The A-B predisposition to fight mainly came from me. I thought about how a perfectly functioning A-B alliance would work. He would get Mercia and Cornwall, I would get two on the continent. Then he would build two fleets to go after the Gaels, and I would build a couple to fight the Danes. Both of us would have a difficult time advancing. Best case for me, I take the third on the continent (Frisia?), but getting to the Danish homeland would be very very tough.

During that stalemate phase, there would be an asymmetry where the Bretons could stab me easily by moving the army south to threaten my two SCs, plus could slide over from Cor to hit Ham. At the least, I would need to hold an army back to protect against this, though that army would be essential to any breakthrough on the continent. I would lack any similar ability to stab him. Plus, war against the Danes is daunting, with my allies as the soon-to-be-dead Swedes.

I decided early war with Breton was better than sending all my units east before the war began. The only two scenarios I could envision for A-B alliance were stalemate and he stabs me, or he wins quick and then stabs me. I saw little hope of winning my war first or stabbing B. A special alliance where we are joined at the hip is possible I suppose, but I ruled that out in this game due to Matt's decision to use a tentative opening and then assess his options (best option = attack Anglos, even if it is genuinely not his initial intention). Such a relationship is a high barrier, particularly for Anglos with the asymmetry.

As for N-W, I think this could be remedied fairly easily. Their armies get very entangled in Scandinavia, with their SCs and units bordering awkwardly. Make it so there is a more clear and clean way to split those SCs without high tension. Some way for the Swedes to build on the west coast would help too. Maybe chaos builds? A canal could work too, or at least the ability to build one. This is a problem for A going the other way too.

Solving W-N solves the west some too. The reason is that A would have a viable ally in W, and some hope of defeating D before B wins in the west. I would still like for A to have the ability to attack B easier by sea, and for land to be reconfigured.

Hope that helps!
Nick

On Dec 26, 2009, at 23:44, Benjamin Hester <screwtape777(at)gmail.com> wrote:

After action report. Haven't heard an EOG called an AAR before, but
it seems appropriate You military maybe Matt?

Interesting that both the Anglo-Saxons and the Gaels seem concerned
about the Bretons. I thought that this version of the variant
achieved the intended dynamic of giving the Bretons good options to
move against the Gaels or Anglo-Saxons, but the players seem not to
agree (Anglo-Saxon and Breton conflict appeared forced to them?) This
surprised me.

Scott - as the Breton player in the last Dark Ages game, you got along
reasonably well with the Anglo-Saxons (for most of the game) if I
recall, and nearly soloed. But my question is, was it exceedingly
difficult to work with the A-S position? This is, granted, one of the
most tense positions on the map, but certainly no worse than A/I in
Standard, and that is a *very* common alliance. And for the same
reasons that the Bretons and Anglo-Saxons should consider allying I
think - gains made at each others' expense leave them vulnerable to
attacks from outside (Gaels/Danes). So it is in Standard - when A/I
fight, R/T are often the ones that benefit most.

As for the Scots, that route really isn't meant to be a good choice,
as the Scots have enough problems (holding a position on the eastern
coast of the British Isles makes them the first ones, like the
Anglo-Saxons, that have to worry about the Viking invasions). Add the
Gaels in as potential (and frequent) rivals. If the Bretons also have
a strong impulse to head north, the Scots are screwed. So it was
intended that the Scots and Bretons would have the A/G dynamic - not
much contact at first, but definitely friendly towards one another -
though the Mercia/Deira border can cause conflict...

All this said, I am much less critical of Matt's play than he is
himself - the Breton position is one of the most diplomatically
demanding on the map. I also cannot understand why the Scandinavian
powers were not in constant contact with the Bretons, especially the
Danes. Oh well - perhaps the Anglo-Saxon/Breton conflict was taken as
a given in this game, and there was no need to stir the pot.

Thanks to all the players for the very insightful EOGs - I had hoped
that Dark Ages was done at the drawing board, but I think a few final
tweaks might be in order.

B.

On 12/20/09, Matthew Kelly <kelly058(at)verizon.net> wrote:
Evening All,
First time with this variant and my play showed it. Gaels, and Scots both
offered alliance against the other. I agreed to both. Which side I would
ultimately support would be determined by who got the upper hand over the
other. My relations with the Anglo-Saxons on the other hand started badly
and continued in that way for the entire game. Here is where my
inexperience with this variant probably got me into trouble. The Bretons
have only two centers that they can reasonably be expected to secure early
in the game--Cornwall and Mercia. Being surrounded I viewed both as
imperative to my survival. Nick didn't give me the warm and fuzzies about
me securing either center, especially Cornwall. My view of the map indicated
that the Anglo-Saxons have a lot more opportunities for centers especially
on the continent and I was perplexed by Nick's intransigence on the issue.
It looks like Nick and I came to the same conclusions for the same
reasons--both thinking the other was out to get him. And it looks like we
were both wrong about the other's intentions.
As the game opened as expected the Gaels and Scotts went at it. It also
became clear that the Anglo-Saxons were serious about Cornwall. My quick
move north to secure Strat. was successful. If the Gaels had been in
position to get an army across I would have supported them. To have
attacked the Scots without significant support would have been fruitless and
I held my position and continued to profess my friendship with the Scots.
And the Scots soon had the upper hand against the Gaels and my position in
the north was totally dependent on the Scots' good graces which I knew would
not last forever because the remainder of my forces were engaged with the
Anglo-Saxons.
Second error on my part was not keeping communications open with Nick. We
went at it and continued until I was gone. As noted in his after action
report Nick was working successfully to get the Scots and Gaels to come
after me. Even with (6) centers at one point I was forced to defend those
centers and didn't have the strength to go north or south without giving up
centers in my rear. Diplomacy was my only way out and I didn't do it.
The Scots stood by me for probably longer than they needed to and I
appreciate that. The end came with the Gaels coming after me and I was
left with a choice. Fight a protracted defensive game with the inevitable
outcome or continue to keep the Anglo-Saxons pinned down for as long as
possible to give the Danes and opportunity to expand and then maybe I'd be
offered some type of deal. I've never been much of a defensive player.
My unfamiliarity with the variant resulted in a lack of an overall strategy
on my part. I decided to "wing it" and see which way the wind blew and take
advantage of any opportunities. I prefer to establish strong alliances
early but abandoned this approach for the reason noted above. BIG MISTAKE.
Well that is about it. I would note that during the came I never received
any communications from the continent. Thought that was a bit strange.
-Matt Kelly-
Bretons




________________________________
From: Nick Higgins <congressofvienna1814(at)yahoo.com>
To: Benjamin Hester <screwtape777(at)gmail.com>; Nathan Deily
<ndeily(at)yahoo.com>
Cc: Nigel PHILLIPS <nephilli99(at)hotmail.com>; brn2dip(at)yahoo.com;
captain_sicarius(at)hotmail.com; dc262(at)diplomaticcorp.com; gregory nomads
<gbimmerle(at)gmail.com>; Jason K archer <githraine(at)yahoo.com>;
kelly058(at)verizon.net; Mike Sims - new email <mike(at)fuzzylogicllc.net>;
mike(at)sims-family.net
Sent: Sun, December 20, 2009 2:28:06 AM
Subject: Re: DC 262: Angstskrik - Anglo Saxon EOG

Thanks to B for running the game, and to my allies Nigel and Nathan for
coming together at the end to set up the defense line. Congrats to Gregory
for a well-played game. First I will go over a recap of the game from my
perspective, and then my view on the variant.

Game Recap >>>

As for this game, I initially was most concerned about Denmark, due to their
past success in the variant, and my initial impression that they were
"aimed" in my direction instead of Sweden's. I contacted the Swedes for an
attack, and got a favorable response.

However, I needed peace with the Bretons to pursue this plan. Matt
negotiated pretty hard, insisting on getting both Mercia and Cornwall. He
argued that I should be satisfied with Brittany, and he deserves Cornwall.
This potentially could be reasonable, but something about Matt's tone left
me worried where I didn't feel comfortable about having a long-term
alliance. Once my units were pushed east against the Danes, I would be
powerless to do anything about the Breton threats in Cornwall and Mercia. I
was very concerned about a Breton opening into Mercia in spring, followed by
a move into Middle Anglia in fall with their other army trailing into
Mercia. This would be a very low-risk opening by Breton, while I would be
entirely defenseless against it if I pushed east.

If I had felt confident moving against the Danes, I would have done a bold
move like convoying an army to the continent or trying to sneak into NFC in
fall. Instead, I opened by moving my army defensively to Middle Anglia, and
moved my fleets to take Austrasia and Brittany. I had tried to woo the
Gaels into moving to Cardigan Bay against Breton, but much to my dismay the
Gaels and Scots moved very aggressively against each other. I got a little
lucky when the Bretons did not open to Mercia, and was then able to bounce
him there in fall.

At this point, I was locked into war with Breton, as confirmed by his two
army builds. The Gaels and Scots were locked in war as well. I put all of
my diplomatic efforts into making peace between the Gaels and Scots, and
gaining Nathan as an ally to attack the Bretons. Nathan seemed open to the
possibility, but Nigel was not. This left the four of us in two separate
evenly matched wars where nobody made progress.

In the east, the Danes and Norse made short work of the Swedes, and
eventually they both turned west. Nigel and I would face the brunt of this
attack, so we started cooperating together against the Bretons and Gaels.
Nigel and I had a slight edge in this war that we could have eventually
pressed to total victory, but we were not able to accomplish this before the
Danes/Norse sent fleets west.

Death looked imminent for us (Scots and Anglos), but we were saved by the
Danish stab of the Norse. I had not held out any real hope that either
would stab the other, and was pleasantly surprised by this. I immediately
sued for peace with Greg, and he acquiesced, promising to pull back from
Neustria to Austrasia. The Gaels had come out the worst in the west, and
were down to 3 SCs. I had emerged badly when the Danes stabbed me, and the
Bretons had taken advantage to reach 6 SCs while I was down to 4. Tempted
by the carrot of the return of his Irish SC that Nigel had taken, Nathan was
amenable to joining the Scotch/Anglo alliance and helping us carve up the
powerful 6-SC Bretons.

The next phase of the game saw the Norse steadily devoured by the Danes,
while the Bretons were killed in the west. One could ask why I never moved
against the Danes, but I had little choice. All of my units were consumed
in the protracted war against Breton, in particular containing a rogue unit
behind my back lines. Nigel couldn't do much to help the Norse, and so his
fleets just kinda hung out around Scotland while the Danish armies made
their way across Scandinavia.

The final phase saw the 3 of us left in the west, and the Danes in the
east. I was most concerned about a Gaelic-Scottish alliance, where they
agreed to split me up after the Bretons were dead and then pursued a 3-way
draw. I fomented Gaelic-Scottish war as a delay tactic so I could survive
long enough to be included in a 4-way draw. Tension and suspicion remained
between them until a Scottish stab attempt of the Gaels in 830. Nathan was
prepared though, and countered it. Previously, Nigel tried a weak stab of
me in 829, but I blocked it.

Unable to make any rapid progress with a sneak attack, and faced with
fearsome Danish expansion, Nigel was satisfied to pursue a 4-way draw at
that point. Greg tried to pull me away from the alliance (and surely tried
with the others), but with Denmark reaching 18 SCs, there was no margin of
error for anyone to risk a stab. And thus the game ended in a draw.

Variant View >>>

(I've already shared a lot of this with B, so sorry if this is repetitive
for you, but I've added a lot since my early analysis.)

I believe the variant suffers from a fundamental flaw that the board is
circular (like a donut). What I mean by this is that each player only is
able to attack their two neighbors in the circle, such as I could only
attack the Bretons or Danes. Every relationship is binary. There are no
good triangles, and no vacant SC areas to keep a player sated for a while
without making any enemies.

The problem with this is that it leads to stagnant diplomacy. Players
cannot easily attack in both directions, so once they pick a direction, they
are pretty much committed to that path for a while. There is not much
reason to conduct diplomacy, and I found the diplomatic volume was pretty
low in this game.

One could argue that the board isn't circular in that it is possible for
some players to "break" the circle - namely, S-A, S-B, S-D, N-A, or D-N The
ones diagonal across the North Sea (S-D and N-A) are pretty unlikely. First
I will look at S-A and S-B across the isle of Britain, and then later D-N.

For S-A, I found it logistically very hard to attack Scotland. The Bretons
should be in Mercia every time, which makes him a gatekeeper for any land
attack north. By sea, I could get to Deira, but getting an armada to Mof
and Fof would be very tough. It is not a promising path, plus even if
successful would leave me in a tactically unsound extended vertical position
where I would be very vulnerable to the edge powers in mid-game. From the
Scottish perspective, a sneak attack south with a fleet from Deira into East
Anglia is possible, but advancement beyond that is limited by the defensive
chokepoint of Wfc and the need to convoy any armies into the theater
(Scottish home SCs are 5 spaces away from Breton!).

For S-B, this is limited by the Gaels, who serve a similar role as a "naval
gatekeeper" to Scotland. It would take a very strong relationship indeed
for the Gaels to permit a Breton or Scottish fleet in Gaelic Sea where it
would touch 3 Gaelic SCs. That limits the Bretons to moving up via land
when it is only 2 provinces wide. Progress is possible in Deira and
Strathclyde, but easily defended and dependent upon Gaelic (or maybe Anglo)
help. At best, they would be the junior partner in a Gaelic alliance, and
the bulk of their forces would presumably be used against the Anglos. From
the Scottish view, they are likely to have a fleet in Deira, making an
attack on Breton very unwieldy (since an army would be a lot more useful).

For D-N, it's hard to conceive how either could choose to partner with W
against the other. If N-W work together, then the Norse can make a gain in
Lindholm, but then it gets awkward after that. Even if you give SCs like
Jelling or Alvheim to the Norse, it seems like the Swedes would be trapped
behind the Norse with no exit except through them. They could ally, but not
against D; N would attack S, and W would attack D.

For D-W to work together, this presents the same issues, with the Danes
making awkward gains in Rogaland or Vestland. D-W can ally, but not against
N; D would go west vs A, and W would go west vs N, and they would agree on
how to split the ones between them.

Certain relationships are more likely than others. For example, with only
one fleet, B is not well-equipped to attack G. B's armies are best used
against A, and (as mentioned before) B has a great low risk opening against
A (Pow-Mer, Gwy-Pow; then Mer-Man, Pow-Gwy OR Mer S Pow - Hwi), and thus is
more likely to attack A. N and W are more likely to fight due to their
interlocked SCs leading to conflict. S and N are less likely to fight due
to the distance involved and the relative ease of naval defense (e.g. if
Scotland gets a fleet to Rogaland Coast and the Norse hold their 2 SCs there
with land support, the Scots will have a hard time breaking it down; similar
the other way in Moray Firth).

When all these relationships are analyzed, Denmark clearly has the best
position on the board. D is equally well-positioned to move against either
A or W, and both A and W are burdened by neighbors pre-disposed to fight
them. This means a willing ally for D whichever way they go, plus little
risk of a stab from behind.

The Anglo-Saxons have it the worst. B is pre-disposed to attack them, and
the D juggernaut is to their east. Not only that, but the relationship with
B is asymmetrical, in that B has a much easier path to attack A than vice
versa. With 2 armies and more advantageous starting position, B will likely
get Mercia and Cornwall, and can take the Mer-Hwi line from there. It is
near-impossible for A to later break that line without pressure from behind,
but with Cornwall in Breton hands, it is very tough to ever get around the
corner there. They can bounce B in Cornwall, but this leaves A down a build
too. A needs to get G's help, except S is pre-disposed to attack G (since N
is too far away), and so G will need to defend against S.

If one accepts my judgments of what attacks are pre-disposed to occur, then
this is likely to happen:

B attacks A
S attacks G
N attacks W
D is left with option of attacking W or A

Ideas for Variant Adjustments>>>

One idea is to collapse the North Sea, and make everyone much closer. What
if Ean-Cir-Jel could all reach each other in two turns?

Another is to collapse the waters above North Sea - e.g., get rid of
Zetland, and combine Sca/Nwg and Mof/Roc. Now S and N can attack each other
easily.

A third would be to reconfigure the Bretons. This could be done by giving
them two fleets (so they can attack G), but then making it possible for a
fleet to attack the Anglos too. E.g. have Dyfed and Hamptonshire touch
Atlantic Ocean, then combine what's left of English Channel and Strait of
Dover. Now Breton and Anglo can attack each other navally immediately, plus
Anglo/Gael can attack each other more easily too.

A fourth is to reduce the army vertical distance on Britian, such as to make
an army attack by any of the 3 on any other of the 3 viable. What if
Pow-Cir-Ean all could reach each other in 2 turns by land?

A fifth is to make the Norse/Swede relationship less messy, so that they
could more easily ally and move in different directions. I'm ok with messy
rels (I love them in Sengoku!), but it seems a bit unfair that these are the
only two powers with this type of built-in tension.

This feedback is intended in a purely constructive way. I face a similar
dilemma with my Congress of Vienna variant, which also has "circular"
issues, and I'm still trying to find a solution there. Thinking through the
dilemma here has helped me to see some new possibilities in my own variant.
Hope this helps you B. For anyone else who read this far (yeah right!),
thanks! - Nick


--
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