Diplomacy Dreams

[GeorgiaModerate]

Just to be clear, this is 10 PM EST Aptril 11 and therefore 2 AM UTC Friday 12?

Yes.

[GeorgiaModerate]

I am neutral on going to 72-hour movement turns.  If a majority of the other players wants it, I will not object, but I wouldn't want to go any longer than that.

[GeorgiaModerate]

I'll also add that I think it's within a GM's discretion to grant emergency extensions when needed, and that I agree with Scott's need for one.  I would be in the same situation; although I've occasionally sent brief responses from my phone, I wouldn't be able to play the game without a computer. 

And BTW, I for one do remember the Kennedy administration.

[GeorgiaModerate]

For some reason I’m reminded of this:

(One of the funniest movies ever made!)

[GeorgiaModerate]

Aren’t retreat and build phases 24 hours, or did we change them to 48 as well?

[GeorgiaModerate]

Sorry Kuumo,

It was fun playing with you although I entered the game after to replace France at the last minute.

Best wishes with your IRL situations, and as a player who got the Italian roll of the dice in one of my previous Atlas Diplomacy games, recognize that the "Middle Powers" such as Germany and Italy are some of the roughest to play.

I should never have given you such bad advice, which I will probably selectively quote on the Atlas Comedy Gold Mine thread (If it still exists), since it inadvertently caused the loss of what was effectively a well protected GVT in exile unless there was some sort of secret Ottoman-French Alliance.

Goodnight Sweet Prince....

Peace, Love, and Mutual Solidarity,

NOVA GREEN

Yes, it was good playing with you. I did think you might hang on for years, if not indefinitely, but I got lucky with a guess in the Spring. Thanks for playing!

[GeorgiaModerate]

Aren’t retreat and build phases 24 hours, or did we change them to 48 as well?

Definitely 24 hours. You didn't see nothin'.

Don't recall these were ever changed.

Sure players can change things with unanimous consent, and certainly the GM is allowed to make executive decisions in the event that rules are challenged.

Still, there are some questions regarding exactly which version of Diplomacy we are playing, since apparently there might have been a recent ruling (Which nobody protested at the time), which might have tilted the scales slightly.

Regardless, I suspect that I speak for all current players to know the exact Diplomacy rules we are playing under, so that we can potentially minimize mistaken orders on the basis of misunderstanding of the "rulebooks" versus people just making huge epic "Eff-Ups" because of not understanding the rules or major strategic mistakes.

Asking for a friend, so not just me....

I am not sure what you mean. I had Scott post links on the first page of the thread indicating the map and the rules, so new players wouldn't be lost. I expect that the players have either played Diplomacy or read that ruleset. I have asked for clarification from some players in regards to orders I think involve a typo, but I have not stepped in to question players as to whether they realize they are making an enormous strategic mistake. That would be highly improper for the GM to do in a game like this.

If you have something specific that you are confused by, please just ask. I have stated numerous times that I will answer such questions.

From some private conversation (NOVA, correct me if I'm wrong) I believe the sequence he's referring to is this set of moves from Spring 1907:

Austria: F Nap - Tys / Bounced with Lyo

France: F Lyo - Tys / Bounced with Nap
France: F Wes S F Lyo – Tys

Italy: F Tun S F Lyo - Tys / Dislodged from Tys

Turkey: F Ion S F Tys – Tun
Turkey: F Tys - Tun
Turkey: F tus Supports F nap - tys

The adjudication by jDip was correct, because:

a) Tun is dislodged 2vs1: Tys attacks Tun with support from Ion, and Tun is not supported.  This is straightforward.

b) Because Tun is dislodged, its support to any operation in the space that dislodged it (Tys) is cut.

c) As such, the French and Austrian moves to Tys bounce because it's 2vs2: Lyo-Tys with support from Wes (Tun's support was cut as noted above), vs Nap-Tys with support from Tus.

Now, if I had tried to convoy the army in Rome to Tunis (as I attempted once before), THAT would have failed because it would hit one of those obscure corners in the rules.  In a convoy situation, Tunis's support for the French attack on Tys would NOT have been cut.  As such, the French move to Tys would have succeeded (3vs2), which would have dislodged my fleet from Tys, which would have disrupted my convoy, so Tun would not have been dislodged.  The end result would have been Tun remaining in place, France's move to Tys succeeding, and my fleet in Tys destroyed because there would have been no place for it to retreat.  But I didn't try the convoy, so this is all hypothetical.

[GeorgiaModerate]

I’ve previously said that I’m neutral on going to 72 for movement turns, if that’s what the majority prefers. Ditto on 48 for the other phases.

[GeorgiaModerate]

I suppose the disposition of Germany could factor into the retreat, so very well. I will announce the hiatus right now.

If any of you know anyone on the forum (or even off it, too) who might want to play, please invite them so we can get this ball rolling again!

Please ping me if we get an alternate (Or if Gustaf should choose to return, although by from the sounds of what you have said that is probably unlikely), since my intent was not to just bail, but with a "neutral Germany" without a real player representing them would like just be divvied up by the nearest powers with Armies / Fleets in the area.

Sure one could argue that might be beneficial to me from a certain perspective, but really that's not how the game was meant to be played.

Haven't really looked at "alternate" strategies without a real actual person willing to take over the role of a surviving power which actually has some real assets (As opposed to the 1-Supply Center gig where it is relatively easy to just have the unit HOLD without seriously disrupting game balance) to see if there might be another way this has been dealt with in the past, but open to suggestions.

I don't know of any strategies for taking over a viable power in the middle of the game other than waiting for a new player. The closest analogy I can think of is the 2-player variant of the game, in which one person plays AGT, the other plays EFR, and Italy is neutral and its territory cannot be entered.  I suppose something similar could be done with the German territory in this game, adjusting the winning threshold to a majority of the remaining supply centers.  But that would really distort the strategic layout of the game (and would it be just Germany, or also Holland and Scandinavia?)  I don't think it's a great option.

Actually I've just had a funny idea.  Let me think about this for a bit.

[GeorgiaModerate]

For what it's worth, on playdiplomacy games cannot be interrupted by powers resign either voluntarily or automatically. The game carries on with the supply centers as deadweight. This doesn't say a whole lot since this is maybe my fourth or fifth game, but I have never played a game that started and ended with the same powers. Powers were often left vacant and the game resumed with its neighbors going for what remained. Obviously that isn't fair because this does not affect every remaining power equally, but even the fact that a substitute has entered will influence how they are approached by their neighbors.

If we can't get a replacement soon, then I can't see a fair way to resolve this besides either all survivors winning automatically or all survivors except for England winning automatically. (I'd prefer the latter approach here; ending with less than what you started with is not a "win" in my opinion and only two powers have actually been eliminated at this stage.)

Germany going into civil disorder would be consistent with the rules. As you say it’s not fair to all players (obviously it would disadvantage me) but those are the breaks. Or we could just call it a draw. I’ve always thought that a draw should include all survivors, whether they have 1 center or 17. But the mention of England raises a thought: if IBNU is still interested in playing, what about letting him take over Germany while England goes into civil disorder? (This isn’t the funny idea that struck me earlier - still need to think about that one).

[GeorgiaModerate]

If Gustaf is definitely leaving, I think the first choice is to find a replacement Germany, either by advertising here (Jesse could change the thread title again) or seeing if one of the eliminated players would like to take over, or having IBNU switch to Germany.  If a replacement can't be found, then either Germany could go into civil disorder...or we could try the following amusing idea.  This is an initial framework, so feel free to suggest modifications.

What if we "partitioned" Germany between AFT, similar to the partitions of Poland?  It has 6
units, which neatly divides between 3 powers, and 7 centers; NOVA could have the extra center, since he's one behind A & T; this would give us 11 centers each.  The way this would work would be to somehow choose who gets which centers, perhaps with a draft, i.e. we each pick a center in turn until they're all taken.  The new power would get ownership of that German supply center and replace the German unit in it with one of their own of the same type.  The German fleet in NWG would go with Norway, the army in Ruhr with Denmark, and Sweden would have no unit assigned to it.  Then we continue with the game as normal.  This would be a bit chaotic at first but probably fun.  It would definitely be interesting.

A variation of this idea: since AF are adjacent to Germany and I'm not, my new centers and units would be disconnected from the rest of my territory.  So an alternative would be to split Germany between AF (give France 4 centers and Austria 3), while they each cede me one non-home supply center and unit to compensate for it.  Rome and Spain (with the fleet set to retreat from Wes) are obvious possibilities, but this could be negotiated.  This would again give all three of us 11 centers.

[GeorgiaModerate]

Adjudication is coming guys, this was just a complicated turn. You'll see what I mean in a few minutes when I post the update.

The Americans have joined the war?

[GeorgiaModerate]

Please tell me I didn't make a mistake in those orders, because I just saved the file in jDip by accident and I have yet to find a way to undo a turn to redo it after it is saved. 

As written they look wrong. You have Stp-Nwy succeeding, but also Bel-Nwy. However, a second order for Bel (a hold) is also listed. Might be other issues. I suggest you post everyone’s order message to you here for confirmation.

[GeorgiaModerate]

Never mind...

Move on here nothing to see here people.

Apologies to the GM and all that...

Time to move forward to to the aftermath of the Fall '08 Orders....

Sometimes those of us of Irish-American background might sometimes shoot from the hip a bit and then we double check the scene and recognize that the Rising of the Day has maybe not quite happened yet. L(

It was perfectly reasonable to be concerned.  The text showed the Austrian Stp-Nwy succeeding while the map did not, while it also showed two different orders for your army in Belgium.  (If you had actually submitted such, I think it would have been covered by the "ambiguous order" provision in the rules and both would have been void.)  But it's clear now that both Bel and Stp tried to move to Norway, neither with support; so they bounced, and as Jesse said: the map was right and the (initially posted) text was wrong.

[GeorgiaModerate]

Pretty sure I got my orders in on time and hopefully didn't create any needless confusion for our thankless GM this go about!   

On time, no confusion. Here's hoping I didn't bungle anything this time around.

Yes, you bungling fool, you were supposed to stab Germany!!!

Seriously, folks, it looks like we’ve got a draw here if everyone is going to stick with their ally. FG can eventually take StP, leaving both pairs with 17 each that can be held indefinitely.

[GeorgiaModerate]

I’m agreeable to calling it a draw too, in case it wasn’t clear.

[GeorgiaModerate]

Thanks to everyone for an enjoyable game, and especially to our GM for creating and managing this.  Having been a GM myself (no pun intended), it’s a role where when everything goes smoothly you’re invisible, and when it doesn’t go smoothly it’s a big hassle.  Not unlike being a forum moderator, come to think of it.

Now regarding the actual game…

As I’ve mentioned before to several people, Turkey is one of my least favorite powers, and I was rather dismayed to draw it, especially after also having it one of muon’s games back in 2018 (oddly, that game ended in an FGT draw -- and NOVA was also France in it!)  I think Turkey is rather boring, easy to draw with if you can survive long enough to get solidly established, but very difficult to win with.  I mean, it’s difficult to win with ANY power in Diplomacy, but Turkey is especially so because it’s so hard for it to get a position across the main stalemate line.

Starting out, my strategy was to ally with either Russia or Austria against the other (because if they both gang up on Turkey, its game tends to be nasty, brutish, and short).  I was open to either one at first, but in the early negotiations, Scott was much more communicative than the Mikado, which inclined me toward an Austrian alliance.  I was still open to either side until the first move, when I was disappointed that the Mikado let Austria walk into Galicia after I had warned him not to (I wanted to play the two of them against each other if possible).  The result left us in a position to eliminate the Russian southern fleet, which is always a thorn in Turkey’s side, so it was an easy choice at that point to commit fully to the Austrian alliance.  And Scott, you were a great ally; I really enjoyed our partnership.  I also do enjoy a kind of mentor role, and found you to be an eager and apt pupil.

We managed to coordinate our moves in such a way that we each made progress, but at least preserved the illusion that we weren’t allied for a couple of years -- although once Scott convoyed my army into Italy, that illusion was pretty much shattered.  After that, it was a matter of grinding out the rest of the Russian and Italian centers.  Kuumo defended very well with NOVA’s backup, and it took longer to reduce Italy than I would have liked.  Tunis especially was a problem, and I wasn’t optimistic of ever getting it; it really was a lucky guess to capture it when I did. In fact, I was prepared to prop up Kuumo myself if France ever put two units on Tunis, as I was quite concerned about the possibility of a French solo if he should get it.  With England collapsing and Germany (under its first two governments) playing suboptimally, it was easy to envision France rolling up everything north/west of the stalemate line, and Tunis would have been his 18th center in that scenario.

I’m sure some of you are wondering why I never stabbed Scott, although there was ample opportunity to do so, as NOVA made sure to keep reminding me. 😉  It goes back to the difficulty I mentioned above about Turkey winning.  I don’t believe in throwing over a good alliance unless it’s going to significantly increase my chances of winning the game, and at no time would that have ever been true.  At best I could have gotten 17 centers – the 18 we held between us at the end minus StP, which would have easily been defended from the north.  At worst it could have enabled a French solo.

In this situation with Turkey, the only way to get an 18th center would be in Germany, or in France/Iberia.  With a viable Germany, there would be no way for me to fight through Austria and get to the German centers before they could be defended; if England had emerged as the dominant power in the West, with Germany eliminated, it would have been a different story.  So my only possibility was to try and pick up at least one, preferably two, of Marseilles/Spain/Portugal – preferably the latter two, because with all those Turkish fleets in the Med it would have been practical to hang onto them.  If I had ever managed that, then I would have stabbed Scott and gone for the solo.  But NOVA defended extremely well and made us scrap for every inch of progress in the Mediterranean.  

While Gustaf was playing and in the anti-French alliance, I thought he’d put enough pressure on France to allow us to break through into the Atlantic, in which case the above possibility might come to pass.  But with pressure on his northern front relieved, NOVA got his extra fleets in place just in time to back up his MAO fleet.  If he hadn’t moved a fleet into at least one of ENG or NAO last turn, then our next move would have been Lyo-Spa, Wes-MAO, Naf S Wes-MAO, with the result being the Austrian fleet in the Atlantic, and the Iberian dominoes start falling.  But once there was an uncuttable support available for MAO, no further progress could be made against France, although neither could he push us back in the Med.  Stalemate.

So I’m a little disappointed that I never got the chance for that solo attempt, which would have been fun to try, but not very disappointed because my expectations for Turkey were fairly low to begin with. Thanks again to everyone for an enjoyable game!

[GeorgiaModerate]

I just had a hearty chuckle at you saying Turkey is your least favourite power, having just played an optimal Turkey run. I shudder to imagine what kind of devastation the others are in for when you draw a power you really enjoy.

OK, with that for an opening, I have to tell the story of the greatest game I ever played, and immodestly and arguably, perhaps the greatest game anyone has ever played.

This was an email game in a group of regular players I belonged to a long ago (the group faded away at least 15 years ago).  I had Germany, which actually IS my favorite power.  France was a player I had encountered before, who I knew had a compatible style with mine.  This is not to say that we were automatic allies, but I knew that if we did ally, we'd likely mesh well. 

And so we did.  In fact, we started with an EFG, which can be extremely effective until one of them inevitably gets cut out.  This worked well to start with; England and I teamed up against Russia, taking StP and Warsaw, while France had a free hand to push into the Mediterranean.  On the other side of the board, there was a diehard AI alliance, where Austria had picked off Sev and Moscow, and the two were hard pressing Turkey.  However, the latter (through brilliant defense and/or lucky guesses) managed to keep them barely at bay; as I mentioned in the earlier post, it's tough to eliminate Turkey if it can get a solid footing.

France and I had agreed that England would be jettisoned at an appropriate time, but France jumped the gun and stabbed him earlier than I was expecting.  I had to jump into the attack late, but England was so annoyed at France that he ensured I got the lion's share of his centers before his elimination. 

This left me as a powerful Germany with no Russia, no England, and control of most of the northern half of the board.  This is an extremely strong position to be in.  FG and I resumed pushing east against Italy, but when he overextended, I moved units in to stab him from behind.  It was a sure solo, and he saw it. 

I should mention here that Austria & Italy were being total jerks to everyone else in the game.  So France wrote to me and said something along the lines of "OK, you've got me, but I hate to be eliminated before AI.  How about I become your Janissary and you don't kill me until we eliminate them?"  I believed he was sincere (and of course it was a way to keep himself in the game in case I slipped up and let him back into it), and it appealed to me too.  AI really were being awful.

So I accepted, and we kept pushing east.  We kept whittling away at AI, while Turkey hung on gamely and cheered us on.  I had to be careful not to solo too early, so I had to let France also keep growing, although I was careful to always have the solo in hand if he should change his mind.  But he didn't.

At some point during this, I started wondering how many centers I could solo with.  I once took 24 in a game when it was obvious I would solo and the other remaining powers kept fighting each other, not caring what I did.  But I had seen another game in our group where the winner got 25, so I wanted to beat that.  I started counting up and saw that 26 was a lock, 27 probable, maybe 28 or even 29. 

I wrote to France and said I'd like to shoot for a round 30 centers as something nobody would ever be likely to exceed.  He replied, "Why not try for 34?  Nobody would ever beat that.  I'd love to be part of something that epic, and I bet Turkey would be interested in helping too if we ask him." 

So we asked Turkey, and he was indeed interested, and I started planning for it.  This turned out to be surprisingly difficult.  To end up with 34, you must enter the game's final year with exactly 17, and in that year each one of your 17 units must take one of the remaining 17 you don't have.  Obviously this is impossible without some assistance, since you can't spare any units to support yourself against a defender.  But I worked out a plan that would do it with French and Turkish cooperation.

Meanwhile, AI kept watching us slowly erode their centers, and got more vocally annoying than ever.  Austria wrote a public message to the GM accusing us of "colluding" (which is pretty much what an alliance does) to "violate the spirit of the game" because I kept refraining from finishing off the solo.  The GM responded that in his opinion, attempting to crush your opponents was entirely within the spirit of the game.

The final year came, with everything in position.  We all turned in our orders, and it worked.  I ended up with all 34 centers.  To top it all off, on the final turn I included a coup de grace (at France's suggestion) of a convoy from St Pete all the way around the board to Smyrna using eight French and German fleets.  It was beautiful to behold.

Postscript: Austria, who had been the most vocally annoying of the AI pair, and I subsequently became good friends in the group and played in several enjoyable games together.

[GeorgiaModerate]

Just addressing one bit of NOVA's very nice end-of-game statement:

V.) I will leave it up to GM whose spent a lot more time playing this game than the rest of us to answer, but is there a way that FG alliance might have been able to crack the game for a win?

Nope, it's pretty easy for us to defend from the final position.  As previously noted, you guys (specifically Germany) can get StP eventually, but that leaves us with 17 centers that can be protected unbreakably. The south is already locked up; Tus S Lyo and Naf S Wes is solid even if you shuffle your fleets around to get one into Marseilles, and the Austrian army in Pie blocks any land attack from the south.  So that leaves the east, where all we have to do is get a line of armies into Tyr, Boh, Vie, Gal, War, Ukr, Mos, and Sev.  Then Vie S Boh, Gal S War, Ukr S War, and Sev S Mos holds indefinitely.  We can get into this position long before you have enough units in place to block its creation.  If you wondered why I moved Rum-Gal, it was a long-term defensive move with this possible outcome in mind.

The loss of StP doesn't hurt us because Austria can disband his army in Rome, which isn't necessary for the defense. Alternatively, I could let him have one of my centers and disband one of my armies in Italy or an eastern fleet.