Dirk,


 


Thanks.  If Mike or someone else needs a copy of the current map to
post to Dipwiki, please let me know.


 


Baron


 




In a message dated 11/24/2011 12:25:06 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
dirk(at)knemeyer.com writes:




Yes, Nick is correct. I'm copying Mike Sims to see how this can be
fixed. 






Dirk

Sent from my iPhone



On Nov 24, 2011, at 3:19 PM, Nick Powell <nick.s.powell(at)gmail.com>
wrote:









I think it's simply that the map in the Dipwiki is out of
date.

-Nick



On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 12:17 PM, <VonPowell(at)aol.com> wrote:






Dirk,


 


Outstanding!  I'm looking forward to the upcoming contest.


 


One question...  I notice the map associated with the link below
is an old version.  Is it possible to replace that map with the
current map (i.e., the same map you recently soloed on)?


 


Baron


 




In a message dated 11/23/2011 10:32:49 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, dirk(at)knemeyer.com writes:


Hi
Friends,





In appreciation of Baron's support of his variants, and fulfilling
my promise to Robert to GM an advanced variant for him, I have just
posted a new game of Ambition and Empire on DC that I shall be GM'ing. I
hope to see many of you there!






http://diplomaticcorp.com/game_page.php?game_id=re002






Dirk











On Nov 24, 2011, at 12:24 AM, VonPowell(at)aol.com
wrote:









Adriaan,


 


A very entertaining read.  


 


I don't disagree at all that Denmark-Norway and Poland &
Saxony are challenging (to put it kindly) to play.  They are,
indeed, extremely challenging.  The key question is are they
viable.  By viable I mean that the a DN or PS player should
have a "reasonable expectation" of success if he or she plays
well.  I think this is the case.  The proof is that I've
seen both positions enjoy tremendous success.  Of course I've
also seen plenty of spectacular failure.  The true weakness in
these positions, in my opinion, is that they have virtually no margin
for error in the early going.  Most of the other nations
have at least some wiggle room to work with should they guess
incorrectly or be on the wrong side of a coalition.  This wiggle
room might not be enough to overcome a poor start and early
elimination, but there is a "chance" to recover.  DN and PS
cannot really afford a misstep until they have gained some
traction.  They MUST start the game with at least one and
preferably more reliable allies so that they can initially leave a
flank unprotected while focusing their forces on the first
objective.  Good diplomacy should see DN and PS as integral
parts of coalitions that win the DP battle each turn and isolate
their enemies.  If DN and PS can avoid the early elimination
and gain a SC or two, then their prospects start to look
bright.


 


You are correct.  Austria often gets to 8 SCs with little
trouble at all.  Getting to 15 SCs is another matter.  No
power suffers from ELS more than the Habsburg Empire.  Easy early
growth frequently turns into mid-game stagnation.  Decline and
elimination often follow.  I'm not convinced that trying to avoid
looking big is the answer to the Austrian conundrum.  Instead, I
think the key for Austrian success is to be a member in
good standing of a successful coalition.  This can be achieved
through active diplomacy (no surprise there), largesse with
DPs, open military support to a partner fighting a common or
potential enemy, and judicious sharing of the spoils of victory. 
Growth within the coalition does not necessarily need to be equal,
however.  Austria has no interest in creating a powerful
rival.  Instead, growth simply needs to be "fair enough" that
partners believe they benefit from being Austria's
friend.  Austrian math should go as follows: one for ally A
and one for ally B and two for me.  Austria can
probably keep its allies happy in this manner without too much
difficulty until it reaches 11 or 12 SCs.   At that point,
the dynamics get trickier.  Unless Austria wishes to hold hands
with its partners all the way to a draw, it will need to be ruthless
to get those last few SCs.  Setting up and timing the rush to
victory is a challenge, but that is what makes the game
interesting.


 


I do believe a correction is in order...  I think the
article about A&E's Austria that mentions the Sultan Slayer
was written by our friend Nick Higgens rather than Chris.  If I'm
mistaken Chris, please correct me.


 


I'm looking forward to the next A&E game.  Until
then...


 


Happy Stabbing,


 


Baron


 





In a message dated 11/21/2011 11:00:44 P.M. Pacific Standard
Time, arandia.t(at)gmail.com writes:




Austria post-game - Adriaan (1763-1766):


It has been many turns since I passed control of the Hapsburg
Empire to the capable hands of Sun Chung. Since inheriting control,
he has brought Austria to new heights of glory and accomplished many
great things. But as I sit here writing my memoirs, I hope you can
spare a thought for Austria before she was great. Indeed,
there was a time when there were ten kingdoms seeking to dominate
Europe, and Austria was but one of them...


Anyways, so to cut the crap - well, it appears that I am totally
incapable of completing anything if I don't have a looming deadline
to pressure me. Believe it or not, I actually started writing this
EOG before the game even finished! Well, look where I ended up with
that... better late than never?



First off - Robert. A great deal of thanks to you for running
such an organized and professional game. I have previously played a
few games with lackluster GMs, and it makes a huge difference - it
is a lot of work for modest reward, and I hope I can someday repay
the favour.


Secondly, congratulations to Dirk, on a well-deserved victory. It
is a sign of a game well-played that even in the last few years, as
you approached that magic number, your allies still saw it as in
their interest to work with you rather than against you. This is no
easy feat against what is clearly a strong table!


Strategy. Well, we may as well begin at the beginning: power
selections. As Robert mentioned in that initial email, the two
counties to receive the highest bids (by a large margin!) were
Turkey and Spain. I must own up to contributing my fair share to
those two averages, as I only saved a measly '2' for Austria. I
suppose that, all things considered, there are worse countries to
start with than Austria - I consider it good fortune that I didn't
end up with Saxony or Norway. That is, of course, not to say that
there is anything wrong with either of those countries
(Baron), merely that they force a play style that I don't personally
enjoy.



I had done a little reading on A&E prior to this game, and
from what I could tell, Austria tends to suffer from the curse of
being the early leader. Not only does she start with four units, but
she is square in the middle of the most SC-rich part of the board.
Austria expands almost involuntarily, at least at first. Of course,
the trade-off for this early success seems to be middle-game
stagnation. Perhaps Baron could shed some light/numbers on this, but
I hoped to try and take a different course in this game. My initial
expansion in Italy was deliberately slower than it could have been
(at times requiring great amounts of willpower), in an attempt to
follow this path. However, beyond this rough outline, I had
relatively little in the way of a long-term plan - too much depends,
of course, on the other players involved.



Chris Dziedzic, in his article on A&E in Diplomacy World,
suggests that Austria's relationship with Turkey is her defining
feature; that the Archduke must play either the Sultan-slayer or the
Sultan's best friend. I'm not convinced that those are the only two
options available, but it seemed like as decent a place as any to
start. My initial negotiations with Aidan had been mostly positive,
and I certainly didn't want to commit to an early and potentially
costly war that could limit my other choices. Thus I figured I would
try to work with him, and see if he wouldn't be more interested
sailing ships to Spain than marching armies to Vienna. Over the
course of the four years in which I played, Aidan and I managed to
develop a very good rapport. He struck me as being a very capable
and resourceful diplomat, and he was one of the players I had on my
personal short-list if and when it came down to figuring out who to
include in a draw. Perhaps we'll never know just how successful
I was in this (unless Aidan cares to share in *his* EOG), but at
least I think that I left the game with an ally to the south.
I only hope that I wasn't merely playing the sucker who escaped a
stabbing, through an abdication in the nick of time...


Speaking of Nick: early-game Germany. In my initial view, the
only real short-term threat to Austria in the opening year comes
from an allied Prussia and Poland/Saxony. I therefore did what I
could to create tensions between them, with the view to also picking
up a few extra cities beyond Austria's traditional 8-centre Alpine
plateau. As it happened, tensions weren't too hard to achieve - both
Nick and Ray seemed to distrust each other from the start. Overtly I
sided with Nick, but as things got more complicated in Germany I'll
admit to ending up with a few mixed motives of my own. While I never
directly attacked Nick, I will admit to not being the best possible
ally, either. For instance, those "crossed wires" in 1764 that
resulted in the western Saxon army surviving a four-unit attack were
completely accidental, and the fact that the surviving Saxon
army proceeded to stymie French growth in the Alps was most
unfortunate, and totally coincidental. Nick, given how fluid things
were at the beginning of the game, I only hope that you can forgive
these trespasses.



Nick is obviously a very good player, because he managed to scare
everyone else into a stampede into Germany in short order; that's
the most logical conclusion I can come to. What began as a
Prussian-Russian war to the east took on more ominous tones for Nick
once Dirk leveraged Ray to gain the upper hand. And, of course,
nothing brings further attacks like a perceived weakness. Soon
France and Britain were snapping at the Kaiser's heels. Nick and I
had always gotten along very well, but when push came to shove I
realized that I couldn't keep him afloat by myself - I had little
choice but to try and find other players to work with.


My relationship with Dirk is perhaps proof of the old Diplomacy
maxim that if you talk enough, it almost doesn't matter what you're
saying. After an initial slow start, my alliance with Dirk developed
into what as probably my closest in the game. Of course, this belies
the fact that our first diplomatic conversation of much substance
was a *colossal* disagreement (something on the subject of Germany,
it went on for pages and caused a few headaches for him too, I'm
sure)! He has since sung me some very high praises in his EOG, so I
imagine that that has been forgiven and forgotten. I'm very glad
that I was able to convince Dirk to not push through central Europe;
even if this was rather self-serving at first, it clearly worked to
Dirk's interest as well. Overall, I found Dirk to be a very
reasonable and very canny player, with whom it was a pleasure to
work, and who played the board very well. At one point, I think he
was juggling two, maybe even three vassals - not an easy feat.
Congratulations again, Dirk, on a game well-played.


Mixed in between Nick, Dirk and myself, there was Ray. Now I know
there may be a numerical argument somewhere saying that Poland and
Saxony isn't really all that bad, but I think that it has to be, at
the very least, the most precarious position on the board
(whether or not it does decently in the long run). I found my
interactions with Ray to be a little clipped, but all the same
constructive and not unreasonable. Perhaps the brevity can be
excused by the game of 1900 he was also involved in. In a critique
of his play style, I really can't say too much; I initially chose to
work with Nick against Ray mostly on the basis of starting position
and rumour (cheering for the same team as Nick in the Stanly Cup
finals probably influenced my position more than I'd care to admit).
Ray, let me assure you - I never intended to execute the stab that
befell you.



I've always felt that Diplomacy is best played when the map does
not force the players into any particular course of action. Thus, I
prefer 1900 over Standard partly because in 1900, Turkey need not
fight Austria. In A&E, I think that the relationship between
Austria and France may not approach the same level of
predestination, but it is definitely not a stress-free border. That
is not to say, of course, that France and Austria *need* to fight;
merely that it is easy. I tried to structure my relationship with
Warren on the basis that most of the other players would expect some
hostility between the two of us, and that we could therefore both
have an advantage if our borders stayed unexpectedly calm. Of
course, aiding this was the fact that Warren was a good player and a
reasonable person, with whom I saw a fair bit of common interest (is
it ever possible to have a good player that is not
reasonable?). I found our relationship to be cordial, if perhaps a
little wary - though perhaps wariness was warranted, given what
happened during my last move. Rest assured, Warren, I never intended
on continuing my cooperation with Ray beyond that one turn that saw
the Saxons march to Burgundy.


Michael, Josiah, Richard, and Wladimir - it was good to meet you
all. Some time I hope to meet you in another game, where we might be
located somewhat closer together, and have somewhat greater
interactions. As it was, I hope that you all got as much enjoyment
out of this game as I did.



Finally, the highly-appreciated replacement, Sun Chung. Many
thanks, of course, for taking over my position on such short notice;
real life can be such a pesky thing to have to deal with. The rest
of you probably know him better than I do, as we only had a few
short emails between us at the tail end of my tenure. Nevertheless,
as he mentions we did have a few discussions of some weight - in
particular one concerning whether Austria should make a break for a
solo, or risk enmeshed borders with Saxony. Sun has said that I
provided him with council on this; I will admit to sending him a
detailed multi-page discussion and risk assessment outlining
how an Archduke might strike for a solo from eight
centres few suggestions, but in my defense I
also made it clear that I had made no decision whether or not I
would actually go about implementing this plan. All said, I was
actually rather glad when Sun agreed to be my replacement, as he
signed on just in time to save me from having to make this very
hard choice. From an outside perspective, I think that there was
likely very little that Sun could have done differently to convert
his inherited position into a solo - changing players is always
going to make your neighbours rather wary. I think he handled the
chaos following his run admirably, and he certainly kept Austria
abreast the future of Europe. Well-played Sun, and thanks
again.



In closing, I have to thank you all for what was a tremendously
fun game. I hope to get an opportunity to play with you all again
sometime; it is always a pleasure to find a group of players who are
not only committed to playing Diplomacy, but who play it well. I
hope to see you all in future games.






Best regards,


Adriaan Tichler






P.S. I've uploaded photos of a few of my reasons for abdication,
for your interest.


https://plus.google.com/u/0/photos/101141162735761025862/albums/5677699991823577681




On 7 October 2011 15:21, Sun Chung <sun.chung(at)gmail.com> wrote:


Thanks Robert for GMing ??? it???s a pleasure
playing in a game that you run.  

Also, thanks to
everyone on the board for a good game.  And for Adriaan for
his thoughts/guidance/recommendations early on in the game.
 Kudos to him for getting Austria to a great stage in the
game.  My big regret is that I was unable to fulfill
Austria???s opportunity that Adriaan set up.

For me, the mark
of a good game is when the players are committed and are willing
to accept the game for what it is ??? a shifting swirl of deals,
broken deals, and new deals being created.  It was
interesting to see how the dynamics of the game were able to
shift, although I probably contributed to less of that towards the
end of the game.  I appreciated that most on the board were
open to thinking about shifting their alliance and at least
listened to new deals.

I missed the early stages of the
game, so I can???t really comment much on how the armed neutrals
dynamic shaped the early portion of the game.  When Robert
asked me to replace Adriaan, I came into the game thinking 1) what
a great opportunity ??? this power is strong and has a good lead but
2) Austria???s completely surrounded I don't have enough armies to
plug in all the gaps - the lead can fall really quickly.

My
first focus on the game was the complex relationship Austria had
with Saxony.  There wasn???t a good defensive line set up, and
our armies were all intermixed together.  Not a situation I
liked.  Elsewhere on the map, it didn???t seem like there was
strong cooperation between France/Britain/Spain.  Russia was
friendly and was trying to build upon the work that Adriaan had
done.  Unfortunately for me, I didn???t have much contact with
Turkey at the start.

The first order of business was how to
get involved in the game and unwind the tie-up of Austria and
Saxony.  I did not feel comfortable with the situation (esp
since it wasn???t of my doing!).  As Dirk mentioned in his EOG
statement, I typically like strong stable borders.  It really
bothered me that I couldn???t count on a stable front in any
direction.  Plus, Saxony was looking to regain his strength
and was pushing to recover some of his home centers.  Adriaan
and I agreed that a re-emergence of Saxony would be a threat to
Austria.  So my first major decision was that I would not
support Saxony and stab him.  That would prevent a rebirth of
Saxony and give me a stable front to work from.

But this
created another problem.  It would undoubtedly raise solo
alarm bells across the board.  And mark a significant shift
in the Austrian??? strategy at this point.  Now, my natural
desire was to start out slowly, play defensively, and get my feet
wet in the game.  I didn???t want to be viewed as a loose
cannon coming in brand new.  However, being able to discuss
strategy and tactics with Adriaan eased the transition quite a
bit.  I know that Ray probably views my stab as a direct
consequence of a new replacement player dropping old agreements,
but I was able to get Adriaan???s consul on my first initial
moves.

From there, once I determined that Saxony would be
stabbed, and I knew that it would cause alarms on the board, I
pushed full ahead on going for the solo.  I probably
shouldn???t speak for Adriaan as this is my EOG statement, and not
his, but the push for an early Austrian solo was not created in a
vacuum.  

My first mistake in the game was not
securing my relationship with Turkey.  I think had I been
able to pickup four builds in the first season (that I played) I
may have been able to get enough push to really threaten for a
solo.  But for either nervousness with a new player, or I
rubbed him the wrong way, something lead to Turkey taking a center
from me, and I only got 3 plus centers in the first turn.

I
didn???t think it was the end of the game, and in some ways, I liked
this position much better.  I was able to get a nice stable
line against France, I thought I could secure a line against
Turkey and was hoping that Russia wouldn???t view me as a long term
threat.  But my dreams of an Austria solo were crushed. 
I tried my best to say that my push was really only to secure
myself against Saxony and not reach for a solo.  It probably
fell on deaf ears, but I thought I would have a chance since it
was at least partially true.

From there, the game switched
to survival.  I thought I built an okay line of communication
with France (I told him I had to take Savoy since it was there for
the taking in the first year, but I didn???t want it to set in stone
the Austrian/French relationship), thought that I could get Turkey
to lay off by letting him keep what he took (Turkey had a good
relationship with the prior Austria), and I thought I could
convince Russia that my swing for a solo was a one and done deal
and that I could be a reasonable partner.  All three powers
attacked me.

Once Turkey got into the Adriatic Sea, I was
at his mercy.  Side note observation - this map creates a lot
of defensive issues for Austria, in particular the way I was set
up when I entered the game.  Austria is a land power, but
with a home center in Milan and the host of supply centers in
Italy, Austria???s sphere of influence gravitates around the
Adriatic.  With the Turkish fleet there, I was forced to keep
units bottled up on my southern front.  That one fleet tied
up a huge number of my armies.  This drove me crazy.
My
next course of action was to work on France and/or Russia into
attack Turkey.  While trying to cut a deal with Aiden in any
fashion as long as he left ADR.  Deals with Turkey fell apart
multiple times, but I fared better on the diplomatic front.
 Getting Russia to favor me, while getting France to
cooperate for awhile and attack Turkey.

The end game stage
really boiled down to trying to figure out a way to end the game
without it being a DIAS.  I tried really hard to make it a
France ??? Austria ??? Russia triple, but neither France nor Russia
seemed to trust the other.  What may have worked against me
was that I also played up the potential solo threat that they both
presented.  Russia could (and did) have the numbers to sweep
across northern Germany and get a solo.  France for a while
was a couple of centers lower, but if Turkey got crippled (and I
had a bear of a time trying to get a deal done where we trusted
each other), and Britain got stabbed by France, then no one could
really threaten the French navy.  I felt that Austria was the
only credible counter to either solo threats.

For awhile,
it worked.  France agreed to not aid Turkey any more, and
Russia allowed me to rush my armies to the west and defend against
France???s superior land position over me.  Eventually it
boiled down to keeping what I had, while trying diplomatically
getting into the three way draw.

At one point, Russia had
the necessary centers at his reach where he could easily have gone
for the solo.  I panicked and hedged myself and move some
units, but not all, to cover the open centers.  Dirk was
surprised but took it rather well that I tactically split myself.
 Since he didn???t stab me nor went for a solo directly, I was
lulled into thinking that maybe Russia wasn???t in it for a solo at
this stage.  I had even asked Sweden (given how close
Wladimir was coordinating with Dirk for the bulk of the game) for
advice to get his read on Russia???s plans.  Whether Wladimir
was equally convinced of Dirk not attempting a solo or was part of
the Russian PR campaign I don???t know.  

From a
tactical stand point, I was then doomed.  I didn???t have
enough armies to cover all of my holes, I was at the mercy of
Russia not pushing for a solo.  And I felt that I couldn???t
react too strong or else I would push Russia into thinking I was
an untrustworthy ally and by my preventative action, get Dirk to
order to secure a solo.

In hind-sight, I should???ve
committed one way or the other.  I felt that I was constantly
moving my armies east and then west.  I could never build a
fleet, which crippled me against Turkey.  And at some point,
I should???ve made a more tactical retreat to shore up my defensive
line against Turkey/France/or Russia.

This has been a long
winded rambling, so apologies for that.  And apologies for
any typos in this - trying to do this quickly, across small breaks
during my work day.

Thoughts on the
players:

Russia:  Good job.  Played
skillfully, and got me suckered into thinking you'd be committed
to the draw.  Not much I could've done about it even if I
knew about your intentions though.  Always enjoyed our
conversations and your willingness to work out deals. Your solo
was well deserved.

France:  Enjoyed our
conversations, and the fact that we were able to keep up a
dialogue even with disagreements.  I wonder if we could've
set up a different outcome had we had a chance to work together
from the beginning.  Your warning bells should've been heeded
more in Vienna.  I blame the Turks for drowning out your
message!

Ottoman Empire:  We got off on the
wrong foot and then continued to break our agreements.  I
wish we could've some out untangled the complex tactical mess we
were in, but alas, I think our in-fighting created the biggest
opportunity for Russia to solo.  You had me in a difficult
spot the entire game, and I don't really blame you for keeping
that dang fleet parked in the Adriatic.  Makes sense, but
created all sorts of issues for me.  If we cross paths again,
I promise to try harder to get diplomacy working between
us.

Poland Saxony:  I do apologize for starting
out the game with a stab.  I really felt uncomfortable with
the way our units/centers were intertwined.  This is one of
those, it's all business, message.  I appreciate your
attempts to get back into the game and your willingness to stick
with the game and not drop off.

Britain:  We
didn't have a lot of interaction - another hindsight thing where I
should've tried harder.  Perhaps the make up of the game
would've been
different?

Spain/Prussia/Denmark/Sweden: 
Unfortunately, I don't have a lot of comments.  I came in
at a time where I think your fates may have already been
decided.


All in all, thank you for giving me this
opportunity to play Ambition and Empire.  I???ve been
interested in playing this variant for awhile and would love
another opportunity to play (esp from the beginning).  It's
been a pleasure playing with you
all.



Thanks.










=







=