree. The map may be quite deceptive on that count. While located in the other corner of the map (viewed from London), Suez and Egypt proper are but three moves away from the closest British HSC. Moreover, by moving Edinburgh->NAO->ATO->Suez, Britain need not step on any power's toes - unlike when it seeks to move into the equally three moves distant Iberian SCs.
With already F Suez in the region, F Gibraltar closeby and Edinburgh not that far off, I think the Near East makes for a perfectly viable area for British expansion. Especially Italy has a vested interest in Britain and the Soviet Union claiming a stake in the Near-East. Otherwise Turkey can indeed grow fat on what any Turk will consider his backyard. This marked lack of opposition to Turkey's Near East ambitions allowed Harvey's deftly-handled nation to cruise to what by game-end was unquestionably the best position of all.
While on the subject of Britain's rise, Dirk managed to strike early on an extraordinarily favourable deal with France. London got both Belgium and Spain! The first Président got "pulled over the table", as we Germans say. That placed France at a permanent positional disadvantage vis-à-vis Britain. Kudos to Dirk for that.
As for the Soviet Union, Wladimir needs to be congratulated for engineering a masterful campaign against Poland's arch-rival. In that, almost the same fate befell Mikael's Soviet Union as the one he simultaneously suffered in the other game I've been GMing (1648, Mikael's Russia being eliminated quickly by the surrounding powers). Yet Mikael, rather than folding, carved out for himself a new realm in Scandinavia and had some fun assisting Britain thereafter.
Not every game can be a memorable one and I'm afraid this one fell short in that respect. 1926_091119 was the story of the three most consistently well-played powers ganging up bit by bit on the rest. The strong against the weak. And I trust it's fair to say that especially Dirk's and Harvey's innate conservative playing style prevented a true diplomatic realignment. We weren't to see the two foremost powers rally others round them for a real showdown.
Ultimately, if the very strongest powers never attempt to achieve a result better than a draw, then a game will never witness the exciting rollercoaster-ride one hopes for. Any game that does not feature at least one solo push strikes me as fundamentally incomplete.
Yet while both Dirk's and Harvey's inclinations played their part, a more systemic issue also directed the game to this outcome. Never entirely sure what the optimal victory threshold might be, I believe I made a solo somewhat too tough for my own liking. So in future, 15 rather than 18 SCs will suffice. That alone ought to encourage even the most conservative players to stab more and tempt them to "reach for the stars". So, this playtest certainly has helped me home in on what I want 1926 to ultimately look like.
I'd like to thank you all for seeing it through, especially Greg and Darryl for taking over not entirely rosy positions. I again apologise for the lengthy delay in finding Nathan's replacement. Lesson learnt. Good luck in all your future games!
Charles
[u:ed85bcd81b]Variant Design "Q&A"[/u:ed85bcd81b]
Okay, not done yet. :p In this section I mean to touch on various EOG comments relating to the variant:
[Wladimir] I really enjoy the DP element but it does leave the game too early.
The minor powers aren't meant to last forever. They're what gives the early game a special flavour, though the odd minor power might yet survive far longer if the players act accordingly. For instance, in the present Ambition&Empire game I'm playing in, the Bavaria minor power still remains in existence (having been located on the faultlines of great power conflict for all this time) despite us being in our 12th year. That might also well happen in 1926.
[Wladimir] Perhaps some powers require a triple to take it over making it harder to take them down so quickly. This has historical support in that Sweden is definitely more difficult to take over than Latvia and Spain would need more resources than Morocco. Just a thought.
Not a direction I'd care to take. I like the minor powers as they are.
[Wladimir] The powers are fairly even but I do think the USSR and Poland are destined to fight which saddens me. I really do not see how they can cooperate.
Oh, I do think they can cooperate. That'd entail probably a fair number of arranged bounces and such. But to be sure, they're arch-rivals. I don't have any issue with that. It's part of this historical scenario and what gives Poland and the USSR positions their special flavour.
[Dirk] Britain, France and Italy each have African holdings, which collectively stretch across the Med. This is why I incorrectly thought Turkey was a poor position since both France and Britain are in it's back yard; as it turned out, the remote nature of the BF positions makes the eastern Med untenable against a competent Turkey player, even less against a talented player like Harvey.
As I already wrote further above, I don't view Suez in the least as being a remote British outpost. Though certainly France's A Beirut is far off from Metropolitan France and unlikely to ever make contact with other French units. Consider it more of a diplomatic/tactical pawn France can use for leverage. Very different from Britain's Near-East presence which is easily reinforcable.
How might France leverage that Lebanese pawn? Now, take Italy for instance. Turkey's a very dangerous long-term threat to Italy (much as in Standard). France might promise to help Italy vs. Turkey with A Beirut for concessions/good behaviour elsewhere. Similarly, A Beirut might keep Britain's F Suez tied down instead of it messing with France's South-Western backyard. Indeed, together with the recently independent Egyptians, they might descend on Suez and hurt Britain. Then reinforced by French fleets through ATO, France might indeed build up a sustainable and reinforcable Near-East presence. Just shows you that France has Italy a lot to offer in an alliance vs. Turkey.
[Dirk] In turn this funnels all of those fleets right at Italy. While Italy starts with African holdings the Med the area is just too busy and contested, not giving him much room to play.
If Turkey gets to walk over the Near-East as Harvey did in this game, the Duce is plainly not doing his job properly! He's gotta keep that Mid-East pot stirred and troubled. And I don't see why the USSR or Britain should simply roll over either... Not even France...
Dirk, much as I disagreed with your pre-game assessment that Turkey's too weak, so do I disagree with your "Turkey's too strong" view of things.
[Dirk] I suspect that, compared to Standard, Germany, Italy and Russia are worse off while the other four are all better off.
The Soviet Union is definitely worse off than Standard's Russia. Which I welcome considering what a powerhouse Standard's Russia is.
Germany? Not other 1926-power has as good access to minor powers. Also, diplomatically/tactically I'd say Germany initially is less vulnerable than most.
Italy? Infinitely better position than in Standard!!! No weak-sister syndrome, no Austria, four units, more neutrals, an array of allies vs Turkey which aren't available in Standard... Much faster growth possible...
As for the others, well, I think France (the second powerhouse in Standard) is worse off. Which I welcome.
Britain... Somewhat better off. But might also not even get Norway during the first year and get frozen out of builds...
Poland... Not present in Standard. Wouldn't consider it Austria-moved-North. Very different type of power than Austria. In any case, a very decent position. Together with France, Poland interests me personally the most.[Reply] |
| DC271 Cimarra - Russian EOG Statment - luckyllama (Mar 06, 2010, 11:56 am) |
Thanks everyone for a great game and thanks to Garry for his sterling GM'ing - I agree with Darryl that the NMRs did spoil things somewhat, and I'd prefer a game that found replacements, even though I know this can break the flow of a game.
From the beginning I wanted peace in the north whilst working to take out one of my southern neighbours, preferably Turkey, and fortunately (or so I thought) the diplomacy fell into place; in particular Nick was easy to work with and I could see our alliance being one that would last. Darryl covered his plans well and his attack came as a surprise; fairly quickly it became clear we were facing an E/F/G - whether Turkey was tied into this I don't know but either way with the three remaining powers already at war with Turkey my position was pretty bad, as I would clearly bear the brunt of the attack from the west, at least at first.
I was rescued by the British and French NMRs and thought an approach to Germany would be worth a try - luckily Darryl proved to be a flexible player who was open to a change of plan, which removed the threat I had been facing and allowed me to rejoin the war against Turkey. Darryl and I talked a lot and he was understandably keen for me to attack Austria whilst he moved west - at that stage I wasn't falling for that one but wanted to keep the alliance with Austria going whilst I strengthened my position. However I could see that once the Turkish centres were taken, I had no obvious route to grow, whereas both Germany and Austria could stroll west and pick up all the empty or NMR centres one by one. Once they started building units from these gains I would be in no position to attack either of them and, even in an alliance, would be the junior partner.
The critical turn for me was the one where I moved on Bulgaria and secured all the Turkish units for myself - the decision was a difficult one since my alliance with Nick was a strong one and we had agreed to go for the draw - but two-way draws are almost impossible in the game. When I looked at the position before that move, my situation was actually extremely dangerous, had Austria decided to move against me that turn - he had at least one guaranteed gain in Italy, could have moved into Warsaw, and closed me out of the Balkans.
A stab is only worthwhile in my view if it significantly changes the balance of a game - stabbing for a centre or two isn't worth it if there's no way to follow through since gaining an extra enemy normally cancels out any benefit. In this particular case I was lucky that the moves all came off as planned (and I will confess to reassuring Darryl that Munich was safe and tempting him to consider Mun-Tyl, which deprived Austria of a build - sorry Nick) and in one turn I went from third place to largest power.
The other factor that went in my favour was the bad feeling between A/G from game start - I kept talking to Nick after the stab and also to Darryl - there were enough NMR centres in the north to get me close to the 18 without having to follow through against Austria - stabbing him once was bad enough and I was really reluctant to break my word again. Hence for the end game I simply planned to sit back in the centre and get enough fleets to pick up what I needed in the north. Getting a fleet into the central Med avoided the need to take anything from Austria in the south - I could have sailed on and taken the 18th from France or Italy, but in the event once the outcome of the game was clear I thought better to put everyone out of their misery by taking Naples from Nick (sorry again).
Despite the NMRs I really did enjoy the game - my first solo win for as long as I can remember - and would happily meet any of the (active) players in this game again (so long as they can forgive and forget, of course). Thanks again guys!
Ian[Reply] |
| 1926 091119: EOG Report - charlesf (Mar 06, 2010, 10:46 am) |
Hi guys,
now it's time for the our game's closing chapter, the end-of-game reports. You might want to review the game by flipping through the adjucation slideshow on DC283's game page (now fully updated).
Perhaps some of you will be interested in following up on others' comments. If so, please respond to all and especially make sure you include the message board mail adress (dc283(at)diplomaticcorp.com ([email]dc283(at)diplomaticcorp.com[/email])) in the header.
[u:547c81f074]Supply Centre Chart[/u:547c81f074]
Note that we never reached Winter 1929. I merely added that year for the sake of interest (i.e. it's inofficial).
[u:547c81f074][/u:547c81f074]
[u:547c81f074][/u:547c81f074]
[u:547c81f074][/u:547c81f074]
[u:547c81f074]BRITAIN (Draw): Dirk Knemeyer[/u:547c81f074]
This was an uneven game thanks to some of the lags in playing time based on players leaving and not being able to get prompt replacements. More than anything, for me, this defined the game. I'm glad I played because I do enjoy Charles' variants and was glad to test this, but ultimately the playing of it didn't turn out to be very much fun. A shame.
At the beginning of the game I forged a strong, direct relationship with France and a strong, less direct relationship with Poland and Turkey. I am a reliable ally in Diplomacy, so pretty early on I was already sweating, wondering how to architect a result that was not a bloated 4-way draw without stabbing.
Early on France and I worked well together. I liked my end of our strategic split of SC's - his getting much of Africa, my getting Iberia and the Lowlands - and felt well-positioned for a good result. When Germany built a fleet in Kie over my strenuous objections in Winter 1926 he became my target and I spent much of the next three years working myself and with others to bring about his demise. My premise was that, because he was a threat, I could simply use his spheres of influence as a path to growth without upsetting my alliances.
There were two major events that dictated my evolving strategy: first was the full-on assault of Russia by Germany, Poland and Turkey. I managed to cooperate with Mikael for a time without upsetting my allies and then toward the end game exchanged a guarantee of survival for getting to use his units as an extension of my own. This allowed me to keep Poland from growing too large too quickly, while having a greater reach to batter Germany with.
The other major event was France allowing himself to get stabbed by Turkey. This destabilized his African holdings and thus threatened to have a trickle-down effect that would result in his trying to get some of my territory in Iberia and the Lowlands. It quickly became clear that I would need to stab him in order to prevent his mistakes from diluting my position. However, the original player quit and I quickly liked working with Darryl, his replacement. This led me to try and cooperate with Darryl while staying loyal to Poland and Turkey *and* keeping Russia alive. It wasn't easy. My hope was the board situation would create a clear and justifiable path-to-action that would not constitute a stab.
The event that nearly turned the final result of the game on it's head was Poland blatantly lying to Turkey and I in 1929. Comparing notes and realizing this, Turkey and I prepared to pound him in the fall. However, some press from Poland to Turkey in the summer changed Harvey's mind and we simply worked with him to shatter the opposition and drive toward a triple, the vote for which was, as we now know, successful.
This variant turned out very differently from how I expected. I thought Turkey was easily the weakest power going in, but watching the game play out a little I felt the position was a lot stronger than it looked. Poland was the power I most wanted and the strength of that position when well-played came across in our result. Yet I felt the same way about Russia (my second choice) and he was functionally the first player out despite having a top player holding the reigns. Needless to say my assessment on relative strengths may be misguided.
This variant is similar to Standard with a few key differences:
1. The addition of neutral armies that can be influenced by DP's. This is a favourite mechanism of Charles in his variants and adds a lot more diplomatic intrigue. The only downside with it is that all of the neutrals are typically conquered in the first few years, making it an early game only mechanism
2. The replacement of Austria with Poland. This is the biggest difference because it moves that power's center of gravity from southwest by Italy and the Balkans up toward Russia in particular, as well as closer to Germany. I suspect this will almost always force an early Poland-Russia conflict that will define the game for both. It also takes some pressure off of Italy and shifts it onto Germany, but unfortunately that does not make things any easier for Italy because...
3. Britain, France and Italy each have African holdings, which collectively stretch across the Med. This is why I incorrectly thought Turkey was a poor position since both France and Britain are in it's back yard; as it turned out, the remote nature of the BF positions makes the eastern Med untenable against a competent Turkey player, even less against a talented player like Harvey. In turn this funnels all of those fleets right at Italy. While Italy starts with African holdings the Med the area is just too busy and contested, not giving him much room to play. These shifts in power and influence are not necessarily a good or bad thing, but I suspect that, compared to Standard, Germany, Italy and Russia are worse off while the other four are all better off. Further testing of this variant might challenge these assumptions which are obviously coloured by the result!
As I mentioned at the outset I did not ultimately enjoy this game because of the long delays. Regardless I do enjoy the variant and like much of what Charles does as a GM so will be happy to play it again in the future. Thank you, Charles, for creating and running the game; thanks to Harvey and Wladimir for both being enjoyable to blather on with over the months of the game; and thanks to all of the other players for this game.
[u:547c81f074]FRANCE (Replacement/Survival): Darryl Good[/u:547c81f074]
Not much to tell from my point of view. When I joined the game, it was obvious that Germany, Turkey and Poland were running away with the game. I contacted England, Italy, Germany and Turkey to see what sort of arrangements I could workout with them. England and Italy were very cordial and very interested in working with me. Germany and Turkey made it very clear they felt they could do better without me.
I felt very hampered by the fact that this game was not on a standard map. I did not know what provinces were what and communicating became a juggling act of flipping between the map with the abbreviations on it, the map with the units on it, and what I was typing on the computer screen (not something I could do quickly and covertly at work). It would have worked out better for me if the map with the current unit locations also had the province/sea zone abbreviations.
I can not comment on the interaction of the Neutral Countries and units as most of them were gone by the time I joined the game. However, I would like to try my hand at it sometime in the future.
Congratulations to Britain, Poland and Turkey for your Draw victory. In my opinion, this game had some more life too it. However, I voted for the draw because, once Britain started attacking France, I could not see a better outcome for me than to survive with 5 supply centers.
Best of luck to you all in the future!
[u:547c81f074]GERMANY (Elimination): Matt Kremer[/u:547c81f074]
My game got off to a good start when I made peace and DMZ with Poland and everyone seemed content to let me grab the neutrals that were around me. The problem was that I never got any further than that due to a misunderstanding with England; he was angered that I left my second fleet in Hamburg when I thought I was doing him a favor by doing so. He turned France against me and denied me Holland, which slowed my growth significantly. I was able to work against France with Italy for a bit but after that long break everyone turned against me and I got swallowed. I saw it coming from Poland when he wouldn't move on Turkey (who was clearly his biggest challenger for a solo should it ever have come to that), but I couldn't get the powers on my west to back off. I think the Italian replacements (I was on good terms with the first two whereas the third was a big part of my demise) and that long break really screwed up the flow of this game; I'd like a chance to play again without those issues.
[u:547c81f074]ITALY (Replacement/Survival): Greg Bim-Merle[/u:547c81f074]
GM Note: Perhaps we shall yet hear from Greg.
[u:547c81f074]POLAND (Draw): Wladimir Mysonski[/u:547c81f074]
Upon first seeing the map, I thought Poland would be a fun challenge to play. I was lucky enough to draw it since others seem to have also caught on to this idea.
From the beginning, it was clear that the USSR could only realistically grow through Poland so my first goal was to eliminate it. I offered Turkey Stalingrad in exchange for support into Moscow and essentially wrapping up that corner. Mikael sadly bore the brunt of my ambition and he has a legitimate gripe against me if he wishes to express it. One of us had to attack the other. I was quite proud of pushing for a Balkan peace accord wherein Germany, Poland, Italy, and Turkey peacefully divide the volatile Balkans amongst ourselves devoting little resources to that area. The powers seemed to play nice to me except for a few disagreements regarding Turkey and Italy.
My existing relationship with Britain and Turkey left me no choice but to march west on my German friend. Matt and I enjoyed a great DMZ and I am grateful for having it since it enabled me to go east full-throttle. My move on Germany though was surprisingly met with Italian presence. (This is a good time to thank Gregory and Darryl for taking over their troubled respective powers. They took them over in hard times and performed about as well as they could hope to given the circumstances. Thanks to you both.)
At this point, I had 9 SC's and hopes of drawing with Turkey on a stampede westward. I enjoyed good relations with Britain but eyed him warily after he insisted on a Soviet survival and did not move against the wide-open France. Harvey proposed a 3-way draw with Britain which I initially frowned upon. In my eyes, Turkey and Poland were the strongest powers combined and could easily roll west for a hard-fought draw. Knowing what I know now, I am grateful we ended when we did. Thanks to you all!
[u:547c81f074]Thoughts on variant:[/u:547c81f074]
[u:547c81f074][/u:547c81f074]
1. I really enjoy the DP element but it does leave the game too early. Perhaps some powers require a triple to take it over making it harder to take them down so quickly. This has historical support in that Sweden is definitely more difficult to take over than Latvia and Spain would need more resources than Morocco. Just a thought.
2. The powers are fairly even but I do think the USSR and Poland are destined to fight which saddens me. I really do not see how they can cooperate.
Thanks for GMing Charles and adding interesting and fun press commentary. It was a lot of fun!
[u:547c81f074]SOVIET UNION (Survival): Mikael Johansson[/u:547c81f074][u:547c81f074]
[/u:547c81f074]
GM Note: Perhaps we shall yet hear from Mikael.
[u:547c81f074]TURKEY (Draw): Harvey Morris[/u:547c81f074]
From almost the very start my dilemma was Draw versus Solo, and it continued until the very end.
I quickly formed two very separate alliances - one with Poland, one with Britain - and at the end brought them together for the agreed three-way draw.
At the start I was very fortunate that Poland went after USSR, needing minimal help from me. This allowed me to push France out of the Middle East, with a great deal of behind the scenes help from Britain.
I was lucky to suddenly and quickly have no powers to my east or south, and (secret?) allies to the north and west.
Although Poland kept asking if I was still going to honor our alliance, my dedication to it, and to him, was never in doubt. There were moments, however, as we moved toward the most recent turns, when I began to fear the Poland was getting ready to try for the solo.
My coordination with Britain worked wonderfully. Together we were able to whittle away at French strength, while hopefully disguising the cooperation with one another.
When the new Italy came on board, I found myself quite angry at his failure to live up to his commitments. I’m not sure what the outcome would have been had he followed through on his announced plans for attacking France, but once he reneged (which was almost instantly) I decided that, no matter what, I was going to work for his elimination.
Draw versus Solo - It is never my style to stab allies. Although I got outside encouragement to attack Britain, from those who perhaps were unaware of all the help he was giving me, I just could not see myself doing that. In addition, especially when I began to think (rightly or wrongly) that Poland was positioning for the solo, I saw Britain as my insurance policy. And, at the very end it became clear that, whatever Poland’s earlier intentions, Wladimir was willing to help me against Italy, and was happy to take part in a draw.
I must admit that even at the end I was still considering going for the solo. However my misunderstanding about fleet movement from Egy to ATO lost me time. When Dirk proposed the three-way I hesitated to agree, thought about it overnight, and finally decided the time had come to accept a draw. I just did not have the energy (given both other game involvement and some non-game time commitments) to try to grab the solo. Nor did I believe I could succeed.
Thanks to all for a fun game. Thanks to those who kibitzed from the sidelines and gave me great suggestions and even better criticism. And special thanks to Charles for creating it, starting it, managing it and getting it moving again after it bogged down.
[u:547c81f074][/u:547c81f074]
[u:547c81f074]GM: Charles Féaux de la Croix[/u:547c81f074]
[u:547c81f074][/u:547c81f074]
Having kept track of all player correspondence forwarded to me, I assembled two charts indicating the number of mails each player sent to others, in total 941 individual mails (though these numbers may be somewhat skewed by no all players being as mindful of CCing me).
Though especially Darryl valiantly made a considerable effort upon joining as a replacement for a rather beleaguered France, already the 1928 stats are indicative of the clear dominance by the three first-tier powers (Turkey, Britain and Poland). At that stage the initially most talkative Stalin had arguably been reduced to vassal status and Matt's diplomatically isolated Germany was being ganged up upon. I suppose that also the delay in January might have had an effect.
Naturally, the first year or two of a diplomacy game almost invariably sport by far the biggest mail volume. 108 mails in the fourth year (given all but three powers being at that point also-rans) is probably within the bounds of what one would generally expect.
As for the evolution of the board, my sense is that the game's playtesting value was somewhat marred by our initial Duce playing a poor game, to the point of NBRing in the very first year. That really put Italy behind the curve. When Jack once again failed to meet the deadline in the next year, a reliable player had to be found in Greg. Yet Italy's relative decline to that date as well as the Soviets being reduced to Scandinavian exile really gave the Kemalist republic a massive head-start.
An additional factor in Turkey's rise was Britain being content to transfer her own domains in the Near-East to Turkey. Dirk wrote of Suez being a remote British outpost. I disagree. The map may be quite deceptive on that count. While located in the other corner of the map (viewed from London), Suez and Egypt proper are but three moves away from the closest British HSC. Moreover, by moving Edinburgh->NAO->ATO->Suez, Britain need not step on any power's toes - unlike when it seeks to move into the equally three moves distant Iberian SCs.
With already F Suez in the region, F Gibraltar closeby and Edinburgh not that far off, I think the Near East makes for a perfectly viable area for British expansion. Especially Italy has a vested interest in Britain and the Soviet Union claiming a stake in the Near-East. Otherwise Turkey can indeed grow fat on what any Turk will consider his backyard. This marked lack of opposition to Turkey's Near East ambitions allowed Harvey's deftly-handled nation to cruise to what by game-end was unquestionably the best position of all.
While on the subject of Britain's rise, Dirk managed to strike early on an extraordinarily favourable deal with France. London got both Belgium and Spain! The first Président got "pulled over the table", as we Germans say. That placed France at a permanent positional disadvantage vis-à-vis Britain. Kudos to Dirk for that.
As for the Soviet Union, Wladimir needs to be congratulated for engineering a masterful campaign against Poland's arch-rival. In that, almost the same fate befell Mikael's Soviet Union as the one he simultaneously suffered in the other game I've been GMing (1648, Mikael's Russia being eliminated quickly by the surrounding powers). Yet Mikael, rather than folding, carved out for himself a new realm in Scandinavia and had some fun assisting Britain thereafter.
Not every game can be a memorable one and I'm afraid this one fell short in that respect. 1926_091119 was the story of the three most consistently well-played powers ganging up bit by bit on the rest. The strong against the weak. And I trust it's fair to say that especially Dirk's and Harvey's innate conservative playing style prevented a true diplomatic realignment. We weren't to see the two foremost powers rally others round them for a real showdown.
Ultimately, if the very strongest powers never attempt to achieve a result better than a draw, then a game will never witness the exciting rollercoaster-ride one hopes for. Any game that does not feature at least one solo push strikes me as fundamentally incomplete.
Yet while both Dirk's and Harvey's inclinations played their part, a more systemic issue also directed the game to this outcome. Never entirely sure what the optimal victory threshold might be, I believe I made a solo somewhat too tough for my own liking. So in future, 15 rather than 18 SCs will suffice. That alone ought to encourage even the most conservative players to stab more and tempt them to "reach for the stars". So, this playtest certainly has helped me home in on what I want 1926 to ultimately look like.
I'd like to thank you all for seeing it through, especially Greg and Darryl for taking over not entirely rosy positions. I again apologise for the lengthy delay in finding Nathan's replacement. Lesson learnt. Good luck in all your future games!
Charles
[u:547c81f074]Variant Design "Q&A"[/u:547c81f074]
Okay, not done yet. :p In this section I mean to touch on various EOG comments relating to the variant:
[Wladimir] I really enjoy the DP element but it does leave the game too early.
The minor powers aren't meant to last forever. They're what gives the early game a special flavour, though the odd minor power might yet survive far longer if the players act accordingly. For instance, in the present Ambition&Empire game I'm playing in, the Bavaria minor power still remains in existence (having been located on the faultlines of great power conflict for all this time) despite us being in our 12th year. That might also well happen in 1926.
[Wladimir] Perhaps some powers require a triple to take it over making it harder to take them down so quickly. This has historical support in that Sweden is definitely more difficult to take over than Latvia and Spain would need more resources than Morocco. Just a thought.
Not a direction I'd care to take. I like the minor powers as they are.
[Wladimir] The powers are fairly even but I do think the USSR and Poland are destined to fight which saddens me. I really do not see how they can cooperate.
Oh, I do think they can cooperate. That'd entail probably a fair number of arranged bounces and such. But to be sure, they're arch-rivals. I don't have any issue with that. It's part of this historical scenario and what gives Poland and the USSR positions their special flavour.
[Dirk] Britain, France and Italy each have African holdings, which collectively stretch across the Med. This is why I incorrectly thought Turkey was a poor position since both France and Britain are in it's back yard; as it turned out, the remote nature of the BF positions makes the eastern Med untenable against a competent Turkey player, even less against a talented player like Harvey.
As I already wrote further above, I don't view Suez in the least as being a remote British outpost. Though certainly France's A Beirut is far off from Metropolitan France and unlikely to ever make contact with other French units. Consider it more of a diplomatic/tactical pawn France can use for leverage. Very different from Britain's Near-East presence which is easily reinforcable.
How might France leverage that Lebanese pawn? Now, take Italy for instance. Turkey's a very dangerous long-term threat to Italy (much as in Standard). France might promise to help Italy vs. Turkey with A Beirut for concessions/good behaviour elsewhere. Similarly, A Beirut might keep Britain's F Suez tied down instead of it messing with France's South-Western backyard. Indeed, together with the recently independent Egyptians, they might descend on Suez and hurt Britain. Then reinforced by French fleets through ATO, France might indeed build up a sustainable and reinforcable Near-East presence. Just shows you that France has Italy a lot to offer in an alliance vs. Turkey.
[Dirk] In turn this funnels all of those fleets right at Italy. While Italy starts with African holdings the Med the area is just too busy and contested, not giving him much room to play.
If Turkey gets to walk over the Near-East as Harvey did in this game, the Duce is plainly not doing his job properly! He's gotta keep that Mid-East pot stirred and troubled. And I don't see why the USSR or Britain should simply roll over either... Not even France...
Dirk, much as I disagreed with your pre-game assessment that Turkey's too weak, so do I disagree with your "Turkey's too strong" view of things.
[Dirk] I suspect that, compared to Standard, Germany, Italy and Russia are worse off while the other four are all better off.
The Soviet Union is definitely worse off than Standard's Russia. Which I welcome considering what a powerhouse Standard's Russia is.
Germany? Not other 1926-power has as good access to minor powers. Also, diplomatically/tactically I'd say Germany initially is less vulnerable than most.
Italy? Infinitely better position than in Standard!!! No weak-sister syndrome, no Austria, four units, more neutrals, an array of allies vs Turkey which aren't available in Standard... Much faster growth possible...
As for the others, well, I think France (the second powerhouse in Standard) is worse off. Which I welcome.
Britain... Somewhat better off. But might also not even get Norway during the first year and get frozen out of builds...
Poland... Not present in Standard. Wouldn't consider it Austria-moved-North. Very different type of power than Austria. In any case, a very decent position. Together with France, Poland interests me personally the most.[Reply] |
| 1926 091119: EOG Report (dc283) dknemeyer Mar 06, 06:11 pm |
Thanks for the great summary Charles. A few comments considering everyone else's contributions:
Charles, your comments on the strengths of the various powers has me wanting to play this variant again, right away, to see it all play out. To clarify some of my comments, I never fully "got" the travel between Britain and the Suez. Once I was already down a diplomatic path that resulted in my abandoning the region I started asking Charles about it and he gave me the information on how it worked. But it's absence in the rules, at least so far as I was able to tell or find, kept it invisible from me. Even after Charles' informing me of how it worked, lacking an easy way to "check up on" the nuance of the rule kind of kept that strategy from seeming viable to me. Making this more explicit in the rules would not seem to have a down side.
I do want to echo Darryl's comments about the lack of territory designations on the map. I expect, given this is only one of three of Charles' games I've played, that I've spent more time on DipWiki pouring over the official maps than any other Internet site over the last year! This was at times not at all convenient, particularly when working on a small laptop screen and struggling to reconcile actual board situation with the labels. The counterbalance is that Charles' maps are quite lovely without the designations. Still, the usability would be increased by having at least a version that shows the board positions and the territory designations. It would just make these excellent variants even better!
I neglected in my summary to thank Darryl and Greg for helping us finish the game; it is much, much appreciated.
As a final comment, I've never heard myself called a "conservative" game player before. Certainly no insult taken, but it did make me cock my head and ask aloud, "really?!" I suspect it is more a product of my dislike of stabbing and preference for draws than the way in which I push the pieces around the board. I've been getting more stomach for it recently though and may just "go for it" next time...
Dirk
From: charlesf(at)web.de [mailto:charlesf(at)web.de]
Sent: Saturday, March 06, 2010 11:42 AM
To: Charles Féaux de la Croix; Darryl Good; Gregory Bim-Merle; Harvey Morris; Dirk Knemeyer; Mikael Johansson; Matt Kremer; Wladimir Mysonski; dc283(at)diplomaticcorp.com
Cc: Nathan Deily; Mark Duffield; Michael Thompson; Jorge Saralegui; Benjamin Hester; Roger Leroux
Subject: 1926 091119: EOG Report
Hi guys,
now it's time for the our game's closing chapter, the end-of-game reports. You might want to review the game by flipping through the adjucation slideshow on DC283's game page (now fully updated).
Perhaps some of you will be interested in following up on others' comments. If so, please respond to all and especially make sure you include the message board mail adress (dc283(at)diplomaticcorp.com ([email]dc283(at)diplomaticcorp.com[/email])) in the header.
[u:ed85bcd81b]Supply Centre Chart[/u:ed85bcd81b]
Note that we never reached Winter 1929. I merely added that year for the sake of interest (i.e. it's inofficial).
[u:ed85bcd81b]BRITAIN (Draw): Dirk Knemeyer[/u:ed85bcd81b]
This was an uneven game thanks to some of the lags in playing time based on players leaving and not being able to get prompt replacements. More than anything, for me, this defined the game. I'm glad I played because I do enjoy Charles' variants and was glad to test this, but ultimately the playing of it didn't turn out to be very much fun. A shame.
At the beginning of the game I forged a strong, direct relationship with France and a strong, less direct relationship with Poland and Turkey. I am a reliable ally in Diplomacy, so pretty early on I was already sweating, wondering how to architect a result that was not a bloated 4-way draw without stabbing.
Early on France and I worked well together. I liked my end of our strategic split of SC's - his getting much of Africa, my getting Iberia and the Lowlands - and felt well-positioned for a good result. When Germany built a fleet in Kie over my strenuous objections in Winter 1926 he became my target and I spent much of the next three years working myself and with others to bring about his demise. My premise was that, because he was a threat, I could simply use his spheres of influence as a path to growth without upsetting my alliances.
There were two major events that dictated my evolving strategy: first was the full-on assault of Russia by Germany, Poland and Turkey. I managed to cooperate with Mikael for a time without upsetting my allies and then toward the end game exchanged a guarantee of survival for getting to use his units as an extension of my own. This allowed me to keep Poland from growing too large too quickly, while having a greater reach to batter Germany with.
The other major event was France allowing himself to get stabbed by Turkey. This destabilized his African holdings and thus threatened to have a trickle-down effect that would result in his trying to get some of my territory in Iberia and the Lowlands. It quickly became clear that I would need to stab him in order to prevent his mistakes from diluting my position. However, the original player quit and I quickly liked working with Darryl, his replacement. This led me to try and cooperate with Darryl while staying loyal to Poland and Turkey *and* keeping Russia alive. It wasn't easy. My hope was the board situation would create a clear and justifiable path-to-action that would not constitute a stab.
The event that nearly turned the final result of the game on it's head was Poland blatantly lying to Turkey and I in 1929. Comparing notes and realizing this, Turkey and I prepared to pound him in the fall. However, some press from Poland to Turkey in the summer changed Harvey's mind and we simply worked with him to shatter the opposition and drive toward a triple, the vote for which was, as we now know, successful.
This variant turned out very differently from how I expected. I thought Turkey was easily the weakest power going in, but watching the game play out a little I felt the position was a lot stronger than it looked. Poland was the power I most wanted and the strength of that position when well-played came across in our result. Yet I felt the same way about Russia (my second choice) and he was functionally the first player out despite having a top player holding the reigns. Needless to say my assessment on relative strengths may be misguided.
This variant is similar to Standard with a few key differences:
1. The addition of neutral armies that can be influenced by DP's. This is a favourite mechanism of Charles in his variants and adds a lot more diplomatic intrigue. The only downside with it is that all of the neutrals are typically conquered in the first few years, making it an early game only mechanism
2. The replacement of Austria with Poland. This is the biggest difference because it moves that power's center of gravity from southwest by Italy and the Balkans up toward Russia in particular, as well as closer to Germany. I suspect this will almost always force an early Poland-Russia conflict that will define the game for both. It also takes some pressure off of Italy and shifts it onto Germany, but unfortunately that does not make things any easier for Italy because...
3. Britain, France and Italy each have African holdings, which collectively stretch across the Med. This is why I incorrectly thought Turkey was a poor position since both France and Britain are in it's back yard; as it turned out, the remote nature of the BF positions makes the eastern Med untenable against a competent Turkey player, even less against a talented player like Harvey. In turn this funnels all of those fleets right at Italy. While Italy starts with African holdings the Med the area is just too busy and contested, not giving him much room to play. These shifts in power and influence are not necessarily a good or bad thing, but I suspect that, compared to Standard, Germany, Italy and Russia are worse off while the other four are all better off. Further testing of this variant might challenge these assumptions which are obviously coloured by the result!
As I mentioned at the outset I did not ultimately enjoy this game because of the long delays. Regardless I do enjoy the variant and like much of what Charles does as a GM so will be happy to play it again in the future. Thank you, Charles, for creating and running the game; thanks to Harvey and Wladimir for both being enjoyable to blather on with over the months of the game; and thanks to all of the other players for this game.
[u:ed85bcd81b]FRANCE (Replacement/Survival): Darryl Good[/u:ed85bcd81b]
Not much to tell from my point of view. When I joined the game, it was obvious that Germany, Turkey and Poland were running away with the game. I contacted England, Italy, Germany and Turkey to see what sort of arrangements I could workout with them. England and Italy were very cordial and very interested in working with me. Germany and Turkey made it very clear they felt they could do better without me.
I felt very hampered by the fact that this game was not on a standard map. I did not know what provinces were what and communicating became a juggling act of flipping between the map with the abbreviations on it, the map with the units on it, and what I was typing on the computer screen (not something I could do quickly and covertly at work). It would have worked out better for me if the map with the current unit locations also had the province/sea zone abbreviations.
I can not comment on the interaction of the Neutral Countries and units as most of them were gone by the time I joined the game. However, I would like to try my hand at it sometime in the future.
Congratulations to Britain, Poland and Turkey for your Draw victory. In my opinion, this game had some more life too it. However, I voted for the draw because, once Britain started attacking France, I could not see a better outcome for me than to survive with 5 supply centers.
Best of luck to you all in the future!
[u:ed85bcd81b]GERMANY (Elimination): Matt Kremer[/u:ed85bcd81b]
My game got off to a good start when I made peace and DMZ with Poland and everyone seemed content to let me grab the neutrals that were around me. The problem was that I never got any further than that due to a misunderstanding with England; he was angered that I left my second fleet in Hamburg when I thought I was doing him a favor by doing so. He turned France against me and denied me Holland, which slowed my growth significantly. I was able to work against France with Italy for a bit but after that long break everyone turned against me and I got swallowed. I saw it coming from Poland when he wouldn't move on Turkey (who was clearly his biggest challenger for a solo should it ever have come to that), but I couldn't get the powers on my west to back off. I think the Italian replacements (I was on good terms with the first two whereas the third was a big part of my demise) and that long break really screwed up the flow of this game; I'd like a chance to play again without those issues.
[u:ed85bcd81b]ITALY (Replacement/Survival): Greg Bim-Merle[/u:ed85bcd81b]
GM Note: Perhaps we shall yet hear from Greg.
[u:ed85bcd81b]POLAND (Draw): Wladimir Mysonski[/u:ed85bcd81b]
Upon first seeing the map, I thought Poland would be a fun challenge to play. I was lucky enough to draw it since others seem to have also caught on to this idea.
From the beginning, it was clear that the USSR could only realistically grow through Poland so my first goal was to eliminate it. I offered Turkey Stalingrad in exchange for support into Moscow and essentially wrapping up that corner. Mikael sadly bore the brunt of my ambition and he has a legitimate gripe against me if he wishes to express it. One of us had to attack the other. I was quite proud of pushing for a Balkan peace accord wherein Germany, Poland, Italy, and Turkey peacefully divide the volatile Balkans amongst ourselves devoting little resources to that area. The powers seemed to play nice to me except for a few disagreements regarding Turkey and Italy.
My existing relationship with Britain and Turkey left me no choice but to march west on my German friend. Matt and I enjoyed a great DMZ and I am grateful for having it since it enabled me to go east full-throttle. My move on Germany though was surprisingly met with Italian presence. (This is a good time to thank Gregory and Darryl for taking over their troubled respective powers. They took them over in hard times and performed about as well as they could hope to given the circumstances. Thanks to you both.)
At this point, I had 9 SC's and hopes of drawing with Turkey on a stampede westward. I enjoyed good relations with Britain but eyed him warily after he insisted on a Soviet survival and did not move against the wide-open France. Harvey proposed a 3-way draw with Britain which I initially frowned upon. In my eyes, Turkey and Poland were the strongest powers combined and could easily roll west for a hard-fought draw. Knowing what I know now, I am grateful we ended when we did. Thanks to you all!
[u:ed85bcd81b]Thoughts on variant:[/u:ed85bcd81b]
1. I really enjoy the DP element but it does leave the game too early. Perhaps some powers require a triple to take it over making it harder to take them down so quickly. This has historical support in that Sweden is definitely more difficult to take over than Latvia and Spain would need more resources than Morocco. Just a thought.
2. The powers are fairly even but I do think the USSR and Poland are destined to fight which saddens me. I really do not see how they can cooperate.
Thanks for GMing Charles and adding interesting and fun press commentary. It was a lot of fun!
[u:ed85bcd81b]SOVIET UNION (Survival): Mikael Johansson[/u:ed85bcd81b][u:ed85bcd81b][/u:ed85bcd81b]
GM Note: Perhaps we shall yet hear from Mikael.
[u:ed85bcd81b]TURKEY (Draw): Harvey Morris[/u:ed85bcd81b]
From almost the very start my dilemma was Draw versus Solo, and it continued until the very end.
I quickly formed two very separate alliances - one with Poland, one with Britain - and at the end brought them together for the agreed three-way draw.
At the start I was very fortunate that Poland went after USSR, needing minimal help from me. This allowed me to push France out of the Middle East, with a great deal of behind the scenes help from Britain.
I was lucky to suddenly and quickly have no powers to my east or south, and (secret?) allies to the north and west.
Although Poland kept asking if I was still going to honor our alliance, my dedication to it, and to him, was never in doubt. There were moments, however, as we moved toward the most recent turns, when I began to fear the Poland was getting ready to try for the solo.
My coordination with Britain worked wonderfully. Together we were able to whittle away at French strength, while hopefully disguising the cooperation with one another.
When the new Italy came on board, I found myself quite angry at his failure to live up to his commitments. I’m not sure what the outcome would have been had he followed through on his announced plans for attacking France, but once he reneged (which was almost instantly) I decided that, no matter what, I was going to work for his elimination.
Draw versus Solo - It is never my style to stab allies. Although I got outside encouragement to attack Britain, from those who perhaps were unaware of all the help he was giving me, I just could not see myself doing that. In addition, especially when I began to think (rightly or wrongly) that Poland was positioning for the solo, I saw Britain as my insurance policy. And, at the very end it became clear that, whatever Poland’s earlier intentions, Wladimir was willing to help me against Italy, and was happy to take part in a draw.
I must admit that even at the end I was still considering going for the solo. However my misunderstanding about fleet movement from Egy to ATO lost me time. When Dirk proposed the three-way I hesitated to agree, thought about it overnight, and finally decided the time had come to accept a draw. I just did not have the energy (given both other game involvement and some non-game time commitments) to try to grab the solo. Nor did I believe I could succeed.
Thanks to all for a fun game. Thanks to those who kibitzed from the sidelines and gave me great suggestions and even better criticism. And special thanks to Charles for creating it, starting it, managing it and getting it moving again after it bogged down.
[u:ed85bcd81b]GM: Charles Féaux de la Croix[/u:ed85bcd81b]
Having kept track of all player correspondence forwarded to me, I assembled two charts indicating the number of mails each player sent to others, in total 941 individual mails (though these numbers may be somewhat skewed by no all players being as mindful of CCing me).
Though especially Darryl valiantly made a considerable effort upon joining as a replacement for a rather beleaguered France, already the 1928 stats are indicative of the clear dominance by the three first-tier powers (Turkey, Britain and Poland). At that stage the initially most talkative Stalin had arguably been reduced to vassal status and Matt's diplomatically isolated Germany was being ganged up upon. I suppose that also the delay in January might have had an effect.
Naturally, the first year or two of a diplomacy game almost invariably sport by far the biggest mail volume. 108 mails in the fourth year (given all but three powers being at that point also-rans) is probably within the bounds of what one would generally expect.
As for the evolution of the board, my sense is that the game's playtesting value was somewhat marred by our initial Duce playing a poor game, to the point of NBRing in the very first year. That really put Italy behind the curve. When Jack once again failed to meet the deadline in the next year, a reliable player had to be found in Greg. Yet Italy's relative decline to that date as well as the Soviets being reduced to Scandinavian exile really gave the Kemalist republic a massive head-start.
An additional factor in Turkey's rise was Britain being content to transfer her own domains in the Near-East to Turkey. Dirk wrote of Suez being a remote British outpost. I disagree. The map may be quite deceptive on that count. While located in the other corner of the map (viewed from London), Suez and Egypt proper are but three moves away from the closest British HSC. Moreover, by moving Edinburgh->NAO->ATO->Suez, Britain need not step on any power's toes - unlike when it seeks to move into the equally three moves distant Iberian SCs.
With already F Suez in the region, F Gibraltar closeby and Edinburgh not that far off, I think the Near East makes for a perfectly viable area for British expansion. Especially Italy has a vested interest in Britain and the Soviet Union claiming a stake in the Near-East. Otherwise Turkey can indeed grow fat on what any Turk will consider his backyard. This marked lack of opposition to Turkey's Near East ambitions allowed Harvey's deftly-handled nation to cruise to what by game-end was unquestionably the best position of all.
While on the subject of Britain's rise, Dirk managed to strike early on an extraordinarily favourable deal with France. London got both Belgium and Spain! The first Président got "pulled over the table", as we Germans say. That placed France at a permanent positional disadvantage vis-à-vis Britain. Kudos to Dirk for that.
As for the Soviet Union, Wladimir needs to be congratulated for engineering a masterful campaign against Poland's arch-rival. In that, almost the same fate befell Mikael's Soviet Union as the one he simultaneously suffered in the other game I've been GMing (1648, Mikael's Russia being eliminated quickly by the surrounding powers). Yet Mikael, rather than folding, carved out for himself a new realm in Scandinavia and had some fun assisting Britain thereafter.
Not every game can be a memorable one and I'm afraid this one fell short in that respect. 1926_091119 was the story of the three most consistently well-played powers ganging up bit by bit on the rest. The strong against the weak. And I trust it's fair to say that especially Dirk's and Harvey's innate conservative playing style prevented a true diplomatic realignment. We weren't to see the two foremost powers rally others round them for a real showdown.
Ultimately, if the very strongest powers never attempt to achieve a result better than a draw, then a game will never witness the exciting rollercoaster-ride one hopes for. Any game that does not feature at least one solo push strikes me as fundamentally incomplete.
Yet while both Dirk's and Harvey's inclinations played their part, a more systemic issue also directed the game to this outcome. Never entirely sure what the optimal victory threshold might be, I believe I made a solo somewhat too tough for my own liking. So in future, 15 rather than 18 SCs will suffice. That alone ought to encourage even the most conservative players to stab more and tempt them to "reach for the stars". So, this playtest certainly has helped me home in on what I want 1926 to ultimately look like.
I'd like to thank you all for seeing it through, especially Greg and Darryl for taking over not entirely rosy positions. I again apologise for the lengthy delay in finding Nathan's replacement. Lesson learnt. Good luck in all your future games!
Charles
[u:ed85bcd81b]Variant Design "Q&A"[/u:ed85bcd81b]
Okay, not done yet. :p In this section I mean to touch on various EOG comments relating to the variant:
[Wladimir] I really enjoy the DP element but it does leave the game too early.
The minor powers aren't meant to last forever. They're what gives the early game a special flavour, though the odd minor power might yet survive far longer if the players act accordingly. For instance, in the present Ambition&Empire game I'm playing in, the Bavaria minor power still remains in existence (having been located on the faultlines of great power conflict for all this time) despite us being in our 12th year. That might also well happen in 1926.
[Wladimir] Perhaps some powers require a triple to take it over making it harder to take them down so quickly. This has historical support in that Sweden is definitely more difficult to take over than Latvia and Spain would need more resources than Morocco. Just a thought.
Not a direction I'd care to take. I like the minor powers as they are.
[Wladimir] The powers are fairly even but I do think the USSR and Poland are destined to fight which saddens me. I really do not see how they can cooperate.
Oh, I do think they can cooperate. That'd entail probably a fair number of arranged bounces and such. But to be sure, they're arch-rivals. I don't have any issue with that. It's part of this historical scenario and what gives Poland and the USSR positions their special flavour.
[Dirk] Britain, France and Italy each have African holdings, which collectively stretch across the Med. This is why I incorrectly thought Turkey was a poor position since both France and Britain are in it's back yard; as it turned out, the remote nature of the BF positions makes the eastern Med untenable against a competent Turkey player, even less against a talented player like Harvey.
As I already wrote further above, I don't view Suez in the least as being a remote British outpost. Though certainly France's A Beirut is far off from Metropolitan France and unlikely to ever make contact with other French units. Consider it more of a diplomatic/tactical pawn France can use for leverage. Very different from Britain's Near-East presence which is easily reinforcable.
How might France leverage that Lebanese pawn? Now, take Italy for instance. Turkey's a very dangerous long-term threat to Italy (much as in Standard). France might promise to help Italy vs. Turkey with A Beirut for concessions/good behaviour elsewhere. Similarly, A Beirut might keep Britain's F Suez tied down instead of it messing with France's South-Western backyard. Indeed, together with the recently independent Egyptians, they might descend on Suez and hurt Britain. Then reinforced by French fleets through ATO, France might indeed build up a sustainable and reinforcable Near-East presence. Just shows you that France has Italy a lot to offer in an alliance vs. Turkey.
[Dirk] In turn this funnels all of those fleets right at Italy. While Italy starts with African holdings the Med the area is just too busy and contested, not giving him much room to play.
If Turkey gets to walk over the Near-East as Harvey did in this game, the Duce is plainly not doing his job properly! He's gotta keep that Mid-East pot stirred and troubled. And I don't see why the USSR or Britain should simply roll over either... Not even France...
Dirk, much as I disagreed with your pre-game assessment that Turkey's too weak, so do I disagree with your "Turkey's too strong" view of things.
[Dirk] I suspect that, compared to Standard, Germany, Italy and Russia are worse off while the other four are all better off.
The Soviet Union is definitely worse off than Standard's Russia. Which I welcome considering what a powerhouse Standard's Russia is.
Germany? Not other 1926-power has as good access to minor powers. Also, diplomatically/tactically I'd say Germany initially is less vulnerable than most.
Italy? Infinitely better position than in Standard!!! No weak-sister syndrome, no Austria, four units, more neutrals, an array of allies vs Turkey which aren't available in Standard... Much faster growth possible...
As for the others, well, I think France (the second powerhouse in Standard) is worse off. Which I welcome.
Britain... Somewhat better off. But might also not even get Norway during the first year and get frozen out of builds...
Poland... Not present in Standard. Wouldn't consider it Austria-moved-North. Very different type of power than Austria. In any case, a very decent position. Together with France, Poland interests me personally the most. |
| 1926 091119: EOG Report (dc283) charlesf Mar 08, 07:32 am |
Charles, your comments on the strengths of the various powers has me wanting to play this variant again, right away, to see it all play out.
Dirk, You're unlikely to ever have a chance to play 1926 in its present form. I've been lately reworking my 1936 variant (after not having touched it for five years or so).
Many of the ideas I've now worked into 1936 would also apply to its sister variant, 1926. So were I ever to run another 1926 game, it'd be substantially different from what you know.
To clarify some of my comments, I never fully "got" the travel between Britain and the Suez. Once I was already down a diplomatic path that resulted in my abandoning the region I started asking Charles about it and he gave me the information on how it worked. But it's absence in the rules, at least so far as I was able to tell or find, kept it invisible from me. Even after Charles' informing me of how it worked, lacking an easy way to "check up on" the nuance of the rule kind of kept that strategy from seeming viable to me. Making this more explicit in the rules would not seem to have a down side.
The map is entirely explicit and ought to be taken at face-value.
That being said, checking over the dipwiki rules entry, I see it still refers to an "African Coastal Waters" sea space, which has been done away with in last map revision. This obsolete map clarification certainly needs amending. I suppose an extra comment on ATO wrapping around Africa might be added, as much as the map already shows that being the case. Can't hurt.
I do want to echo Darryl's comments about the lack of territory designations on the map. I expect, given this is only one of three of Charles' games I've played, that I've spent more time on DipWiki pouring over the official maps than any other Internet site over the last year! This was at times not at all convenient, particularly when working on a small laptop screen and struggling to reconcile actual board situation with the labels. The counterbalance is that Charles' maps are quite lovely without the designations. Still, the usability would be increased by having at least a version that shows the board positions and the territory designations. It would just make these excellent variants even better!
Not on my watch! :p I don't want any further clutter getting in the way. Nor do I consider it at all necessary.
I recommend players do the following:
1) Print out the map with space labels. You might want to laminate it to ensure longevity and ease in handling. Keep it around as a handy reference. (Hey, you could also make a mousepad out of it!)
2) Take some time to familiarise yourself with the space names and labels.
3) Test your own geography knowledge. Take a blank map (i.e. without labels) and label each space. When you've done your best, make note of those space names you still have to learn. You might want to repeat this geography quiz later. Rather than doing cross-word puzzles, sudoku and such, do the 1926 quiz!
Point 1 is easy and adresses the matter entirely, I should think. Point 3 is certainly very optional, but might soon have you as fluent in space names as I am.
As a final comment, I've never heard myself called a "conservative" game player before. Certainly no insult taken, but it did make me cock my head and ask aloud, "really?!" I suspect it is more a product of my dislike of stabbing and preference for draws than the way in which I push the pieces around the board. I've been getting more stomach for it recently though and may just "go for it" next time...
You do stab. But I haven't yet seen you engage in a risky stab against as strong a power. If you merely aim for a draw, that might suffice. But if you actually wish to win, risks and tough challenges will have to be taken on. But hey, not like I follow my own advice always myself and am generally not that successful a player. No wonder the bulk of my Diplomacy time is spent designing/running my variants rather than playing.
Cheers,
Charles |
| DC280 spring 1908 adjudications - bobbarkerfan1 (Mar 06, 2010, 10:14 am) |
Hey everyone,
Sorry about the delay. The Archduke and the Kaiser both missed the deadline. The Germans have already used their grace period though, and to remain consistant with my ruling in this game, I am not going to give the Germans an NMR. As for the Austrians, they had a grace period left, and I just got the Archduke's orders so his moves have been received and they are now without a grace period. The only player with his grace period left is Fredrik of Italy. I advise you all to follow his lead in sending in preliminary orders to avoid missing a deadline. If you change your mind later, just send in a new set of orders. With that being said, this spring was very interesting. The Austrians and Russians continue to play defensively. Russia makes an advance into Kiel, leaving the Germans with only 1 SC. The French fleet in GOL is pushed back, and will have to retreat this summer. And while all of this is happening, the Italians continue to hide in Northern Africa. Here are the results:
ORDERS:
Austria:
A Budapest - Trieste (*Bounce*)
A Bulgaria Hold
F Ionian Sea - Tyrrhenian Sea
A Rome Supports A Venice
A Serbia Supports A Bulgaria
A Tuscany - Piedmont
F Tyrrhenian Sea - Gulf of Lyon
A Venice Supports A Tuscany - Piedmont
A Vienna - Trieste (*Bounce*)
France:
A Belgium Supports A Holland
F Brest - Mid-Atlantic Ocean
F Clyde - Edinburgh (*Bounce*)
A Edinburgh - Yorkshire
F Gulf of Lyon - Tyrrhenian Sea (*Dislodged*)
A Holland Supports A Belgium (*Cut*)
F London - North Sea (*Fails*)
A Paris - Gascony
A Ruhr Supports A Munich
A Spain Hold
Germany:
A Munich, no move received
A Tyrolia, no move received
Italy:
A North Africa - Tunis
F Western Mediterranean Supports F Tyrrhenian Sea - Gulf of Lyon
Russia:
F Baltic Sea Supports A Berlin - Kiel
A Berlin - Kiel
F Black Sea Supports A Rumania
F Constantinople Hold
A Denmark Supports A Berlin - Kiel
F North Sea - Holland (*Fails*)
F Norwegian Sea - Edinburgh (*Bounce*)
A Rumania Hold
A Silesia - Munich (*Fails*)
A Ukraine Supports A Rumania
A Warsaw - Prussia
RETREATS:
France:
F Gulf of Lyon to Marseilles, Tuscany, or disband
DEADLINE:
I would like to have the French retreat in by Sunday night if possible. I will send out the Fall 1908 deadline once I receive the French retreat order.
PLAYERS:
Ctry : Russia
Name : Tim Fuhrmeister
Email : timfuhrmeister(at)hotmail.com ([email]timfuhrmeister(at)hotmail.com[/email])
Ctry : Italy
Name : Fredrik Blom
Email : fredrik(at)familjenblom.se ([email]fredrik(at)familjenblom.se[/email])
Ctry : Germany
Name : Jeffrey Cole
Email : jeffcole854(at)gmail.com ([email]jeffcole854(at)gmail.com[/email])
Ctry : France
Name : Mark Utterback
Email : MDemagogue(at)gmail.com ([email]MDemagogue(at)gmail.com[/email])
Ctry : Austria
Name : Ross Yaggy
Email : ross826(at)gmail.com ([email]ross826(at)gmail.com[/email])
Have a good weekend. and Mark, get that retreat in!
Joey[Reply] |
| DC297; Winter 1908 Results - dipknight (Mar 06, 2010, 7:35 am) |
GM’s remarks:
My deepest apologies on the tardiness of the Adjudication; I have no excuse, my only explanation is that is has been a long week at work and I just collapsed after arriving home yesterday evening. With no further ado, here are your results . . . still, with care and error free.
Congratulations to those of you still in the game for making it to Game Year 9 of Winter Blitz 2010!
The Players:
Austria: Will Fleming wtfleming-at-msn.com ([email]wtfleming-at-msn.com[/email])
England: Eric Hunter dip.power.915-at-gmail.com ([email]dip.power.915-at-gmail.com[/email])
France: Eliminated Fall 1907
Germany: Joe Hackett jhack16-at-gmail.com ([email]jhack16-at-gmail.com[/email])
Italy: Eliminated Winter 1908
Russia: Eliminated Winter 1906
Turkey: Douglas Fresh douglasefresh-at-gmail.com ([email]douglasefresh-at-gmail.com[/email])
The Orders:
Austria:
Build A vie
Build A bud
England:
Remove F nwg
France:
Eliminated Fall 1907
Germany:
Build A ber
Italy:
Remove F lyo
Russia:
Eliminated Winter 1906
Turkey:
Build F con
Retreats:
None Required
Centers and Unit Positions:
Austria:
Centers (11) bud, bul, gre, mos, rom, rum, ser, sev, tri, ven, vie.
Units: F adr, A bud, A bul, A gal, F ion, A mos, A rom, A rum, A sev, A trl, A vie
Build/Disband: 0
England:
Centers (6) edi, lvp, lon, mar, por, spa.
Units: F edi, F eng, A gas, F lon, F mar, F spa(sc)
Build/Disband: 0
France:
Eliminated Fall 1907
Germany:
Centers (12): bel, ber, bre, den, hol, kie, mun, nwy, par, stp, swe, war.
Units: F bel, A ber, A bre, F den, A mun, F nth, F nwy, A par, A sil, A stp, A war, F yor
Build/Disbands: 0
Italy:
Eliminated Winter 1908
Russia:
Eliminated Winter 1906
Turkey:
Centers (5): ank, con, nap, smy, tun.
Units: F con, F eas, A nap, A tun, F wes
Build/Disband: 0
Deadline:
1909 Spring Orders: Monday; March 8, 24:00 Hrs GMT
Maps of the Orders and Results; and the dpy file are attached for your use.[Reply] |
| DC297; Results Soon - dipknight (Mar 06, 2010, 7:12 am) |
Um . . . oops. . . sorry all. I was so tired last night I went to bed and forgot about the game. I will have your results shortly.
Darryl (GM)[Reply] |
| DC 306: Notes 3 - Realpolitik - FuzzyLogic (Mar 06, 2010, 7:08 am) |
Ah, good catch! The limit is in technically the number of different designated powers… not the number of powers. A subtle difference. But it should make it work for you Ben…
From: charlesf-at-web.de [mailto:charlesf-at-web.de]
Sent: Saturday, March 06, 2010 4:08 AM
To: Michael Sims; Benjamin Hester; Nathan Deily; Michael Thompson; dc306; Isaac Zinner 1266; Jim Atkins; Jean-Luc Lefebvre; Garry Bledsoe; Fredrik Blom; joe babinsack
Subject: Re: DC 306: Notes 3 - Realpolitik
If you've coded them all as one nationality "neutral" then yeah you're stuck doing manual edits. You could do it as a 25 player variant but then you have to bump it up to Realworld, RP doesnt support that many.
Not true, Michael. My 1648 Realpolitik module has 38 countries. Works just fine. Yet they're all designated as "M Flood White", which means that for victory purposes Realpolitik lumps the minor powers all together (which is why I coded the victory criterion as being 58 SCs (i.e. the total) rather than the actual 18 SC (now soon 15 SC) threshold.
Why did I designate them all as "M Flood White"? Well, I all wanted my custom unit icons to bear the label "M" for "Minor Power". "Flood White" means that their controlled SC provinces are entirely filled with white colour.
Note here that I chose to define the SC provinces as ONLY being the actual SC dots. Which means only the SC dots are colour-filled rather than the whole territory of that province. I'm not aware that's been done in any other modules other than my own, but find the result aesthetically more pleasing. A nifty trick.
That being said, it does mean that when entering orders, you need to click on an SC provinces SC dot since Realpolitik believes they alone make up those provinces territory.
Now, for my 1926 variant I unfortunately had to resort to Realworld rather than Realpolitik. That's because Spain's a triple-coast variant in that game and hence goes beyond the limitations of Realpolitik.
I also used a different approach to the minor powers in that one. I wanted them all to have the same white flooded SC dots (as with 164 and the same basic white unit icons I had designed. But I also wanted them to all have a small flag icon for their country for that extra visual interest.
Now, I couldn't actually integrate such a flag onto the unit icon as such. For all the countries were designated as being "White" (since I wanted the same fill effect for the SC dots). The trick is that I every minor power a special letter rather than the uniform "M" for minor power (as in 164. Having 29 powers in 1926, I exhausted the alphabet and then had to resort to numbers for the few remaining ones.
The trick then it that I redesigned each letter's icon file. So what used to look like a "G" for Germany is now actually a small black-red-gold flag. And rather than centred in the units middle as the default Realpolitik letter icons are, I shifted that icon into the upper left corner of the unit. Unsuspecting souls might think those flags are part of the actual unit icon. They're not (and cannot be because all minor powers are designated as "white" and hence have to use the same unit icon). I must confess I was pretty pleased to arrive at the visual effect of all minor powers' unit icons (on the face of it) looking different despite them all being coded as "white".
OK, here the maps as a point of reference:
1648 (note that only the SC dots are colour-filled. All minor power SCs are filled white):
1926 (note that all minor powers use white SC fill and white unit icons, but their labels (made to look like flags) all look differently:
But to return to the original issue:
Does Realpolitik support 25+ different powers. It certainly does as my 1648 variant sports 38 different ones. Though the bulk of those are all coded as "M Flood White", which blurs the issue a bit. Realpolitik does consider the minor powers as separate powers for all purposes save victory determination.
I learnt that by getting messages after the first year that Algiers had won. Somehow Realpolitik lumped all "M Flood White" powers together for victory determination purposes. Since the minor powers total 30 SCs at game-start and probably will hold still 18 by the end of the first year, you had there immediate fulfillment of the victory criterion. That's why I told Realpolitik the victory criterion was 58 (which is actually not the case). Problem solved.
Ah well, thoughts I might relate some of my own challenges I had to overcome in the Realpolitik/Realworld trenches... In the end, I think it was worth the many hours of work involved.
BTW, there's no rule that RP-modules need to look ugly. Personally I find the typical RP look pretty off-putting and welcome some modules aesthetically departing from that dour look.
Charles[Reply] |
| DC 285: Error announcement: Map update - blueraider0 at gmail.com (Mar 06, 2010, 6:06 am) |
Oops! Well it happened folks, there was an error that was wholly my fault. No public argument, no GM hammer coming down, just an apology and a vigorous finger shaken at my mouse. It sometimes makes leaps and jumps that are unintended, and this time sent Vindobona to Adriatic, which is both illogical and impossible. Vindobona went to Dalmatia, which prevents Illyria from going there, which prevents Dacia from going to Illyria. So here's the new map. Thanks, Mark, for keeping me in check!
-Maslow
--
"It's like in the great stories, Mr. Frodo. The ones that really mattered. Full of darkness and danger they were. and sometimes you didn't want to know the end because how could the end be happy? How could the world go back to the way it was when so much bad had happened? But in the end, it's only a passing thing. The shadow, even the darkness must pass. A new day will come. And when the sun shines it will shine out the clearer. Those were the stories that stayed with you - That meant something. Even if you were too small to understand why. But I think, Mr. Frodo, I do understand. I know now. Folk in those stories had lots of chances of turning back only they didn't. They kept going because they were holding onto something."
"What are we holding onto, Sam?"
"That there's some good in this world, Mr. Frodo. And it's worth fighting for."[Reply] |
| DC292 Draw proposal - Samnuva (Mar 06, 2010, 6:06 am) |
We have another draw proposal, again a 2-way Russia/Austria. Send in
your votes with spring.[Reply] |
| DC292 Winter 1908 Adjudication - Samnuva (Mar 06, 2010, 6:04 am) |
I'm sorry Adjudications are starting to come later and later. At the
moment, I'm production stage manager for a theater production of
Volpone (look all that up), and we open next week, so I'm rather
stressed out. Anyway, with another NBR, Brian is officially
eliminated. I'm sorry you didn't see fit to stay through the end. I
must say though, you guys really love waiving builds.
Austria:
Build F Trieste
Build waived
England:
Remove F Holland
Italy:
Defaults, removing A Tyrolia
Russia:
Build F St Petersburg(nc)
Build waived
Build waived
Any questions, send 'em through. Make sure to CC your orders to the
order box. I may need to call on the mods to run a turn this year.
-Sam Buck[Reply] |
| DC297: Winter 1908 Adjudication - Dip_Power_915 (Mar 06, 2010, 5:29 am) |
Results were due about 12 hours ago, but I haven't seen them, and
they're not on the WB web-site. Help.
Eric of England in DC297[Reply] |
| DC 306: Notes 3 - Realpolitik - charlesf (Mar 06, 2010, 4:08 am) |
If you've coded them all as one nationality "neutral" then yeah you're stuck doing manual edits. You could do it as a 25 player variant but then you have to bump it up to Realworld, RP doesnt support that many.
Not true, Michael. My 1648 Realpolitik module has 38 countries. Works just fine. Yet they're all designated as "M Flood White", which means that for victory purposes Realpolitik lumps the minor powers all together (which is why I coded the victory criterion as being 58 SCs (i.e. the total) rather than the actual 18 SC (now soon 15 SC) threshold.
Why did I designate them all as "M Flood White"? Well, I all wanted my custom unit icons to bear the label "M" for "Minor Power". "Flood White" means that their controlled SC provinces are entirely filled with white colour.
Note here that I chose to define the SC provinces as ONLY being the actual SC dots. Which means only the SC dots are colour-filled rather than the whole territory of that province. I'm not aware that's been done in any other modules other than my own, but find the result aesthetically more pleasing. A nifty trick.
That being said, it does mean that when entering orders, you need to click on an SC provinces SC dot since Realpolitik believes they alone make up those provinces territory.
Now, for my 1926 variant I unfortunately had to resort to Realworld rather than Realpolitik. That's because Spain's a triple-coast variant in that game and hence goes beyond the limitations of Realpolitik.
I also used a different approach to the minor powers in that one. I wanted them all to have the same white flooded SC dots (as with 164 and the same basic white unit icons I had designed. But I also wanted them to all have a small flag icon for their country for that extra visual interest.
Now, I couldn't actually integrate such a flag onto the unit icon as such. For all the countries were designated as being "White" (since I wanted the same fill effect for the SC dots). The trick is that I every minor power a special letter rather than the uniform "M" for minor power (as in 164. Having 29 powers in 1926, I exhausted the alphabet and then had to resort to numbers for the few remaining ones.
The trick then it that I redesigned each letter's icon file. So what used to look like a "G" for Germany is now actually a small black-red-gold flag. And rather than centred in the units middle as the default Realpolitik letter icons are, I shifted that icon into the upper left corner of the unit. Unsuspecting souls might think those flags are part of the actual unit icon. They're not (and cannot be because all minor powers are designated as "white" and hence have to use the same unit icon). I must confess I was pretty pleased to arrive at the visual effect of all minor powers' unit icons (on the face of it) looking different despite them all being coded as "white".
OK, here the maps as a point of reference:
1648 (note that only the SC dots are colour-filled. All minor power SCs are filled white):
1926 (note that all minor powers use white SC fill and white unit icons, but their labels (made to look like flags) all look differently:
But to return to the original issue:
Does Realpolitik support 25+ different powers. It certainly does as my 1648 variant sports 38 different ones. Though the bulk of those are all coded as "M Flood White", which blurs the issue a bit. Realpolitik does consider the minor powers as separate powers for all purposes save victory determination.
I learnt that by getting messages after the first year that Algiers had won. Somehow Realpolitik lumped all "M Flood White" powers together for victory determination purposes. Since the minor powers total 30 SCs at game-start and probably will hold still 18 by the end of the first year, you had there immediate fulfillment of the victory criterion. That's why I told Realpolitik the victory criterion was 58 (which is actually not the case). Problem solved.
Ah well, thoughts I might relate some of my own challenges I had to overcome in the Realpolitik/Realworld trenches... In the end, I think it was worth the many hours of work involved.
BTW, there's no rule that RP-modules need to look ugly. Personally I find the typical RP look pretty off-putting and welcome some modules aesthetically departing from that dour look.
Charles[Reply] |
| DC261 - Fall 1911 Results - aramis604 (Mar 06, 2010, 2:14 am) |
The results for Fall 1911 are in! Sorry for the delay.
No retreats required!
It should be noted that there were two units dislodged in Fall 1901, Fleet Mid-Atlantic Ocean and Army Gascony, but since there were no valid provinces for them to retreat to they were disbanded.
************************
Austria:
A Berlin Supports A Munich - Kiel
A Bohemia - Munich (*Fails*)
A Finland Supports A St Petersburg - Norway
A Galicia - Warsaw
A Moscow - St Petersburg
A Munich - Kiel (*Fails*)
A Sevastopol - Armenia
A Silesia Supports A Bohemia - Munich (*Fails*)
A St Petersburg - Norway
A Vienna - Bohemia (*Fails*)
England:
F English Channel Supports F North Atlantic Ocean - Mid-Atlantic Ocean
F North Atlantic Ocean - Mid-Atlantic Ocean
France:
A Brest Supports A Paris - Gascony
A Burgundy Supports A Paris - Gascony
F Irish Sea Supports F North Atlantic Ocean - Mid-Atlantic Ocean
F Norway - Sweden
A Paris - Gascony
Germany:
A Holland Supports A Kiel
A Kiel Hold
A Ruhr Supports A Burgundy
Italy:
F Aegean Sea Hold
A Gascony Hold (*Disbanded*)
F Gulf of Lyon Hold
A Marseilles Supports A Gascony
F Mid-Atlantic Ocean Hold (*Disbanded*)
F North Africa, no move received
A Piedmont Hold
F Portugal Supports F Mid-Atlantic Ocean
A Smyrna, no move received
A Spain Hold
A Tyrolia Supports A Bohemia - Munich
F Tyrrhenian Sea - Western Mediterranean
************************
Winter 1911 is due on Tuesday, March 9th by 9pm Pacific Time.
Adjustments:
Austria: Supp 12 Unit 10 Build 2
Italy: Supp 12 Unit 10 Build 2
England: Supp 2 Unit 2 Build 0
France: Supp 5 Unit 5 Build 0
Germany: Supp 3 Unit 3 Build 0
Russia: Supp 0 Unit 0 Build 0
Turkey: Supp 0 Unit 0 Build 0[Reply] |
| Camel Spotting - s01 results! - Kenshi777 (Mar 06, 2010, 1:08 am) |
Clearly no association. My donkeys care very little for the
redistribution of wealth or social responsibility. They just eat
profusely, er...take up space, um....uh...refuse to do any
work....waaaaiiiiit a minute...
...they couldn't be....well...couldn't hurt to try...
Come Biden! Onward Pelosi! The Egyptians are invading!
B.
On 3/5/10, Michael Sims <mike-at-fuzzylogicllc.net> wrote:
Isn't that just part of being a democrat?
-mike
-----Original Message-----
From: Benjamin Hester [mailto:screwtape777-at-gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, March 05, 2010 7:53 PM
To: Charles Welsh
Cc: Alan DC304; Michael Sims; ponkwilliams-at-yahoo.com; Tim dc304E; dc304
Subject: Re: Camel Spotting - s01 results!
How'd he get elephants and I end up with a bunch of lame donkeys? No
fair
On 3/5/10, Charles Welsh <welsh_stroud-at-msn.com> wrote:
[quote:234be1be7e]
We have elephants here and they are on the march.
[quote:234be1be7e]Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2010 12:58:08 -0600
Subject: Re: Camel Spotting - s01 results!
From: screwtape777-at-gmail.com
To: alley_cat_1990-at-hotmail.com
CC: mike-at-fuzzylogicllc.net; welsh_stroud-at-msn.com;
[/quote:234be1be7e]ponkwilliams-at-yahoo.com;
[quote:234be1be7e]thewizard.tim-at-gmail.com; dc304-at-diplomaticcorp.com
you think that's bad? I found one of the little two-hump buggers
floating out in the gulf?!? And this one figured out how to swing a
sword apparently...
B.
On 3/5/10, Alan Farrington <alley_cat_1990-at-hotmail.com> wrote:
[quote:234be1be7e]
Report: Camel Spotted in mountains of Illyria
I didn't think our first camel would come out of the lands of
[/quote:234be1be7e][/quote:234be1be7e]Greece!
[quote:234be1be7e][quote:234be1be7e]
--Alan Farrington
_________________________________________________________________
Hotmail: Trusted email with Microsoft's powerful SPAM protection.
http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/201469226/direct/01/
--
Diplomacy in Texas!
www.texasdiplomacy.com
http://nairenvorbeck.angelfire.com/
Realpolitik files available here for the Sengoku, Balkans1860, South
American Supremacy, and DarkAges Diplomacy Variants
[/quote:234be1be7e]
[/quote:234be1be7e]
--
Diplomacy in Texas!
www.texasdiplomacy.com
http://nairenvorbeck.angelfire.com/
Realpolitik files available here for the Sengoku, Balkans1860, South
American Supremacy, and DarkAges Diplomacy Variants
[/quote:234be1be7e]
--
Diplomacy in Texas!
www.texasdiplomacy.com
http://nairenvorbeck.angelfire.com/
Realpolitik files available here for the Sengoku, Balkans1860, South
American Supremacy, and DarkAges Diplomacy Variants[Reply] |
