I think we have to assume that the game is over, having ended "not with a bang but a whimper". That being the case, I wanted to share a few of my thoughts during the game in case you guys were interested. First, a little background: I was introduced to Diplomacy in college back in the mid-1970s, and played it quite a bit in a gaming group I was in during the years at my first job. But I moved away for a job change in the early 80s and never found another good group. I've played a face-to-face game maybe three times in the last 35 years.
However, around the year 2000 I discovered the online Diplomacy community and jumped into playing on the online judges, both regular games and no-press games. If you're not familiar with no-press, it's the same as normal except there is NO communication allowed except to the game master. There are some limited communication possibilities based on signalling via conventions in writing orders (similar to signals in bridge or pinochle bidding). No-press obviously loses most of the alliance building and negotiation/persuasion aspects of Diplomacy, but it was a lot easier to find than regular games and a lot less of a time commitment. On the plus side, no-press is a good way to learn about tactics and stalemate lines. So I played that quite a bit (and got pretty good at it) but eventually had other interests take precedence, and stopped playing 10 or 12 years ago.
So muon's first game was my first in a long time. Being kind of rusty, I was happy to draw Turkey in the first game and France in this one, since I think they're among the easier powers to play due to their strong positions (although I probably enjoy Germany the most, it's obviously more difficult to play). I started the game with no preconceived notions of who to ally with, but opened communication with my neighbors to see who seemed to offer the most potential for working together. As I'm sure you're all aware, Italy wrote long novels and was a lot of fun to talk to. England was also quite communicative and friendly, while Germany was much less so. That shaped my initial strategy: nonaggression with Italy, and an alliance with England against Germany. This all went very well at first. However...
The non-presence of Turkey threw things out of balance in the East. This was a worrisome development; what I feared most was a strong AI alliance. Instead, the AR that actually developed was good for me at first, in that it kept Italy weak (and therefore inclined to be friendly and helpful to me). But I didn't expect AR to remain solidly together; it looked to me like there were multiple opportunities for one or the other to stab the other for a big advantage, essentially controlling the entire East.
To digress a bit: I'm not fond of stabbing just for its own sake, but I definitely think it's warranted if it will advance your chances of winning. My goal in playing the game is to win if possible; although there can be satisfaction in a well-crafted draw, I consider that a second-best outcome. I recall a poll in an online group that went something like this: if you played three games, would you rather have one solo win and two losses, or three 3-way draws? For me the answer is unquestionably the first one. (IIRC, the overall poll results were about evenly balanced among each of those options and those who had no preference.) I mention this as background to the effect that if I ever see even a possible chance to solo, I'll go for it.
And that's what happened as this game developed. The EF alliance against Germany went swimmingly, while the FI alliance succeeded in blocking up the Mediterranean against Austria. I would up occupying both Munich and Tunis, with their owners' (no doubt grudging) consent and had an army in Silesia. With this position straddling the main stalemate line, I figured I had maybe a 40% chance of pulling off a solo; in a no-press game, where the defenders' ability to coordinate is limited, the chances would probably have been 80% or higher. But even 40% was enough for me to go for it, especially as the downside seemed no worse than a 3- or 4-way draw, which was the likely outcome if we just kept slogging it out.
Of course, there was always a chance that I could get eliminated if the defenders stopped my solo attempt, but this seemed unlikely and a risk worth taking. You have to be willing to play to win, and not just not to lose. If you'll forgive a baseball analogy: I once watched an Atlanta Braves game where the Braves trailed by a run in the bottom of the ninth, with one out and a man on third base. The next batter hit a fly ball to center field, which was caught for the second out. The runner on third tagged up to try and make it home, but the center fielder threw perfect strike to home. Runner out, game over, Braves lost. After the game, the legendary Braves manager Bobby Cox was asked why they sent the runner from third. He replied, "They had to make a perfect throw to beat us there, and they did. Sometimes that happens. I don't regret it;
if we don't get caught occasionally, we're not trying it enough." That philosophy has always stuck with me and helped shape the way I play games. I'll go for the win rather than playing it safe, and if that causes me to lose, well, that's the breaks.
So with a possibility of improving my good position into a winning one, the question became how to go about it. The situation in the north was going well, but was reaching a point where England was about to make some gains in Russia. I was always worried about a stab from England, as my push eastward had left me rather exposed to him. If he built a couple more units, either they could be used to attack me, or he'd have more defenders at home, or he'd send armies over the top to Russia -- which would ultimately be available to help push back my advance. All of these would hamper my chances to solo.
In the south, things were more or less stuck. Although I could have pushed a fleet or two further east into the Med with Italy's support, this didn't seem like it would help much (the RA armies on the coast were essentially impregnable) and would have left me even more exposed to England. Only if AR were to split apart would it be possible to make some progress -- and they sure didn't seem likely to split as long as the western alliances stayed intact.
After considering everything, I decided the best plan was to stab Italy in conjunction with Austria as the start of a "bootstrap" try at a solo: i.e. use the units gained from that stab to attack England, use gains from that attack to build more units, etc. If this type of attack can cascade quickly enough, the momentum can be unstoppable to defend against. So I talked to Austria and proposed that we take out Italy and then attack our respective alliance partners, Russia and England. I thought there was some chance Austria might do so, which would give me a great chance to solo, but even if he didn't I'd still have a chance with the bootstrap attack.
A word to Nova: I love the way you play, and truly did regret stabbing you. But against a united AR on one side, and a secure and expansionist France on the other, there was never going to be any other outcome for Italy. It's a testament to your skill that you stayed alive and an influence as long as you did.
Well, the rest is history. I got Germany on side to act as a Janissary for a while, but it wasn't enough. AER got together, Gustaf outguessed me a couple times, and the solo effort fizzled out. It's possible I could have pushed on a bit longer, especially after taking the North Sea, which created the possibility of convoying an army to England. But by that point, things had changed for me personally. As I mentioned earlier, in early November I took a bad fall and broke a vertebra. This caused me extreme pain for a few weeks, which (thankfully) has lessened considerably. As a result, I lost a lot of my focus on the game and the patience to keep slogging; when it became clear that the solo was unlikely to happen, I was ready to just pack it in, and proposed the draw.
Anyway, thanks to everyone for playing, and for your patience/endurance if you've managed to read this far.
And of course, many thanks also to muon2 for creating and running the game.
Cheers,
GM
