Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[V-Norrec]

I'm using exclusively Web Diplo.

[Grek]

Italy - grek

ffffffffuu

This will be a difficult game.

[mainiac]

Germany - Mainiac

If nothing else, this should be interesting.

[Akroma]

sigh, nobody wanting info's on the opening strategy ?


no diplomatic phase during the whole game is as important as the pre-1900 talk

[Sheb]

Well, if you've got any tips for France, you can PM them, but otherwise I just enjoy trying to figure out who's trying to doublecross me and use hima gainst the one who's trying of triple-crossing me.

[Grek]

Let's hear some Italian advice. I'll need it, I think.

[Akroma]

an initial analysis of spring 01:




all what is said here is just my impression on the moves, how they can be seen on a global scale, and what dangers they could pose.


as I have not read the actual diplomacy of the game, this is merely a neutral objective view. I have no way of knowing of any deeper, underlying plots that might be hidden behind the moves






england:


the conservative, defensive opening. as both he and france left the channel open, I would assume a certain amount of trust between england and france, at least enough to go beyond the initial spring paranoia of the western triangle.
while not "anti" persay, the move can be seen as pro-france. the norwegian sea opening is usualy a gateway to attack russia, or to attack germany, either by convoying the army in york to sweden, which is a gateway for a powerful attack on russia.the only alternative for a small scale russian attack is going for sweden with the fleet alone, and then eventually taking st.petersburg when russia is looking south. such an attack would more be a "oh well, free center" rather than a planned attack, as england has no way of progressing further.


 or the army is convoyed towards belgium, usualy with french, or if the diplomacy was good with german, or when it was really brilliant with both germany and france helping england.
the convoy to belgium would be the most neutral outcome, leaning a little versus germany. watch out what happens in belgium this turn. this will tell you long stories






france:


the most conservative opening there is, I think used in 60% of all french games. one army heads to belgium in a both defensive and opportunistic manner. on the one hand, it diffuses the always scary potential of germany heading there in 01. that's rare, but when it happens, it's devastating. nothing france can easily recover from.
of course when that does not happen, it can always meddle with brest, in one way or another.


this move, much more neutral than englands likely anti german move, has a great building potential. there are 2 guaranteed builds, and the chance for a 3rd. the third built, statisticaly means france will come out on top of the western triangle, possibly winning the game.


again, france leaving the channel alone and going to grab iberia tells a long story of the diplomacy that is going on, because:






germany:


now this one seems like the current loser in the western triangle. from my experience in spring 01, everyone in that triangle tells the one he will attack the other together with them. no doubt there have been talks between both france and germany, and england and germany, where everyone spoke about attacking the other.


well, if france or england ever said so, well, looks like they had no intention to do so. this is the problem western triangle. SOMEONE has to be the underdog. a western triple alliance can happen, but let's be honest, that rarely ever works out. as a result, no one wants to be the one who stabbed first. everyone, germany, england and france moved conservatively, hoping to be the the last one to make a mistake.


all of them are hoping for the other two to fight one another, and be the third one that defeats both.


germanies moves again, are a prime example of boring, riskless play. sweden for sure, holland is very very likely, and an opportunity to use belgium as a bargain tool, usualy not going for it himself, but using it to bribe an ally.


right now, germany has to make a difficult decision on which one to trust, and then hope desperately handing belgium to that one will gain loyalty for coin. a dangerous tendency. if germany always has to gift it's allies, it won't have much of the pie for itself, and god damn, it can be so powerful when it gets the pie.




the move to denmark of course, is the usual tool to pressure russia. germany alone decides wether or not russia gets sweden. usualy, it means russia will do what germany wants, or get angry at germanies tenacity.






russia:


good example for a horribly failed move. as an important rule: never leave a unit unmoved, unless it staying there is actually necessary. warsaw could have gone to galicia - anti austrian - or to ukraine - neutral to anti-turkish


he made a right choice in defending the bleack sea though. turkey getting in there is deadly for russia, and vice versa. neither should leave the other into it.


the move in moscow was a blunder as well. if he had no intention on moving warsaw, then that army should have gone to ukraine.


it shows clearly that russia pays very, very little thought on his moves, and more important, the enemies moves. a newbie. eat him up, it's basicaly free centers. or leave him alife, it's basicaly a free puppet.


unless he gets a grip fast, he seriously lacks threat potential.




austria:


unlike most austria's which feel threathened by the situation (for a reason), this austria decided against playing on the defence, and is going all out, in an attempt to gain as many centers early on as possible.
that he did not defend galicia shows he had trust in russia.


because of russias blunder, austria would *potentialy* have made the ideal opening, with a chance to grab ukraine in the first year. which for austria, is absolutely wonderful. any austria that manages that will dominate the east.


well, if not for:




italy:


in a rather suprising move, italy went and grabbed trieste. most austria's leave trieste defended, and so most italies decide not to go there, as it greatly ruins the relationship.
at any rate, this italy has two guaranteed builds this year, instead of just one, which is twice as many as usualy. should italy decide to pursue a war against austria, austria has no chance of survival whatsoever, not unless both russia and turkey leave him alone, and turkey going straight against italy.


in the event that this was not an attack however, there is a strategy called the lock and key lepanto. in that event, italies army is going to head towards serbia. and austria is going to try to get both greece and rumania.
this combinations is almost obscenely deadly against turkey, but requires a LOT of trust.






turkey:


not much to say here, it's one of two possible openings for turkey. turkey can either move against russia, sending an army to armenia, or against austria, with this opening.


it IS possible for turkey to still go against russia in a suprise attack, if turkey manages to get the black sea. since that failed, trying to turn around and attack russia now would have to deal with a huge delay, and be very unsatisfying. so he will have to go for russia straight, or through austria
my money goes on turkey going for rumania though. it's the most likely event that austria will try to get greece, despite of italies attack, to gain a center


it's also possible for italy to attempt to grab greece, which if it worked, would be deadly for austria.


















that's it for neutral analysis. since you players actually know what is happening between the players, you probably will hear a dozen of different explanations for these moves and on what will happen, and many "do not listen to akroma"s

[USEC_OFFICER]

Never played, but I would like to.

Answer right there.

[Grek]

is Frelock even active?

[V-Norrec]

usually, why?

[lemon10]

Nice analysis akroma, but in the future, could you not separate everything so much, so that your post takes up a bit less space?
i could still attack russia from the left i think if i felt like it, attacking from the right would have stoped me from taking any of the neutral nations that i am taking right now.

and yeah, does look a bit like russia is failing, if they moved warsaw, they could have taken berlin/munic/vienna

[Sheb]

Nice analysis Akroma, but  I feel it's like the Wikileak's cables: you don't actually learn anything new but having everything out in the open make everyone looking ly hypocrits. :p

[Akroma]

first blood has been drawn, and we are looking at an interesting winter 01 to come








england:


a great fail this year, both strategicaly, and more importantly, diplomaticaly.
despite the risk of france going with 3 builds this year, england either has made no attempt at talking to france about belgium, or is extremely submitive. there was NO way to get into holland, with germany so clearly heading there
it would have been easy to ask france "You are going to get 2, and I am going to get 2. 50/50, as it should be between allies."


that this was not the outcome leaves several ways to interpret it:


- france, in a clever diplomatic trap offered the "strategy", that roughly should read like this:
"I have offered germany to help him into belgium. instead, I will move to belgium, and you will move to holland - that way, we block germany, and he can only get denmark this year, weakning him greatly."


at the same time, he tipped germany off about englands new plans to go to holland and bang, a diplomatic master move. germany and england are now at war, france is the neutral side that can easily pick off whomever he wants, while no one bothers to stop him and he gets 3 builds, for free.


hard to pull off, but moves like that actually ended rounds in tournaments before it's no joke. when Edi Birsan, probably the most famous diplomacy player in the world did that in a worldcup before, only a few turns later the game was given up and he was declared winner.


that's how strong france's position right now is.


- france simply said no to a 50/50 share. through whatever reasoning, he simply bitchslapped england out of his share. that's some balls.




- the most likely: a distinct lack of communication. france and england barely discussed the matter at hand, despite it's importance. england might have simply chosen holland because germany rubbed him in a wrong way, and france tactfully held back and simply let it unfold.




at any rate, england will have to build a fleet, most likely in london. more about this matter under france


englands biggest hope right now is russia. while russia is busy in the south, his fleet in sweden can be insanely important








france:


there is not much to say about these moves. while most everyone on the board chose a side by now, france is delightfully neutral, and earns greatly from it. whatever he did, he did it right, or he is just lucky.


however, a fast start can always scare others. when people see how strong france is, and they will see because they just read this summary, it won't take long until "we should stop our petty war and unite against the big bad cheese eater" will make the round.


france will have a hard time to explain to england what happened in belgium in a favourable way. he should stick with sweet-talking germany. he has done nothing even slighty aggressive against germany, and germany will want to see englanf taught a lesson. maybe.




while the build in marsailles leaves several options, it would be downright suprising to see anything other than a fleet in brest this winter. it is the diplomaticaly and strategicaly best option. should he not build a fleet, then only for a huge diplomatic gamble.


the fleet will leave the channel with an interesting situation - france will not want england to move to the channel, even if that fleet would be used against germany. neither will england want france in the channel


if I was france, I would see that this si the right time to drop the neutrality. during the first year, it's a god given. in the second, it's your ruin. england and germany will see france is not helping, they will unite and kill him.


my bet: with naval supremacy, he can easily, and I mean EASILY force his way into englands back, and defeat him within 6 moves, while starting an offensive against germany in the 4th or 5th.


but does france have what it takes ?






germany:


germany has made no real mistake. using whatever info he had, he made sure he had two builds, and stayed neutral while at it. while having england against him, chances are this will change within this turn, or the next, and with two builds in this position, he is in no real danger - for now. he will have problems becoming a dominating party in the future, but for now, it's alright.


but one thing can be said for certain: germany knew that england was going to attack. someone told him, and he acted accordingly. that was no guess.


note to england: be more critical with what you say about your moves. someone you told about this has a loose mouth.


germany made everything right in letting russia have sweden. while no germany ever wants a strogn russia, what germany wants less is an angry russia. had he prevented russia from taking it, russia would surely ally with england - because that would be the only way for russia to get sweden.


like this, germany still has chances to get russia on board.
he must watch out what he builds. the only build that would not make russia nervous would be a build in munich - which would make france angry.


it's all about explaining the purpose of the build properly, in 6 different versions for everyone.






russia and turkey:




upcoming stalemate. if they continue their fights, neither side has the resources and the strategic position to dislodge the other. without intervention from austria or italy, a russian-turkish war is not possible.


this leaves them with two options:


the juggernaut. the first strategy that gained a name, and it speaks a long story. when italy and austria are fighting, a russian-turkish alliance is unstoppable. and will overrun the entirety of europe easily. especialy with such a strong france, the juggernaut will be growing fast. soon the only thing that cans top the juggernaut is russia or turkey stabbing the other - something that is hard to rely on, and for germany austria and italy, may come a lot to late.


my hint for austria and italy: should turkey build a fleet in smyrna, drop everything where you stand and go ALL out against russia and turkey. I have said it so many times in dozens and dozens of games, and everytime when nobody was listening to me it ended with me saying: "well, told you. I told you in autumn 01. but nooooo"


alternative: as opposed to my previous statement, it is very possible for russia to turn this situation in his favour. it needs no diplomatic skill, but incredibly skill at tactics and forseeing the enemies moves. I have doubts he can pull it off, but he CAN win this all alone




another likely outcome: either russia or turkey screws up. a stupid move at a stupid time, and the stalemate crumbles. among two newbies fighting, this usualy does it






italy:


thumbs up, taking greece with your army was the best move avaiable. it was a large gamble, as I would have sworn austria would have taken greece and moved rumania.


but do you have what it takes to continue on with the perfect builds ?


buuut he is a newbie. he, like most players, lacks the forethought of going through every scenario, and always acting as if the worst is going to happen.


hint to all players: diplomaticaly, be an optimist, strategicaly, be a pessimist. always assume the enemy knows the best moves to fight you. which means you two must know them
in pro-games, where all players know the best moves, a intentionaly sub-par move can be a serious suprise.




mind you, I am talking about sub-par offense. defence must always be par.




austria:


as so many austria's before, it seems you will drop out first, because you got to know two of the most important parts of diplomacy: the retreat system, and the move blocks. it was never possible for you to move into rumania without serbia supporting that move. never. it was entirely wasted


as italy would have been able to retreat into any of your centers should he be dislodged, wasting serbia to support in that direction was bad in two ways: it stripped resources on important projects, like sending the fleet to greece with support, or taking rumania with support, both easily possible and useful


secondly, it put italy in a better position. in trieste, his army was nearly useless. he would have to move it elsewhere first, or use it to support, which could be easily cut. in vienna, he is in an excellent position.




but don't give up. while strategicaly you are SCREWED, diplomacy can save you. google "diplomacy juggernaut archive" and learn everything about this matter. then use that to make sure italy sees while you need to live.

[V-Norrec]

Yeah, I should have taken Rumania, would have been smarter >.>  Damn, I played that all wrong.

[Toaster]

Posting to watch; don't mind me.