Normal 0 false false false MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 <![endif]--> <![endif]--> st1\:*{behavior:url(#ieooui) } <![endif]--> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language:#0400; mso-fareast-language:#0400; mso-bidi-language:#0400;} <![endif]-->
Well, I think we’ve gotten just about all the scattered player EoGs that are going to roll in, especially with Lytton and Trout moving into new phases with life (or at least with DC). So, now it’s the GM's turn to share reflections.
I said this in my end of game announcement, but it bears repeating: the seven of you made this game easy to GM. There were a few scattered NMRs, it is true; however, for the most part, I could rely on having all orders in my inbox on time. Thank you for you dedication and your high level of play.
This game has led me to a hypothesis, and I can argue both sides.
H0: while amusing and distracting, seismic rules don’t really change the game.
The logic is Nathan Bedford Forrest’s: “I got there firstest with the mostest men.†It seems to me that Diplomacy follows the same principle, and in DC 211, the wisdom still applied. Once they established their alliance, EF always pointed eastward with concentrated force, while the AR alliance – which at one point outnumbered the EF – had scattered eastern remnants that did not arrive at the front until too late. Occasionally, I would squint at the board and say, “if I transfer the pieces onto a standard board, is this position really any different?†Generally, the answer was: not too much.
A couple of you stated or inferred that Turkey was able to slow his demise with his seismics (1906? Really?). I have myself mused whether the existence of seismic rules sped or slowed the erosion of AR territory. It’s hard to tell. While I suspect there was no great change, I would guess things were slower (though, to be fair, the game would likely have ended in a draw without the Seismics, and you cannot get much slower than that).
There were no rogue units behind enemy lines in this game (though that French fleet in Ionian likely was about to become one). And inversely, there was some ferocious amassing of force both in Berlin and Rome. Failed 5:5 attacks! Predictable for the variant, I suppose, but it always staggered my imagination. So, in this one-game sample size, the seismic rules appear to have favored a plodding and methodical crushing advance. But maybe that was just Matt’s style of play permeating the board… or the even balance of alliances. (Then again, maybe players divided evenly in fear of being on the wrong side of a seismics power imbalance).
On the other side of the argument, I think it is clear that the seismic rules potently influenced the game. In a standard game, this game would have, should have, and most certainly in some parallel universe did end with a four-way draw astraddle the StP-Tunis stalemate line. But shifting borders meant that the position could not actually stalemate.
Plus, I did observe some nice streamlining strategies using seismics. In Fall 1901, a lot of alliances used seismics to create safe zones (splitting Brest from the Channel; Belgium from the North Sea; and Trieste from the Adriatic). Also, for awhile, Mike and Steve tried to coordinate seismics one front at a time in order to provide a push. I was surprised not to see more of that. (Steve’s hope to encircle an AR sanctuary had less success).
I never did see anybody submit a mischief seismic (for example, what if Russia had tried “Iri/NAt split; MAt/Lvp join� Surely that could have created trouble between EF? I’m thinking to make seismics anonymous in my next game in order to promote more mischief). Nobody tried to isolate a territory and reconnect it (for example, landing a fleet in Syria, isolating it in OUT, and then reattaching it to MAt). And I didn’t see EF try to help out Turkey via seismics in exchange for his ongoing seismics.
Still, in the end, I believe the human and strategic elements of the game far outweighed the cute rules modifications. It’s certainly hard to ferret out the effects of the one from the other. And those elements were? In my opinion:
(1) The Austrian stab of Italy. I found it interesting that Mike was unabashed about his stab of Greg, because (along with #2), I think this is where he lost the game (though to be fair, it could also have produced a win… one must gamble if one wants victory). Without the stab, outnumbered in troops and seismics, EF loses. Games often boil down to major gambles like this. I’m sure both Mike and Greg are sorry that this had to be the gamble.
(2) Miscommunications and Steve. Specifically, there was the German misorder in S1905 that eliminated the Kaiser from the game. It’s all the difference between HOL and HEL. But as the order clearly said HEL, there was nothing I could do. Also, there was the Abbott and Costello routine whereby Steve attacked Denmark and Mike supported him to hold. It cost them Berlin and arguably the game. Steve might have fared very well in this game but for these two costly blunders, but we’ll never know.
(3) No navies. There were a few decisions in this game that confused me. For instance, on the last seismic, why didn’t Matt order “Gre/Tri split; Ser/Ion joinâ€? It would have carved Gre/Bul/Con off from the rest of Austria’s territory and made easy, easy pickings. The position around GoL was secure enough to allow for it. For that matter, somewhere along the line, I thought Mike should connect Tus/Spa, close the strait, and (at least termporarily) lock those French fleets in Tys/GoL. Russia’s S1906 Seismic also baffled me. I know Steve was trying to protect against “StP/Nwy split; Swe/Bar join†(which would’ve created a strait that funneled English fleets into Barents). The better move was “StP/Swe split; Fin/Nwy joinâ€, which provides Russian counterpressure on Norway and forces England to re-open the road to Barents before making progress.
But I digress. My point was going to be about the games second biggest strategic decision (next to Mike’s stab of Greg). I’m talking about Steve’s decision in W1906 to build an army in Moscow instead of a fleet. Trout had just connected Moscow to GoB (which I thought was also a mistake), and Steve now had the chance to build a fleet in Moscow to help counteract that pesky English fleet locked in GoB/Bal. For the next two game years, that English fleet would operate alone in those chilly waters unhampered by Russia and unaided by other English fleets. Worse, after W1906 and for the rest of the game, Russia got absolutely pounded by England’s fleets. Difference maker? Yeah. Navies: they’re a good thing.
Matt’s EoG leads me to ponder more openly: does Seismic Dip augment the influence of fleets? Armies can never float on water, but fleets can always go to land – provided that the land has a coast. But with so many borders, I suspect it is easier to connect land to water than to keep it high and dry and coast-less. In Standard Dip, fleets are restricted by the existing coastline and various bottlenecks, but Seismic Dip unbinds the fleets. Regardless of whether fleets are more powerful in the variant, the EF fleet strategy was a master stroke in this game.
(4) Guile. As is common in Dip, one ‘weak’ player creates a dynamic. Guile’s opening year featured unconventional moves and unproductive seismics resulting in no builds. He became a target (much like me in my first ever game of Diplomacy when I let Italy convince me that Greece was an Italian center in 1901 and not Austrian… I died quickly). When a player operates like this, neighbors are left with two courses of action. The more common is what Trout and Matt did – gobble up the centers for oenself. The less common is what Steve did in modified form, and it is a course I prefer to advocate (even if I don’t always do it): take the newbie under your wing. First of all, it tends to lead to strong alliances with good future prospects for stabbing (because they don’t know not to trust me, in spite of that long rusty blood-encrusted dagger in my hand); I have a near-solo and a shared board top to show for this strategy. Second, at least as importantly, it gives the new player a positive experience of the game and teaches them a hell of a lot about how to play the game. And we do want people to come back. So, there’s a little moralizing for you… though it’s easy to argue that Matt and Trout won this game because they abused the German position, and it’s certainly hard to argue with success.
Okay. On to a couple closing thoughts. There were some brilliant seismics. No doubt Trout’s use of Rule 8 to switch his fleet from the Skagerrak coast of Sweden to the Baltic coast was a total and devastating triumph. A++. I also liked Greg’s decision (while in NAf) to connect NAf to Portugal, thus delaying the inevitable French ouster. I didn’t see that one coming. There were many other good moves, but those are the ones that come to mind.
I am not ready to give up on isthmus rules yet, but they appeared to confuse. Most often, they were simply overlooked, and straits were created when they were not intended (or vice versa). I will have to work harder on educating players about isthmus options in the next game, because I think the game is better with them than without.
I look forward to GMing all of you again in another game of seismic. I really enjoyed this one.
Adam
