Hi guys,

now it's time for the our game's closing chapter, the end-of-game reports. I always find these fascinating reads. You might want to review the game by opening the attached Realpolitik save file or the adjucation slideshow on DC264's game page.

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 (dc264(at)diplomaticcorp.com ([email]dc264(at)diplomaticcorp.com[/email])) in the header.

I'm also sending this EOG report to those who'll be playing in my upcoming 1648 game. I dare say learning what the 1648 veterans have to say will prove useful.

[u:bd62be8dfc]Supply Centre Chart[/u:bd62be8dfc]
[u:bd62be8dfc][/u:bd62be8dfc]
[u:bd62be8dfc][/u:bd62be8dfc]
[u:bd62be8dfc][/u:bd62be8dfc]
[u:bd62be8dfc]AUSTRIA: Jorge Saralegui[/u:bd62be8dfc]

I found 1648 to be a fantastic game, much like A&E but with an improved DP system and more evenly matched powers. Charles did a fantastic job not just designing it, but also administering it. His enthusiasm made the game a lot more fun for me, and I felt some of the game’s energy ebb when he went on his Scottish bike trip!


Austria was one of the least wanted powers when players declared their preferences, doubtless because of its central location. I chose it first because I enjoy the enhanced opportunity for diplomacy that a centrally located power has, and because I wanted to see if I could take advantage of the HRE build rule in some way. As it turned out, the HRE builds didn’t make much of a difference to my success, but my focus on diplomacy determined my entire game.


Since I wanted to move fast into the HRE neutrals, my first order of business was securing my eastern flank. When Russia proposed a triple alliance with me and Poland, I quickly accepted, then initiated a series of negotiations with Turkey that divided all of the neutrals east of Austria among the other three. For them, the benefit was obvious: quick, easy growth. And Austria gained a buffer in the peaceful Balkans, where neither Poland nor Turkey were strong enough to threaten my border.


The immediate rival to Austrian growth in the HRE is France, and it was clear that he had an arrangement with Spain that could cost me northern Italy. Those two pairing up was my biggest nightmare. So the first thing I did was offer Turkey support in taking Naples, while supporting an unsuspecting France into Lorraine, where the Spanish army had moved. By the end of the first year, Spain was pushed back into his corner and no longer a factor in the game.


France and I were friendly as a result of my surprise support for him in Lorraine, but when he persisted in trying to conquer England, I had to consider what France with a corner position would mean as a threat. So I took Lorraine from him and beat him to his other target – Switzerland – in the spring. That was the end of France threatening England, or anyone else. Thanks in part to its refusal to engage in meaningful diplomacy with anyone, France became the only power to be eliminated.


Those two quick thrusts – against Spain in fall 1649 and France in spring of 1650 – were my only offensive action for years. After that I settled into supporting Denmark and Poland against Sweden, and giving England Flanders – keeping the north in flux – while steadily picking up neutrals. My rise didn’t stand out, however, because Turkey was growing almost even with me, and Poland and Russia weren’t far behind.


The game shifted in the fall of 1650 when Russia convinced Turkey to stab Poland, with his own stab to follow. This doomed Turkey’s prospects, since from the first his position was completely dependent on Russian good will. I quit cooperating with Turkey and committed to supporting Poland, who was my buffer as well as my ally. Russia invaded Poland in 1651, but decided to make a favorable peace and stab Turkey instead, rather than slog against a Poland supported by Austria.


Once Russia stabbed Turkey in 1652 Poland was secure, so I renewed relations with Turkey and offered to support him against Spain, Russia and Poland, all of whom intended to reduce him to vassal status or worse. That same year I moved against France again, who had made gains against me in Italy while being stabbed by Spain. At year’s end I was still in the lead, with Russia one center behind. France was on life support, Spain was in its game-long plateau, and Turkey under pressure from a rebounding Poland (plus Russia). In the north Sweden was stagnant, England rising, Denmark in trouble.


At this point I was at 11, with 7 to go. I knew that I could keep inching closer to 18 as long as Russia stayed close, but that I would only have one shot to really get close to the magic number. In the spring of 1653 I hit France and the northern neutrals, as well as filling a Danish neutral in which he couldn’t build, but from where I could defend him against a rising England. I took four neutrals, and considered the obvious: a continental coalition to stop Austria from gaining official dominance. To my surprise, no one tried to stop me, and Spain actually contributed by trying to take France’s last outpost, making me the beneficiary.


So I was at five with two to go, one of which – Naples – was undefended and in the bag. Turkey offered to push me over the top rather than trust Russia’s dubious assurances, but the continued disarray of the northern powers made the offer unnecessary. I took Flanders from England in the spring, Poland joined Turkey in attacking Russia (who was in the process of stabbing him!), and the game was over.


The only way that Austria could win in this manner was by keeping the central neutrals in play while picking them off little by little. What made this easier than I had expected was England’s understandably slow rise, Denmark’s game-long inability to bounce back from Sweden’s first-year stab, Sweden’s erratic follow-up to the stab, and Russia’s stab of Poland. This allowed me to genuinely help England, Poland, Denmark and Turkey almost the entire game, and occasionally receive some useful help in return. So despite focusing on only one enemy throughout - France - I had no competition for almost every center I captured. It would have taken a concerted effort from the eastern powers to stop me, but Russia’s stabs, while propelling him to clear runner-up status, made such a coalition impossible to assemble.


[u:bd62be8dfc]DENMARK-NORWAY: Michael Thompson[/u:bd62be8dfc]

Denmark-Norway's game revolved almost completely around its relationship with Sweden, as I suspect it will in all games in this variant.

I'm always suspicious of powers with a good defensive position in any variant, and I felt that, on examining the map, taking out England served me best in the early stages of the game, providing I could make peace with Sweden and enlist another power to attack England. Enter France, who seemed equally keen to wipe out the English monarchy. Sweden was making friendly noises, and England was nervous, particularly about the North Sea. We eventually agreed to leave it open in Spring (although I suspect we both wanted to break this agreement) - I moved my fleet in Norway to the north, selling this as anti-Russian, but all the while planning to grab Scotland from England with Diplomatic Point help from France.

However, the "get England" plan got buggered up by Sweden stabbing me in the fall. I was less than happy with Sweden's opening moves, but he played it perfectly, claiming a map misreading, and sending lots of emails reassuring me about his intentions. I was actually caught in two minds - pull back both fleets to cover my home centres, or just pile into England. I went for a half way house of continuing the attack on England through taking Scotland, but covering Copenhagen. This at least saved me from complete annihilation at an early stage, as Sweden did indeed stab for both home centres, but overall it severely handicapped me for the rest of the game.

Realising the get England plan was now a distraction, I secretly made peace with England (but didn't tell France of this, naturally) to focus on Sweden. By "focus", this meant "discuss stuff a lot, not come to an agreement, and dally back and forth for the rest of the game". At one point I gained a minor moral victory, when we agreed to swap centres, but I proceeded to ignore said agreement in order to gain position and exact some measure of revenge, although I can't help wondering if going along with the agreement might have been in my best interest. Even a change of Swedish player didn't change the antagonism between our two countries. I was also always aware that by not taking out England, there was a risk he'd come back and attack me, and this risk grew as the game progressed, with France being under pressure from Spain and Austria. England attacked me

All the while I was being helped by Austria (looking back, indirectly, through DP support for a variety of moves), whose help most probably kept me in the game - and he proved a robust ally. I was also helping Austria gain centres during this time, through DP and direct support for his gains.

In all honesty, most of the other powers were fairly peripheral to the Danish campaign.

Ultimately, Austria won the game...part of me thinks this was down to the other powers focussing too long on their local disputes before realising Jorge was in an overwhelmingly powerful position. A "stop Austria" grand alliance was attempted, but got scuppered by word of (a) Turkey throwing the game to Austria - a kingmaking scenario I think is bad form and (b) a NMR. However, I think Jorge played the game very well and very subtly, choosing his alliances well (e.g. with me, where I was grateful for any ally) and skillfuly using these alliances to further his goals. Congratulations to Jorge on a game very well played.

A few comments on the variant:

It's clearly a well designed, well thought out, and detailed variant, and credit to Charles for this. The regular updates on the evolution of the variant demonstrate how issues are being addressed rather than ignored.

I love the DP system, although clearly, it becomes less of a factor as the game progresses into the mid game.

Lots of people will claim Austria is too powerful in the game, given his HRE rights in the early game. However, I disagree with this - I don't think the HRE rights is that much of a bonus, and ultimately, Austria is a central power, with lots of potential enemies. Central powers in other variants tend to do really well, or really badly in my experience. I do think the Denmark/Sweden axis needs some careful thought. Whilst no doubt historically accurate, I feel the games of both powers will be fundamentally defined by how good their relationship is with each other. I struggle to see a way in which both can be powerful, other than through a very fortuitous set of circumstances. I think it's much easier for Sweden to ally with Russia and focus on Denmark than vice versa, and the naval spaces between Denmark and Sweden are fraught with danger - I felt like there was a couple of "black sea" type spaces between us.

England would be the other power I'd comment on - I feel she's very weak, albeit with a good defensive position. Starting with two units, England will in most cases have to rely on the pity/clemency of France, Spain and Denmark to make progress in the game.

And a final thanks to all the players, and to the GM for making the game most enjoyable!

[u:bd62be8dfc][/u:bd62be8dfc]
[u:bd62be8dfc]ENGLAND: Chris McInerney[/u:bd62be8dfc]

I was very excited by the prospect of giving this variant a spin: the time period is one I find very interesting, and to see it represented in a variant in the style of Baron Powell's & Jeff Case's Ambition & Empire was too good an opportunity to pass up. Add to that a very thoughtfully designed map that held the promise of distinctly different dynamics, especially in the east, and I was very excited indeed.

I'll admit my excitement took a hit when I drew England; it was fourth or fifth on my preference list, but the ones I had ahead of it turned out to be popular choices, so -- well, that's the luck of the draw. In terms of what happened in the game at the broadest level, I'd say that, through a combination of my own bad decisions and some circumstances beyond my control, there was never a good opportunity for me to make a real impact on the course of events. Success for England, as I believe Charles said, will likely depend on a long game; it will likely never see the kind of gaudy starts that many of the other powers can post, and its acquisition of centers will require a more deliberate pace and patient diplomacy. I wondered at times--and still wonder--if the disparity between England and the highest-growth-potential powers isn't too great, but what constitutes 'too great' is ultimately the game designer's judgment call, and it'll take a much larger number of games before there's enough evidence to decide either way.

As for my bad decisions -- well, the first one's just a stupid error. I failed to notice that, unlike other variants, in 1648 the Channel borders both London and England's western supply center; I would not have been so cavalier about trusting France to keep his word about keeping out of the Channel had I recognized that. I'd go so far as to say that moving to the Channel, at least as part of a pre-arranged bounce, is simply a must for any English player. There would have to be an exceptional amount of trust between him and the French player to make the risk worth taking. That mistake, however, merely compounded a more generally incompetently-played first year: my diplomacy with Denmark and France was a bust, and I opened so passively that I left myself no options other than desperate self-defense for the fall. Ceding Scotland to Denmark, I adopted a posture of trying to hold my home centers at all costs.

That I was ultimately able to do so, and indeed unite the British Isles, was a minor victory, and one that was enabled almost entirely by forces I neither controlled nor did much to bring into being. First, there's the traditional English advantage in Diplomacy: it takes a concerted effort to knock out England early on, just in virtue of its position, and it very rarely provides a good return on the investment for hostile neighbors. Next, Austria--who was, from what I saw, the most active diplomat on the board by a mile--was pressing west relentlessly, and France failed to keep him at bay. All I had to do was hold my own as the French disbands started mounting. I would've been happy, incidentally, to consider a detente with France at that point, as it was clear even then that Austria would need restraining. But despite Spain's best efforts, France & I just didn't quite get along, for whatever reason, and that was the end of that.

Last, Sweden dutifully stabbed Denmark almost immediately, giving me some breathing room on my eastern flank. I was happy to let Denmark keep Scotland for a few seasons while I dealt with my France problem, but it was becoming clear, given the quick disappearance of neutrals in the West and the seemingly irresistible growth of Austria, that any expansion would have to come at Denmark's expense. I began talks with Sweden, which was still manned by Wayne Bailey at that point, to try to cooperate in taking out Denmark, but in the few seasons before he left the game, the opportunity never quite presented itself. (I'll also admit to losing focus during the period of finding a Swedish replacement and the somewhat irregular deadline schedule during Charles' trip.)

Meanwhile, as I said, Austria was growing apace. At first I wasn't too worried about it, since it seemed he'd be facing off against Turkey & Russia -- not good odds for him, whatever his growth rate in the west. When Russia stabbed Turkey, however (I assume on the notion that he could outrun Austria to the finish line), it was clear that Austria's chances improved considerably, and the question quickly became one of whether any kind of coalition might form that was willing and able to stop him.

Toward the end, there was a halting, somewhat slapdash effort among the lot of us to coordinate -- and effort spoiled, I'm ashamed to say, by my own NMR. Boy, that stings. I saw Charles' reminder email the morning of the deadline, put it on my mental to-do list, and then, well, stuff happens. It's certainly possible that, had we held off Jorge that turn, we might have put together a more potent opposition the next season; my stupid mistake rendered the question moot. That just sucks.

So a sadly fitting end to an uneven effort from me -- it turned out to be one of those games you'd rather forget. Oh well.

[u:bd62be8dfc]A word about the variant:[/u:bd62be8dfc] though I'd certainly give it another whirl in the future, I do wonder if it's one to which I'd return with any regularity. The pace of the game seems much, much quicker than the variants I prefer --- whether that's a plus or minus depends on what you want from a game, and isn't a knock against 1648. I do worry about the overall balance of the game, too, but as I said above with respect to England's situation, that worry's going to be addressed only in the context of a much larger set of iterations than we have available, and in any case also depends a great deal on what one is looking for. And, saving the most minor quibble for last, while I appreciate Charles' exquisite attention to historical detail, I'd rather see a more substantial sop given to playability when it comes to place-names -- there are a few examples, but the one that springs to mind is the space I normally think of as Picardy being called Normandy. It's an eminently justifiable change, but it caused me more than a little confusion when it was suggested that I order F Eng - Nor at one point, when I couldn't figure at all what good a move to the North Sea would do. Half-a-confused-hour later, it finally dawned on me. Like I said, a minor thing -- but still.

Anyway, thanks (and apologies!) to my fellow players, and my thanks to Charles for both the invitation to participate, and for his attentive GMing through some less-than-ideal circumstances. Cheers, and see you all around.

[u:bd62be8dfc]FRANCE: Nathan Albright[/u:bd62be8dfc]
[u:bd62be8dfc][/u:bd62be8dfc]
At the beginning of the game, I was pretty excited about the possibilities of the French position and the prospect of working with Spain and Austria to expand all three nations, but it never really worked out that way. Once Denmark failed to work in coordination against England and Austria stabbed me, even survivl proved beyond me. I have to give credit to Jorge for managing to hoodwink most of Europe to be allies in their own domination, but at the same time I wish we could have provided him with a worthy challenge.

[u:bd62be8dfc]POLAND-LITHUANIA: Roger Leroux [/u:bd62be8dfc]

I would like to begin my end of game statement by thanking Charles for running and refereeing this game. He has been patient and fair in his adjudications.

I am an infrequent Diplomacy player, but I became interested in 1648 originally from Charles' postings on CSW, but contacted him through BGG. Before taking on the helm of Poland in this game, I last played once in 2007 and before that 4 games in a gunboat tournament in 2004.

Diplomacy is game that is beautifully elegant in its inception, but as I wrote in my review on BGG - http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/431197 - I'm not necessarily good at playing it; 1648 with its independent powers and diplomacy points is an excellent variant. I really enjoyed it and think it made the game very intriguing.

At the beginning of the game, Russia proposed a tri-partite alliance with Poland and Austria, and all went according to plan in the early going. The intent was for the Russians to go south against Turkey and the Poles north towards Sweden, and Austria, as quickly became clear, had perhaps the best options of all with the entire east to work in. Turkey and I made a deal around Moldovia and Transylvania, and that was roughly when things went sideways for me.

Turkey and I had agreed to not enter Moldvia and that I would leave Transylvania and that he would leave Wallachia to create a demilitarized zone, but Russia persuaded him to stab me and take Transylvania. In fairness, I had no plan to withdraw from Transylvania (I had ordered a bounce into Moldovia), but Russia supported Turkey into Transylvania. That allowed Russia to then stab me in turn and take the Polish home centres in the north.

I negotiated with Russia to get his support against Turkey in exchange for peaceful surrender of my northern centres and keeping Cracow, which Russia readily helped me with. However, the stab essentially left me unable to do anything meaningful against Austria (or any other foes for that matter). Meanwhile, Austria was left unfettered in the east, and because of the Turks success against Spain, Austria was easily able to continue his growth at the expense of Spain and France.

Furthermore, because Austria had kept all her promises to Poland, I did not feel any reason for belligerence. The only centre I had of any threat to Austria was Brandenburg, but the centre was unsupported by any of my units. Austria allowed me to keep it, and Sweden and Denmark were too involved in their own conflict to take it from me either. Meanwhile, Russia didn't press the advantage he had over me, and made no headway against Sweden, and so Austria was essentially left unfettered to go for the solo win. '

I could have pressed to try and delay Austria's victory, but there was no agreement among the remaining powers on a concrete plan. Consequently, I decided to try and reclaim Polish lost territory instead of making what would have been a futile attempt. Austria was well placed and was too well defended and my units too scattered for me to have succeeded in any event.

Congratulations to Jorge for his excellent play and thank you Charles for a delightful variant.

[u:bd62be8dfc]RUSSIA: Mikael Johansson [/u:bd62be8dfc]

First of all, I'd like to thank Charles for the opportunity to play; very nice map, and with him doing such a kick-ass job as a GM, then you have the recipe for a great game. Also, I'd like to thank my opponents, I think this table in general was a cut above average in terms of difficulty, which meant I had to work harder on the diplomatic side of things. Always a big plus in my book!


Now then, for how things played out.


[u:bd62be8dfc]Initial analysis:[/u:bd62be8dfc]


Knowing a few of the players, I pinned Jorge as probably the best of the known, and the he would be in the final running. However, his central position should keep him vulnurable enough to keep him in check. I then had to deal with the trio next to me.


[u:bd62be8dfc]Early diplomacy:[/u:bd62be8dfc]


I got off to a great start with everyone wanting to be friendly - that's a first! This made it possible for me to play low-profile (which I further emphased by taking only a single build in 01). I stalled, and stalled and stalled on whom to attack. In the end, I facilitated a war between Ottomans and Poland, which put Poland in my lap. Then, I moved into his land, and Roger was of course quite alarmed. However, I then managed to strike a deal with him; I would help him take Ottomans centers in return for his homeland. Roger complied, and so the offense was turned against Ottomans...


[u:bd62be8dfc]Mid-game:[/u:bd62be8dfc]


Dirk was furious. To say the least. My stab on him (which it was), caused quite a debate. My decision was based on having Roger doing the dirty work in the Balkans, me outflanking Ottomans and then getting some units going to strike Sweden in his exposed back (since he was quite busy fighting Denmark). That worked two thirds of the way. I hadn't counted on Dirk reversing everything (despite my suggestion for peace, which I think was okay, would have left him as my pawn and at 3 centers). He would have none of it and vowed to destroy me or die trying. - Hindsgiht: I should have reversed again here, helping Dirk reclaim a fraction of the Balkans (like only getting Bel back) and then swung vs Austria. I'm not sure Dirk would have accepted that though.


[u:bd62be8dfc]End-Game:[/u:bd62be8dfc]


Jorge steamed on and on and on...to the point where I realised that he was about to solo. I acted one season too late though, not getting into position fast enough. We got another year to play with, and then, when we had a plan that had a very very slim chance of succeding, England made a crucial Nmr AND Roger supported Austria. That really nailed it, and the game was effectively over.


So, should I have played this differently? The answer is yes in some ways, as noted above. In general though, I'm quite comfortable with my performance, not stellar, but okay at least.


Now if you'll excuse me, I have to find a way to defeat Jorge in the dci...


(if anyone wants any clarifications, then fire away and I'll reply asap on my line of thinking)


Cheers! Untill next time!


[u:bd62be8dfc]SPAIN: Matt Kremer[/u:bd62be8dfc]

Well this game was definitely an interesting one for me as it was the first I played with the diplomacy points system; I definitely like the concept but I also think I need some practice at it. Not that I don't think I played my own DPs well, but I don't I did enough negotiation to attempt to swing other people's DPs my way.

As for how this game went for me, I of course immediately recognized the potential conflict with France and sought to avoid it; I offered Nathan friendship and Flanders in return for supporting my army south, and he accepted. I recognized that, with a friendly France, I really had no need to seek conflict with anyone and could stack up on quite a few neutrals, gaining in size without gaining enemies. The only other piece
of the puzzle was Turkey, and this piece unfortunately didn't fit. Dirk and I had good negotiations during the opening turn but apparently he had better negotiations with Russia and Austria, breaking our Ionian DMZ straight off and moving to Egypt.

The strength of Spain's starting position is also it's weakness; it's spread could allow it to expand quickly, but Naples and Flanders are also vulnerable, and Turkey took Naples the first year since I had no
way to defend it. That ruined any designs I had on Italy, and the western Med quickly locked up.

All this time Austria was continuing to push west, and France, who was also fighting England, was losing ground. Thus I sided with England since he was so small and posed no threat, and attacked France myself, wanting to pick up some of the pieces for myself so they didn't fall to Austria. Unfortunately, this didn't really work. I tried to make peace with France but he would have none of it, and that was pretty much all she wrote as Austria by then had everything he needed.

Congrats to Jorge, he absolutely deserved it even if he received a little help at the end that, at least in my opinion, wasn't very justified.

Also, a couple thoughts on the design that I wanted to note: I found that I would have preferred NOT to have Flanders as a starting center if Spain can't build there. It's basically an outpost that makes Spain
look more powerful than it actually is while offering basically no opportunity for expansion. I also think it makes conflict with France even more likely as that is basically the only way it can combine with other Spanish units (France and I took a lot of negotiation to avoid this, and it still didn't work). I know that Flanders was historically populated by the Spanish, but for the purposes of this game I would either say let Spain build there or don't have it be Spanish at all.

[u:bd62be8dfc]SWEDEN: Harvey Morris[/u:bd62be8dfc]


GM Note: Harvey, having only joined as a replacement towards the end of the game, thought he'd have little to contribute to this EOG report. I'm sorry Harvey came into the game when most players were negotiating far less than had been the case at the start of the game.

[u:bd62be8dfc]TURKEY: Dirk Knemeyer[/u:bd62be8dfc]
[u:bd62be8dfc][/u:bd62be8dfc]
This was my first Diplomacy game in more than 10 years, and previously my experience consisted of one or possibly two incomplete games. So I entered into this game as the - or at least one of the - n00b(s). I
enjoyed playing enough to start taking a greater interest in Diplomacy, and the more time I spent looking at other games and variants, the more I felt that I really lucked into playing a pretty special variant and game with an outstanding GM.

Truth be told I didn't really have a strategy as Turkey. I was looking to make one or two very close allies and then work in a coordinated way with them against others. My first alliance was with Russia and I considered that my "core alliance" that I hoped to take to the end of the game; my second alliance was with Austria which I also treated as trusted and long-term, but it was unclear to me how long that would be able to last given our respective geographies. Despite it not being my core alliance I really enjoyed interacting with Jorge and so we were coordinating very closely during the first few turns. This worked to
our mutual benefit, as we quickly jumped out to be two of the early leaders.

The game changed for me when Russia approached me about stabbing Poland. Austria had brokered a deal that kept the Balkans split equally between Russia, Poland and I at the start of the game. I was
unhappy about it from the first, wanting Poland out of the region and desiring centers that Russia had been willing to give me in private negotiations. Thus when Russia approached me about taking Transylvania
from Poland I jumped at the chance. He wanted to wait and launch his attack on Poland until the NEXT turn after I stabbed first - this should have been a red flag and caused me to act with more caution.
But I followed through with the stab and set a chain of events into motion that contributed to Austria's victory.

Austria reacted very badly to the stab on Poland. Because he and I had been so diplomatically close, I assumed he would be glad that I was shoring up the Balkans and reducing some risk. To the contrary, he was very unhappy and informed me that it would be the beginning of the end for me. I was cocky given my belief in Russia's friendship and told him to try his best but he would fail. The next two seasons were the most fun of the game for me, as I started to really get into the tactical puzzling of Diplomacy moves and - given how outgunned I was with Poland bearing down on me with Austria's help - made the correct
tactical guesses to hold them both at bay. This was really challenging to work on and then rewarding to have some success with.

It all turned around when Russia stabbed me on the next turn. Being a newbie, I was naive enough to think there was no way he could stab me, because together we would be able to get a certain draw. The desire for soloing was something I was not aware of when the game started; I assumed people would seek out Draws and be contented with them as well. At that point, given my situation, I knew my chance to share in a draw in this game was over. Russia's stab broke my defensive bulwark and would allow the Austrian/Polish advance to succeed. What to do?!

I felt strongly that, without my holding back Austria, he would be able to solo. So I tried to work something out with Russia that would get him to back off. I felt his demands were unreasonable and left me almost certain to be eliminated. I did not want to be eliminated in my first game. So I gave him an ultimatum: either he back off and we reset the situation and I continue to oppose Austria for the good of everyone, or if he continues with his attack in any capacity I would personally work to ensure Austria won. He thought I was an irrational bastard to make such a suggestion and told me to toss off. I gave him one final message: "Mark this season, because this is the season you gave Austria his solo!"

And, yea verily, it came to pass. Certainly, Jorge's play was exceptional and I think he could have soloed even if Russia had taken my deal and I had fought Austria to the bitter end. His victory was well-earned. But it would have taken MUCH longer and at least been in doubt if I could have remained strong enough to oppose him.

The most fun for me in the game was actually after I made my new deal with Jorge, agreeing to assist his efforts in exchange for a guarantee that he would help me survive until the end. As it came down to the
last couple of turns he was generous enough to include me in his strategic thinking and even asked for my opinion and suggestions. This again let me really sink my teeth into the map and puzzle through the
tactical problems which really helped me fall in love with the game. I really learned a lot in the process. Another thing I learned from Jorge is that being honest pays major dividends. From the beginning of the game, Jorge was honest with me: when we were working together, and then when he was irritated and intended to bring Poland down on me. I always knew where I stood. Ultimately that was why I "went with" him as opposed to take a survival deal with Russia: I trusted Jorge and I did not trust Mikael. It was really that simple. In retrospect it certainly seems like the right deal, as I ended up not only surviving but being ahead of some other surviving players.

I hope that the lessons learned sink in, and I hope that my future results improve from mere Survival to Draws and perhaps even Solos as well. This game was a lot of fun and I'm sorry it is over.

[u:bd62be8dfc]GM: Charles Féaux de la Croix[/u:bd62be8dfc]
[u:bd62be8dfc][/u:bd62be8dfc]
The very first playtest of a game always is something of an adventure. While I made every effort to present players with as carefully designed a variant as I was able to, the proof in the pudding lay in how matters would play out. I'm glad to say that other than regarding one issue I hadn't foreseen (more of that later), 1648's gameplay and balance has conformed to my own design-stage analysis. Though final conclusions can of course only be drawn once we have a statistically significant sample of games.

Now, having kept track of all player correspondence forwarded to me, I assembled two charts indicating the number of mails each player sent others, in total 1801 individual mails (though these numbers are somewhat skewed by no all players being as mindful of CCing me. Spain's overall number, in particular, would have been a good deal higher). Jorge clocked in with 461 mails (26%), followed by an almost as active Dirk (381, 21%). In other words, almost half of all messages were sent by these two players. In part, this may be attributed to them talking to all powers rather than merely those of first and second degrees of proximity (i.e. neighbours and neighbours' neighbours). Especially in a game featuring Diplomacy Points, casting such a wider diplomatic net can pay major dividends.

Austria, Turkey and Russia - the three diplomatically most active powers - rose to what might be considered "superpower status" by the end of the early game (1651), whereas the generally less diplomatically Western powers gained a lesser share of the early spoils.

The rapid decline of overall mail volume was very striking and indeed somewhat disconcerting. I trust that almost all Diplomacy games will start with a record volume of mails during the first year. The diplomatic arena is after all wide-open and no power's hope for a golden future will have yet been dampened. A decline is thus natural and expected, though at some point I do think that curve ought to flatten out. Why it did not in our game may be explained by the nature of our endgame (i.e. 1653/54).
[u:bd62be8dfc][/u:bd62be8dfc]
[u:bd62be8dfc][/u:bd62be8dfc]

But first things first... As I explained in the 106th issue of "Diplomacy World", both Franco-Spanish and Dano-Swedish friction levels surpass those of any other power combination. A key concern of mine whilst designing 1648 was to ensure these powers weren't condemned to fighting another. And indeed, the game opened with both a Franco-Spanish offensive alliance and what amounted to a Dano-Swedish non-aggression pact (given the paucity of early communications between Copenhagen and Stockholm I wouldn't necessarily speak of a closer relationship than that).

As it turned out, Denmark's open flank proved too much of a temptation for Sweden and war broke out in the Far North, but France and Spain remained on the same page for quite some time even if their coorperation wasn't as effective as that of Austria and Turkey, a key opposing power bloc at the time. As France declined, Spain ultimately faced the choice whether to prop up Louis XIV or partition France with the Emperor. Matt chose the latter course, yet only gained a lesser part of the French spoils.

France began the game in good enough a shape. Yet Nathan's singular focus on Chris's England left both his Eastern frontier exceedingly vulnerable and provoked an Austrian attack, as Jorge feared the balance of power would be impaired were France allowed to take out beleaguered England. I'd say Nathan was begging for a stab. And when it came, one might have expected a rapprochement between Versailles and Whitehall had those two powers been on speaking terms.

England's first steps were singularly troubled. As Chris pointed out, he came to sorely regret his land-bound opening moves. I quite agree with his assessment that an English player ignores the English Channel, the country's "soft-spot", at his peril. But the course of (game) history could have been quite another had our Cromwell been more mindful of his own welfare in Fall 1649. Rather than spending both his DPs on Ireland, Chris chose to spend one of his in Africa and did not solicit any DP support from any other powers. Denmark, however, allocated two of his own to Ireland and was thus able to dislodge the English from Scotland just when England BADLY needed that build. How unnecessary an English setback! Arguably one of the most egregious and consequential tactical mistakes throughout the game. Let this be a cautionary tale to everyone regarding the importance of DPs!

I feel Chris's later rise to controlling six SCs despite such early tactical and diplomatic disarray vindicates my belief in the soundness of England's initial position. (Kudos to Chris for deflecting a looming Spanish Armada. I thought England was going to jump out of the French frying-pan and then into the Spanish fire.)

I don't think the Commonwealth's the most difficult power to play. I'm quite stubbornly confident about fair England's fortunes, though I recognise many think otherwise.

Perhaps what most astounded me about the opening seasons was the quiescent mood across Europe. Other than conflict round England and in the Central Mediterranean, the opening season was extraordinarily harmonious. I don't think that will be the norm in future games.

That being said, things flared up in the Far North very soon. Sweden's finest hour had begun, but soon enough Wayne faced the inherent challenge the "Lion of the North" has to contend with - namely the far-flung nature of Sweden's Baltic Empire. Sweden may start out with four units, but concentrating them in any one theatre is rather difficult. That's why I think a more compact 4-unit power may perhaps be able to pack a greater punch than say a 6-unit Sweden. Wayne, troubled by worrying Polish and Swedish actions, backed off from Denmark and lost that all-important edge against Michael. In a way, Sweden's dilemma mirrors the one Charles XII faced during the Great Northern War: a hostile coalition of Denmark, Poland and Russia.

Perhaps it's not entirely coincidental that both Sweden and Spain stalled in quite a similar fashion. Both start off with 4 non-contiguous SCs. Without a clear emphasis on one particular route of expansion, these powers may experience the stagnation both suffered under in our game. I think this is a key difficulty in playing these initially muscular positions.

Now on to the East: The early game saw a fair amount of negotiations going on in a multilateral forum involving Austria, Poland, Russia and Turkey. Jorge was arguably at the core of all Eastern alliances. He had established strong ties with both Turkey and Russia, while also forming the "Holy Alliance" (Austria, Poland, Russia). Turkey and Russia were also close. Naturally, something had to eventually give...

Turkey moved first, taking Transylvania. This shattered the Balkan balance of power and gave Turkey also considerable leverage over Austria's position, which the Emperor was unlikely to countenance. Much as Turkey's conquest of Transylvania in 1660/61 sparked a long Austro-Turkish War, so did it lead to such hostilities in our game. I must say I'm rather pleased these historical dynamics very much find their parallel in the game.

All this further contributed to Poland's neglect of the looming threat in the East. Few stabs are as devastating as Russia's against Poland. Yet Austria, Russia and Poland engineered a remarkable post-stab arrangement that channeled Poland's energies against Turkey. And this in turn increased Turkey's dependence on the Tsar, to whom the Sultan left his back-door wide-open.

The almost inevitable Russian stab against Turkey followed. Yet unlike in the case of Poland, there was no post-stab settlement there. Obviously enough, Austria wasn't going to mediate such a détente since these hostilities between the Eastern powers were critical to the Empire's further rise. I must say I expected the rapid rise of Austria to force Turkey and Russia back to the negotiating table. But in late 1653/early 1654, when the pressure to reach a settlement ought to have been the highest, neither side proposed a wholesale resolution amenable to both. Turkey was all too convinced her decline was inevitable and Russia also didn't suggest an emphatic backing-off to enlist Turkey into a wider anti-Austrian coalition.

Indeed, the whole belated talks of an anti-Austrian coalition were characterised by half-heartedness, recriminations and tinges of premature defeatism.

Certainly Jorge deserves great praise for fracturing any such possible grand coalition by enlisting at different times Danish, Polish and Turkish support. A huge windfall for Austria's earlier "diplomatic networking". Many powers had after all enjoyed closer relations with Vienna than with any other capital. But the very anti-climactic nature of the end-game arose from the collective failure of all other powers to create that true grand coalition.

Rarely have I seen as masterful a performance as Jorge's. His solo is more than deserved. I just wish Jorge would have been given more of a run for his money.

Have I changed anything as the result of this playtest? Yes. The addition of Lake Ladoga as a sea space is a direct result of the bottleneck situation that might have plagued Russia had Mikael attacked Sweden. The other four changes were already in the works before we started this game, but my views on their desirablity have only been confirmed.

Any Diplomacy game lives and dies with the energy the participants bring to the table. It's been a memorable game and I like to think, despite my perhaps overly critical griping about the endgame, a cut about the average. You're all welcome to participate in any future games of mine (subject to the need for mixing up the player roster sufficiently, that is). I very much look forward to the next 1648 that is about to start! Oh, and if you ever wish to GM a Diplomacy game yourself, please consider 1648. You know, I'm anxious to get my hands on more stats and rather keen on one day getting myself a chance to play!

[u:bd62be8dfc]Variant Design "Q&A"[/u:bd62be8dfc]
[u:bd62be8dfc][/u:bd62be8dfc]
Since I enjoy discussing all aspects of 1648, I couldn't resist adding my two cents regarding the comments on the variant made above. I hope I don't come across as overly defensive as I do appreciate all input.

[Jorge] As it turned out, the HRE builds didn’t make much of a difference to my success.

I tend to disagree somewhat. Such forward deployments are very useful and allow the Emperor to defend his domains in the East on the Triest-Vienna-Prague line, rather than having to deploy forwards to open up these SCs. Now, in this game, the Austrian hereditary lands never really came under much pressure, so this was less important a factor than might otherwise be the case.

Perhaps the most important impact in this game was that you had the necessary build sites to balloon from 11 units to 16 units. So it allowed you to gear up very quickly and that may have made it more difficult for the other powers to get their act together.

So I do think the HRE contributed to the feasibility of a solo bid centred on the middle of the map. Otherwise Austria might have looked more towards gaining a map edge.

[Michael] Lots of people will claim Austria is too powerful in the game, given his HRE rights in the early game. However, I disagree with this - I don't think the HRE rights is that much of a bonus, and ultimately, Austria is a central power, with lots of potential enemies.

I don't think I've heard such claims often. Most point to Spain as the strongest power (and I tend to agree with this being the case). In any case, the altered province adjacencies in Southern Germany do help France at the expense of Austria (see v3.0). I thought France ought to have a somewhat easier time in accessing the HRE, hence this recent change.

[Michael] I love the DP system, although clearly, it becomes less of a factor as the game progresses into the mid game.

Indeed. However, I do think minor powers will usually disappear at a somewhat less rapid rate. Our game saw remarkably harmonious relations among most powers in the early goings and this game players the time to concentrate on taking out the neutrals. Also, this actually meant that rarely did a great power prop up minor powers in an effort to deny them to a rival.

[Michael] I do think the Denmark/Sweden axis needs some careful thought. Whilst no doubt historically accurate, I feel the games of both powers will be fundamentally defined by how good their relationship is with each other. I struggle to see a way in which both can be powerful, other than through a very fortuitous set of circumstances. I think it's much easier for Sweden to ally with Russia and focus on Denmark than vice versa, and the naval spaces between Denmark and Sweden are fraught with danger - I felt like there was a couple of "black sea" type spaces between us.

The levels of initial friction are undeniably high. But I do not view the Northern Crowns condemned to war. Indeed, it was by no means a given - even after the ambiguous Swedish first season moves - that a stab would follow. Wayne war very much of two minds on this before finally deciding to take the plunge. As for "Black Sea" type spaces, Russia and Turkey commonly bounce each other in Standard Diplomacy as to limit the temptation and effectiveness of a stab. Denmark did not choose to engage in any such arranged bounces and emphatically moved West. This lack of safeguards in the opening season is risky. It might lead to greater growth, but risks the homeland.

[Chris] Success for England, as I believe Charles said, will likely depend on a long game; it will likely never see the kind of gaudy starts that many of the other powers can post, and its acquisition of centers will require a more deliberate pace and patient diplomacy. I wondered at times--and still wonder--if the disparity between England and the highest-growth-potential powers isn't too great, but what constitutes 'too great' is ultimately the game designer's judgment call, and it'll take a much larger number of games before there's enough evidence to decide either way.

We've discussed the subject at length and I squarely fall into the "optimist" camp. A key advantage I perceive is that both main neighbours of England, Denmark-Norway and France, respectively have very high initial friction levels with Sweden and Spain. This makes in my mind England something of an "ally of choice" and England a likely recipient of DP aid. Add to that good access to the "Celtic backyard" and the Low Countries and I think we're looking at a perfectly viable position.

I think England, as all countries, needs to play the whole board. So, for instance, it ought to pay off to mediate between Spain-Turkey, Sweden-Poland and Sweden-Russia to ensure maximum pressure on the two immediate threats England may face.

Quite frankly, I am more concerned about France's strength than England's. I remain however optimistic that all powers are within a reasonable power balance range.

[Chris] The pace of the game seems much, much quicker than the variants I prefer --- whether that's a plus or minus depends on what you want from a game, and isn't a knock against 1648.

I disagree. Jorge managed to win the solo in an extraordinarily short space of time. Even then, he could have been checked and then rolled back somewhat. Perhaps a next Russian solo bid might have followed and that too might have been thwarted. And by that time England might have been herself in a position to strike for 18... This game simply saw the first big wave crest at 18 SCs.

Indeed, my main worry regarding 1648 runs very much counter to Chris's assessment. I'm wondering whether it is TOO difficult to solo! I'm hopeful this won't be the case given the elusive "human factor". But I do think most 1648 games will witness more than one major "wave" before concluding.

[Chris] I'd rather see a more substantial sop given to playability when it comes to place-names -- there are a few examples, but the one that springs to mind is the space I normally think of as Picardy being called Normandy. It's an eminently justifiable change, but it caused me more than a little confusion when it was suggested that I order F Eng - Nor at one point, when I couldn't figure at all what good a move to the North Sea would do. Half-a-confused-hour later, it finally dawned on me. Like I said, a minor thing -- but still.

Perhaps I ought to go for Picardy for the sake of "backwards compatibility". I went for "Normandy" because that was a far more important French province at the time. Other than that example, I don't think I'm giving Diplomacy players too hard a time with the province names. What cases are you referring to, Chris?

Certainly most players will be a whole lot less familiar with historical names say in Eastern Europe. But rather than seeing that as being an onerous burden, I like to think many will welcome the opportunity to further familiarise themselves with the historical geography of the era. Gives more of a 17th century vibe.

[Matt]I found that I would have preferred NOT to have Flanders as a starting center if Spain can't build there. It's basically an outpost that makes Spain
look more powerful than it actually is while offering basically no opportunity for expansion. I also think it makes conflict with France even more likely as that is basically the only way it can combine with other Spanish units (France and I took a lot of negotiation to avoid this, and it still didn't work). I know that Flanders was historically populated by the Spanish, but for the purposes of this game I would either say let Spain build there or don't have it be Spanish at all.

I very much doubt most Spaniards would rather do without the Flemish outpost. It's a useful diplomatic pawn and might cause Spain's enemies considerable trouble.

Making Flanders a centre of gravity for Spain by making it a regular build-site would not be in keeping with it historically being at the very end of extremely tenuous Spanish supply lines. And it'd make Spain yet stronger than it already is.

As for marching the vaunted Army of Flanders down to Italy as you envisaged in this game, that's of course no walk in the park. But then, I'm not all that convinced it's the best use of the Army of Flanders in the first place. I'd say both the aid of the army and transfer of Flanders to another power present very useful carrots in obtaining an alliance in the Western triangle. I personally wouldn't overly concern myself with the survival of this unit and milk it for all its diplomatic worth while in existence.

Cheers,

Charles