[Reply]

[Reply]

[Reply]

[Reply]

I would like to thank the academy…
I have never made more of an effort, had worse results, or enjoyed a game more than I did this one (well, except for the time I came back from the dead to eliminate board leader Ray Bruce).  That is meant to be a high compliment to Jeff and Baron, whose variant is currently my favorite version of Diplomacy, bar none.  It’s an even bigger compliment to Nick, who managed this game expertly, offered entertaining public commentary, and engaged in a running dialogue with me that provided welcome A&E history as well as circumspect commentary on my orders (which I explained in detail).  Finally I appreciated the dedication of all the players, which resulted in no NMR’s (technically, anyway!) and considered play by just about all.
My game could be divided into two phases.  Let’s call the first one:
Why I failed to solo
This was my first time playing A&E.  Austria’s advantage was obviously biggest at the start, and I mapped out a strategy to solo in as little as four years.  The key was destroying France,  which would give me enough access to the central neutrals that I would only need to pick up a center or two from a northern power in order to quickly and inoffensively win.  I allied with Britain and Spain, offering them all of the French spoils.  My intent was to give each of them exctly what they wanted, while growing faster than either of them could.  I made a deal with Turkey that gave me TwS in exchange for not building any fleets, neutrality pacts with Prussia and Poland, and encouraged Denmark and Sweden to ally.  1763 played out like it did on my chalkboard, permanently crippling France.
1764 brought first war with Turkey, who was understandably unhappy over how well I was doing under our agreement, and then with Britain, who made peace with France in order to stop me.  My mistake here was to agree to help France survive, with only a vague sense of how that would help me.  But the bottom line was that I was still in good shape for a solo, due mainly to the neutrals I had stacked up in reserve.
1765 was my year of frustration.  Spain had joined with Britain and Turkey against me and France, but I convinced Spain (correctly) that he would ultimately be sandwiched by Britain and Turkey.  We agreed that he would help France (who remained unaware of these plans) and that he could position himself to take Africa by seemingly moving in on me.  This could have resulted in a sweep of the Med.  Unfortunately, we miscommunicated on an order, and had to wait another year to try again.  That chance would never come.
At the same time, I thought I had allied with Prussia, whose uncommunicativeness had left him isolated and in trouble.  Thus, when Poland and Turkey made a move on Bud in the spring, I retreated to the west, counting on Prussia to cut any attack on Bud.  That fall I orchestrated a complicated set of orders that would have given me a third fleet against Turkey, and victory in the SE while keeping Britain at bay.  Only one thing went wrong: Prussia stabbed me, costing me Bud.  For no reason, no gain – we were back to cooperating vaguely from then on – and only because of one of several dubious last-minute deadline extensions requested to finalize stabs this game.  Those are the breaks, and that was the end of my controlling my own destiny. Why I couldn’t stop Britain from soloing
Having conceded my sprint, I told France – just stabbed by Britain – to retreat into Dre (my SC).  The very next turn – spring of 1766 – France joined Britain’s stab of Spain.  Ironically, this killed my plan to restore France, and of course did France no good.  I rolled with the punch and approached Turkey about allying against the stabbing corner power who had now tied for the lead.  After extremely long negotiations, Turkey agreed, if I disbanded one of my fleets.  This was fine with me, since my goal was to stop Britain in his tracks.  I executed a switch with Spain where he took two of my Italian centers, and we convoyed one of my armies to Spain.  If I wasn’t going to solo, then neither was Britain.
Or so I thought.  In spring of 1767, Turkey stabbed me.  Given our absurdly long negotiations, and how sloppily the stab was executed, I believed his denial.  So he stabbed me again in the fall.  Imagine my embarrassment.  I was essentially no worse off than before, but Spain had been reduced to reliable adjunct status.  And Turkey probably felt that he had elevated himself into Contender status, since he was tied for the lead with Britain at 8, while resurgent Denmark and I were at 7.
A word about Contender #3: After David patiently and expertly stabbed his way to viability, I encouraged him to ally with Prussia against Britain, but he chose to stab Prussia and add to his center count.  I feel that this is where an excellent, even exemplary, game was lost: Denmark didn’t have the nerve to take on Britain under reasonable conditions, and rationalized it by staying close as he worked with Britain for his own gain while counting on me to slow down the Brits.
And count on me he could.  In 1768 I decided not to do the obvious – regroup by retaking Bud or my loaned-out Italian centers – and stay focused on the big picture.  I kept applying as much pressure as possible on Britain, and counterattacked Turkey with what was left.  Of tremendous help was the game-long DP support I had, which I attributed to diligence, verifiable straightforwardness, and the fact that I needed them to stay afloat in the Med while I tried to stop Britain.  I convinced France to rejoin me, and helped him take Brc from Turkey.  But to our frustration, we failed to also retake Mar from Britain when Spain couldn’t be reached to change his orders.  An effort to go for HeW instead fell short when Britain switched his orders at the last moment.  By the end of the year Turkey had lost his gains and I controlled Italy once again, but I had made no progress in slowing Britain.
That winter I built an army instead of a fleet to once again convince Turkey to stop the British solo.  But Turkey continued to pressure me in the spring of 1769, and Britain stabbed Denmark, seemingly giving him the game.  Surprisingly Britain shifted gears in the fall and spared Denmark to stab Turkey.  He would have paid for it had France not lied to me about where he was moving, sparing Britain from losing HeW.  France told me he thought I had tipped off Britain about our attack the prior turn – something so nutty that I could explain it only by the fact that France stabbed (and was stabbed by Britain) so often that he saw only subterfuge behind every move.  The only thing that could have surprised me more was Turkey refusing yet another offer on my part to stop a 12-dot Britain.  Two years after stabbing me in favor of Britain, Britain was up four, I was up one, and he was down two.  But to the amusement of all my correspondents, Turkey continued to ignore the big picture, abandoning Mor in order to keep the pressure on me.
A word about Contender #2: Frank stabbed even more frequently than Denmark, with the downside of being board leader, and made it worse by laughing about it in his press (which I found useful because it sometimes revealed that he was allied with someone I hadn’t suspected).  I had no doubt that it would all come back to haunt him, if I just stayed the course and played to stop Britain.  It took me until almost the end of the game to give him the credit he deserved.  His tactical game was flawless; the worst that I could say is that he should have finished off Denmark rather than shifting south, and there’s no way to call that a clear error.  Early on he correctly convinced the board that I was a threat to solo.  And he played Denmark and Turkey expertly after that, using very different piano keys, so that neither ever did anything to stop him.  (I don’t think anyone played France – he played himself.)  With as much effort and example as I put into my diplomacy, Frank did a better job – an amazing job - where it counted. 1770 dawned with Denmark making his annual promise that this year he really, really was going to attack Britain, Turkey loading both barrels for Austria, and France on Britain’s side for good.  Forget soloing – there was nobody viable willing to stop Britain and play for a draw.  I could either accept that, or continue fighting a 360-degree holding action that would possibly give the game to Denmark.  I had zero reason to do that for David; his unwillingness to move out from under Britain’s wing, and the constant double-dealing that required, finally came back to bite him.  I let Denmark and Turkey know that I would be adopting their strategy.  Two turns after the finger was pulled from the dike, Britain had a solo.

Jorge


On Mon, Jun 8, 2009 at 3:00 PM, Michael Norton <mjn82(at)yahoo.com ([email]mjn82(at)yahoo.com[/email])> wrote:
[quote:cdce18fc06]
Congratulations Frank, 

You definitely the deserved the victory!

Well,  I asked for France and certainly made an early game mistake in my dipping.  It was minimal the first turn as I was not only busy,  but truly wanted a season to get a feel for the players.  Big mistake.  I had agreements in place with AH and Spain and a non-commital response from England that I thought would be sufficient. 

I response I got a three way effort to dissemble France that quickly paired me to two centers.  I quickly tried to craft another border agreement with Isaac and support from Austria to help fend off Frank.  Isaac, once again violated the agreement immediately and that was pretty much the last time I had any real dipping with Spain. 

Too survive I had to walk a fine line between AH and B,  managing to get back to 3 centers, but it became obvious Jorge would never provide any help against Spain and I became convinced that S and A were very tight.  I also flt A was never going to let me grow beyond 3 centers and that he telegraphed my last stab of Frank that should have brought me to 4 or possibly 5 centers.  So I through my lot in with Frank,  my goal being to help him solo as possible while surviving at the end of the game. 

My most satisfying moment was the attack on Spain netting Barcelona and Madrid and evicting Isaac from Iberia.

So in retrospect, I should have pursued Austria or Britain aggressively early in the game.  But i did have great fun playing with both of them.

I did think it was humorous that I got a complaint from a neighbor about being trustworthy when they had already stabbed me in the first year of the game.  After a stab, all bets are off.

Enjoyed playing with all of you.

Mike

. 

[Reply]

[Reply]

[Reply]

[Reply]

[Reply]

[Reply]

[Reply]

[Reply]

[Reply]

Congratulations Frank, 

You definitely the deserved the victory!

Well,  I asked for France and certainly made an early game mistake in my dipping.  It was minimal the first turn as I was not only busy,  but truly wanted a season to get a feel for the players.  Big mistake.  I had agreements in place with AH and Spain and a non-commital response from England that I thought would be sufficient. 

I response I got a three way effort to dissemble France that quickly paired me to two centers.  I quickly tried to craft another border agreement with Isaac and support from Austria to help fend off Frank.  Isaac, once again violated the agreement immediately and that was pretty much the last time I had any real dipping with Spain. 

Too survive I had to walk a fine line between AH and B,  managing to get back to 3 centers, but it became obvious Jorge would never provide any help against Spain and I became convinced that S and A were very tight.  I also flt A was never going to let me grow beyond 3 centers and that he telegraphed my last stab of Frank that should have brought me to 4 or possibly 5 centers.  So I through my lot in with Frank,  my goal being to help him solo as possible while surviving at the end of the game. 

My most satisfying moment was the attack on Spain netting Barcelona and Madrid and evicting Isaac from Iberia.

So in retrospect, I should have pursued Austria or Britain aggressively early in the game.  But i did have great fun playing with both of them.

I did think it was humorous that I got a complaint from a neighbor about being trustworthy when they had already stabbed me in the first year of the game.  After a stab, all bets are off.

Enjoyed playing with all of you.

Mike

. 

[Reply]

[Reply]

[Reply]

[Reply]

From: frankmartin(at)surewest.net <frankmartin(at)surewest.net>
Subject: Re: Ambition & Empire 090205 / DC240: Players & Powers
To: "Warren Ball" <warren_k_ball(at)yahoo.com>, "Jorge Saralegui" <jmsaralegui(at)gmail.com>
Cc: "to jeffrey kase" <jeffreykase(at)yahoo.com>, nathanbalbright(at)yahoo.com, davidchegould(at)bigpond.com, David.Gould(at)aph.gov.au, kelly058(at)verizon.net, mjn82(at)yahoo.com, smileyrob68(at)gmail.com, MDemagogue(at)gmail.com, isaac.zinner(at)gmail.com, congressofvienna1814(at)yahoo.com, VonPowell(at)aol.com, "Chris Dziedzic" <dipping_chris(at)yahoo.com>, toosauto(at)gmail.com, dc240(at)diplomaticcorp.com, stevelytton(at)hotmail.com, c.p.mcinerney(at)gmail.com, karsten.nitsch(at)gmx.de, former.trout(at)gmail.com, Sturmkraehe(at)comcast.net
Date: Monday, June 8, 2009, 4:32 PM

The advantage of Austria and England is their superiority at the outset. But they both have challenges.

England has to do something productive with Gib, and must protect against having Hanover popped in the first season. If England does not get off to a good start diplomatically, they are in BIG trouble.

Austria almost gets a pass in year one. But Austria must secure a relationship or two with countries that are bound to be much smaller after year one, and must be able to convince those countries to stick with them when he/she is four centers stronger. I have a strategy for playing Austria, but I won't talk about it until after I get a chance to employ it. : )

I would take Turkey or Spain over the three center powers. Russia has too much ground to cover. France has to worry about England and Spanish expansion avenues.

Frank

[Reply]

The advantage of Austria and England is their superiority at the outset. But they both have challenges.

England has to do something productive with Gib, and must protect against having Hanover popped in the first season. If England does not get off to a good start diplomatically, they are in BIG trouble.

Austria almost gets a pass in year one. But Austria must secure a relationship or two with countries that are bound to be much smaller after year one, and must be able to convince those countries to stick with them when he/she is four centers stronger. I have a strategy for playing Austria, but I won't talk about it until after I get a chance to employ it.  : )

I would take Turkey or Spain over the three center powers. Russia has too much ground to cover. France has to worry about England and Spanish expansion avenues.

Frank

[Reply]

[Reply]

[Reply]

[Reply]

From: Jorge Saralegui <jmsaralegui(at)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Ambition & Empire 090205 / DC240: Players & Powers
To: "Warren Ball" <warren_k_ball(at)yahoo.com>
Cc: "to jeffrey kase" <jeffreykase(at)yahoo.com>, nathanbalbright(at)yahoo.com, davidchegould(at)bigpond.com, David.Gould(at)aph.gov.au, kelly058(at)verizon.net, mjn82(at)yahoo.com, jmsaralegui(at)gmail.com, smileyrob68(at)gmail.com, MDemagogue(at)gmail.com, isaac.zinner(at)gmail.com, congressofvienna1814(at)yahoo.com, VonPowell(at)aol.com, "Chris Dziedzic" <dipping_chris(at)yahoo.com>, frankmartin(at)surewest.net, toosauto(at)gmail.com, dc240(at)diplomaticcorp.com, stevelytton(at)hotmail.com, c.p.mcinerney(at)gmail.com, karsten.nitsch(at)gmx.de, former.trout(at)gmail.com, Sturmkraehe(at)comcast.net
Date: Monday, June 8, 2009, 3:09 PM

I listed Austria first and Britain second, but I had Spain over all the 3-SC powers. (Not that I'd keep that order now, necessarily.) Something else that would affect my choices is the fun factor. I figured Austria was in the middle of things, and thus have a maximum amount of diplomacy.

Jorge

On Mon, Jun 8, 2009 at 10:40 AM, Warren Ball <warren_k_ball(at)yahoo.com ([email]warren_k_ball(at)yahoo.com[/email])> wrote:
[quote:8e19d08454] IIRC, there was a game in which I played & Baron GM'd, where a 2-sc player was eliminated in the very 1st year or 2nd year. With all due respect, that is virtually impossible to do w/a larger power. It is certainly impossible w/England.

England's struggles (and Austria's?) to date are merely due to a small statistical sample size. And I doubt any player who is as experienced in this variant as Frank, has ever played England.

Does anyone seriously maintain that they would rather have 1 of the 2-sc powers, than England or Austria?

--- On Mon, 6/8/09, Jorge Saralegui <jmsaralegui(at)gmail.com ([email]jmsaralegui(at)gmail.com[/email])> wrote:

[quote:8e19d08454]
From: Jorge Saralegui <jmsaralegui(at)gmail.com ([email]jmsaralegui(at)gmail.com[/email])>
Subject: Re: Ambition & Empire 090205 / DC240: Players & Powers
To: "Warren Ball" <warren_k_ball(at)yahoo.com ([email]warren_k_ball(at)yahoo.com[/email])>

Date: Monday, June 8, 2009, 1:17 PM


To jump into this conversation from the extremely objective perspective of little Austria, the performances of the 2-SC powers vs that of the 3-SC powers indicates that the former need no help at all. If you factor in Britain's lousy performance and Audtria's non-domination in past games, you could say that at this point in its testing, A&E looks as balanced as possible.

Jorge

On Mon, Jun 8, 2009 at 9:35 AM, Warren Ball <warren_k_ball(at)yahoo.com> wrote:
[quote:8e19d08454] It has been many years since I played the game. IIRC, there was a "half strength" naval move in it.

It seemed to me that perhaps helping out the 2 SC powers might take the route of "half strength" SC's. That is, 2 specific sc's would both have to be in the countries possession for him to build 1 unit.

--- On Mon, 6/8/09, Jeff Hall <hall.jeff(at)gmail.com> wrote:


[quote:8e19d08454]
From: Jeff Hall <hall.jeff(at)gmail.com>

Subject: Re: Ambition & Empire 090205 / DC240: Players & Powers
To: "Warren Ball" <warren_k_ball(at)yahoo.com>

Cc: nathanbalbright(at)yahoo.com, davidchegould(at)bigpond.com, David.Gould(at)aph.gov.au, kelly058(at)verizon.net, frankmartin(at)surewest.net, mjn82(at)yahoo.com, jmsaralegui(at)gmail.com, smileyrob68(at)gmail.com, MDemagogue(at)gmail.com, isaac.zinner(at)gmail.com, congressofvienna1814(at)yahoo.com, jeffreykase(at)yahoo.com, VonPowell(at)aol.com, "Chris Dziedzic" <dipping_chris(at)yahoo.com>, toosauto(at)gmail.com, dc240(at)diplomaticcorp.com, stevelytton(at)hotmail.com, c.p.mcinerney(at)gmail.com, karsten.nitsch(at)gmx.de, former.trout(at)gmail.com, Sturmkraehe(at)comcast.net
Date: Monday, June 8, 2009, 11:23 AM

I would agree... More than most, this variant (with 10 powers, unknown information of DPs and variable home SCs) requires you to know what your opponent wants. In normal diplomacy, England and Austria can have a perfectly civil relationship without really interacting in a meaningful, tactical way. In this version that is not the case. They interact on day 1. More over, the England player may ask for help from Austria in a way that is detrimental to Austria's interests without even being aware of it thus souring the relationship. (For example, asking for HEW in exchange for helping him into UP may look perfectly reasonable for the brit but may appear to be irrational or a trap to the austrian).

That's one of the things I like about this variant. It seems to be enormously skill testing relative to other variants without mangling the rules.

On a separate note, have the architects reached a decision on a "final" rule for deciding the third home SC for the 2 SC powers? I know there were some discussions being bandied about (possibly making the decision to build the trigger for turning it into a home SC?)

[Reply]

IIRC, there was a game in which I played & Baron GM'd, where a 2-sc player was eliminated in the very 1st year or 2nd year.  With all due respect, that is virtually impossible to do w/a larger power.   It is certainly impossible w/England.
 
England's struggles (and Austria's?) to date are merely due to a small statistical sample size.  And I doubt any player who is as experienced in this variant as Frank, has ever played England. 
 
Does anyone seriously maintain that they would rather have 1 of the 2-sc powers, than England or Austria?

--- On Mon, 6/8/09, Jorge Saralegui <jmsaralegui(at)gmail.com ([email]jmsaralegui(at)gmail.com[/email])> wrote:

[quote:bd4b243d7c]
From: Jorge Saralegui <jmsaralegui(at)gmail.com ([email]jmsaralegui(at)gmail.com[/email])>
Subject: Re: Ambition & Empire 090205 / DC240: Players & Powers
To: "Warren Ball" <warren_k_ball(at)yahoo.com ([email]warren_k_ball(at)yahoo.com[/email])>

Date: Monday, June 8, 2009, 1:17 PM


To jump into this conversation from the extremely objective perspective of little Austria, the performances of the 2-SC powers vs that of the 3-SC powers indicates that the former need no help at all.  If you factor in Britain's lousy performance and Audtria's non-domination in past games, you could say that at this point in its testing, A&E looks as balanced as possible.

Jorge

On Mon, Jun 8, 2009 at 9:35 AM, Warren Ball <warren_k_ball(at)yahoo.com> wrote:
[quote:bd4b243d7c] It has been many years since I played the game.  IIRC, there was a "half strength" naval move in it.
 
It seemed to me that perhaps helping out the 2 SC powers might take the route of "half strength" SC's.  That is, 2 specific sc's would both have to be in the countries possession for him to build 1 unit.
 
--- On Mon, 6/8/09, Jeff Hall <hall.jeff(at)gmail.com> wrote:


[quote:bd4b243d7c]
From: Jeff Hall <hall.jeff(at)gmail.com>

Subject: Re: Ambition & Empire 090205 / DC240: Players & Powers
To: "Warren Ball" <warren_k_ball(at)yahoo.com>

Cc: nathanbalbright(at)yahoo.com, davidchegould(at)bigpond.com, David.Gould(at)aph.gov.au, kelly058(at)verizon.net, frankmartin(at)surewest.net, mjn82(at)yahoo.com, jmsaralegui(at)gmail.com, smileyrob68(at)gmail.com, MDemagogue(at)gmail.com, isaac.zinner(at)gmail.com, congressofvienna1814(at)yahoo.com, jeffreykase(at)yahoo.com, VonPowell(at)aol.com, "Chris Dziedzic" <dipping_chris(at)yahoo.com>, toosauto(at)gmail.com, dc240(at)diplomaticcorp.com, stevelytton(at)hotmail.com, c.p.mcinerney(at)gmail.com, karsten.nitsch(at)gmx.de, former.trout(at)gmail.com, Sturmkraehe(at)comcast.net
Date: Monday, June 8, 2009, 11:23 AM

I would agree... More than most, this variant (with 10 powers, unknown information of DPs and variable home SCs) requires you to know what your opponent wants. In normal diplomacy, England and Austria can have a perfectly civil relationship without really interacting in a meaningful, tactical way. In this version that is not the case. They interact on day 1. More over, the England player may ask for help from Austria in a way that is detrimental to Austria's interests without even being aware of it thus souring the relationship. (For example, asking for HEW in exchange for helping him into UP may look perfectly reasonable for the brit but may appear to be irrational or a trap to the austrian).

That's one of the things I like about this variant. It seems to be enormously skill testing relative to other variants without mangling the rules.

On a separate note, have the architects reached a decision on a "final" rule for deciding the third home SC for the 2 SC powers? I know there were some discussions being bandied about (possibly making the decision to build the trigger for turning it into a home SC?)

[Reply]

[Reply]