[Diplomacy] SG Game 2



  • "Ruhr SUPPORT Burgundy to Belgium -> Supported order does not correspond"
    "Burgundy MOVE Picardy -> resolved"
    Excuse me while I gloat. Some twisted loyalty test, Bill? Or is there no trust in this new alliance?
  • Hey Mike --

    What are you doing that here for?

    * * *

    It will be interesting to debrief about this game later. The anxiety and trepidation, the uncertainty, fear, and hostility: it's a little exhilarating, but a little unpleasant, too. I personally find it hard to take. I am taking note of the mechanisms I use to accommodate the experience; I think they may stand me in good stead if I ever go to Guantanamo.

    -- Bill
  • Posted By: Bill_WhiteHey Mike --
    What are you doing that here for?
    -- Bill
    Good-humoured smacktalk combined with clarifying German/French relations for any spectators.
  • edited January 2010

    The GERMAN ARMY, consisting of several PRIVATES, is camped outside BELGIUM. Enter LIEUTENANT VON HIEDLER.

    Lt. Von Hielder: "Good news men! We have orders from command. We are to assist the French in taking Belgium!"
    Private Hans: "Assist? It's an empty city. The boys and I went down there to buy some meat."
    Private Franz: "Isn't France the enemy?"
    Private Hans: "No, England is the enemy."
    Private vans: "I heard Austria-Hungary was the enemy."
    Lt. Von Hielder: "Enough! It does not matter who the enemy is."
    Pr. Hans: "You don't know either, do you?"
    (A Brief Silence.)
    Pr. Franz: "Hey look, the French army is pulling out. Looks like they're going to Picardy."
    Pr. Hans: "Shouldn't we help them?"
    Pr: Vans: "Or attack them while they run away?"
    Lt. Von Hielder: "No. Our orders were very clear. Assist them in taking Belgium."
    Pr. Franz: "But they aren't doing that."
    Pr. Hans: "Hey look, the English are taking Belgium. Maybe we should stop them."
    Pr Franz: "Or help them. That way we can say we helped somebody."
    Pr. Vans: "We can take those Brits! They've just got a bunch of boats. At worse it'll be a standoff, and no one gets the city, and we can keep slipping down there for a meal now and again."
    Lt. Von Hielder: "ENOUGH! None of those things are what we were ordered to do, so we will stay here, and wait, so we can report back to command that we followed their orders to the best of our ability."
    Pr Hans: "Lazy dummkopf."
  • This has been expected.

    Now all I can do is make life hard for someone else!

    Eeny, meeny, miny, moe...
  • Come now Daumantas, surely you learned from the valiant way Austria fought its way to victory in the last game? In Diplomacy you're always on the track to victory as long as you're still in the game. Now you're all the more dangerous to your opponents after having shed your illusions of fair play and honorable promises so early - you're ahead of the game, in fact.

    Everything else on the board makes sense to me, except for the French decision to go to Picardy and the English decision to leave Nth instead of convoying the army. Ironically the combination of moves puts the two into a bind that will only work to cement their alliance: now the only way to prevent Germany from taking Belgium as well is for those two to cooperate until England can get new fleets into the scene. Terribly inefficient play from England, but of course he'll make it up with the two new fleets, which should provide him a dominant position on the northern seas.
  • Being perceived as dangerous and capable of doing less than efficient moves that hurt my opponent more than they help me gives me leverage.

    I'm planning on using that to further my goals. Or going down in a blaze of glory! Only time will tell.

    Now, assuming I survive long enough to have something to protect, I will be back to my reasonable self.

    'till then, though... Anything goes!
  • Posted By: Eero Tuovinen Terribly inefficient play from England, but of course he'll make it up with the two new fleets, which should provide him a dominant position on the northern seas.
    A schoolboy error, but I'm playing nice.
  • Bill, since I see you have a forum account, would you mind mentioning in the server thread that it dropped my build order as well? I don't know if that's at all related to the other issues, but it might be worth the admins knowing about.

    (Yes, I did turn in an order and yes, I did double check it.)
  • Posted By: MarhaultBill, since I see you have a forum account, would you mind mentioning in the server thread that it dropped my build order as well? I don't know if that's at all related to the other issues, but it might be worth the admins knowing about.

    (Yes, I did turn in an order and yes, I did double check it.)
    Will do. In fact, done.
  • I just whiffed my build order completely.

    In my defense, last night was my company holiday party, and I am as hungover this morning as I have been in three years. Urgh.

  • Thanks, Bill!
  • Apparently this is the fourth outage like this in the last month? Not good for a site based around deadline oriented play.
    [cite]Posted By: Bill_White[/cite]

    It will be interesting to debrief about this game later. The anxiety and trepidation, the uncertainty, fear, and hostility: it's a little exhilarating, but a little unpleasant, too. I personally find it hard to take. I am taking note of the mechanisms I use to accommodate the experience; I think they may stand me in good stead if I ever go to Guantanamo.

    Within certain bounds that stuff doesn't bother me. I mean, I see it as all being within the game space. It's not personal and the only thing at stake is success or failure in the game. If direct personal insults were made or mention of my mother and goat fucking, well, that would be personal and totally out of bounds from my expectations of game play.

    Diplomacy definitely has a space for psychological warfare and manipulating that space without stepping into the personal is probably a useful skill to cultivate. The problem probably being that the players it would be most effective on are also the ones most likely to take it personally.

    Eero, you've got a kajillion more times Diplomacy experience than I do and I'd like to hear what you have to say about that aspect of Diplomacy if you care to expound.

  • This kind of circles back to the original discussion about Diplomacy. Different people have very different ideas and expectations about what *should* happen in the game, especially in the interactions between players.
  • S-s-s-social contract!
  • Server is back up. Go input your orders before it goes down again.
  • I wrote a long treatise about your question, Chris, based on the last thread. Ultimately, though, my answer can be phrased in a simpler and shorter way:

    If I were asked to play Chess in a foul-mouthed sailor bar on the waterfront, a place where I'm prone to get spat upon and cursed at for doing well in the game - I would not say that the players in that place are playing wrong, I'd just say that it's a play environment in which I don't want to play. Similarly in Diplomacy, in which many play environments have developed towards accepting anything and everything in the negotiations as part of the psych game - they are not playing wrong, I don't think, but they are playing in an uncourteous manner, which I do not need to condone. I want a certain level of decorum from my personal play environment and co-players, even if I do not claim that others are playing wrong by being much more lively about slandering their opposition.

    This is partially an issue of play quality, although not at its core: I might say that it's a more high-level play if I can get you to attack Brest by cleverly framing a convincing strategic argument for it than if I screamed threats at you with spit flying on your order sheet. After all, in the first case I'm displaying superior understanding of the game while misleading you courteously, while in the latter case I'm just browbeating you by acting in ways you might not expect and be prepared for, psychologically. So in that sense we might say that courteous play is more in the spirit of the exercise. However, we might also argue that it's up to the opponent to withstand lively rhetorics, and if it's the local style, then you're expected to make your best play no matter how provocative the other guy gets about your parentage. As long as your communication is within local mainstream you're not getting any advantage or disadvantage from the rhetorical part of your argument anyway, as your target can discount those bits and focus only on the substance of your message. (All of this assumes that the players are not actually breaking the ritual space, mind; if the other guy threatens to slander you in public if you don't do what he says or something like that, then it's obvious wrong and against the spirit of the game.)

    Based on the above, I might say that I myself won't rely on completely insubstantial psychological warfare in Diplomacy. If I want to threaten another player into desisting from a war he's about to open, say, then the core of my argument will concern how his actions throw the victory to somebody else or how they'll doom his own play. I won't try to dissuade the player with meta-game arguments like calling him a monkey and threatening to devote the rest of my game to his destruction out of spite. Facts only, facts backed by the victory and loss conditions of the game, and the presumed common value base that the players share in trying to achieve the victory while avoiding the loss. Any rhetoric aside from that is not stylish to my mind, even if it is rules-legal.
  • The server's back up.
  • I find my inability to judge the strategic interests of any one nation, and thus possible alliances they could be forming a pretty big hurdle in trying to talk someone into something and properly judging their intentions.

    Could anyone give me a low-down of what each country is/should be generally trying to accomplish in a game?
  • When you're negotiating with someone, ask yourself "Am I offering something that benefits this person?"

    It can be something big and obvious, like ordering or cutting support for a move, or something more indirect, like helping or hurting a third power in such a way that benefits the person you're dealing with.

    As Eero said above, browbeating is not particularly useful or effective.

    Plus, building up trust is helpful - I'm more inclined to listen and accept something coming from a player who's been honest, even if we're been in conflict.
  • Sure thing, Daumantas, although this is a deep topic. This is a generic overview at the beginning of the game:

    First, the goal of the game: your goal in Diplomacy is not to score as many SCs as possible. It is, in order:
    • Prevent anybody else from gaining a solo victory. Any of the lesser goals hinge on this one, so you never should make actions that go against this primary goal. You'll lose the game if this happens.
    • Survive on the board until the end of the game. If you don't, you've lost the game. If you do, you've won the game, and it's just a matter of how well you won.
    • Gain a solo victory by taking half of the board yourself. This is the big victory, but it's about as common as winning in poker with a royal flush. Don't try to force it unless you know that you can get it.
    • Gain a draw by getting everybody else still in the game to agree to it. You should only try for this when all other outcomes are worse; continuing the game is actually better than accepting a draw as long as you still have a real chance to take a solo or narrow the draw: a draw with less players is better than a draw with more, just like a solo victory is better than any draw.
    • Gain diplomatic or tactical position. Diplomatic position means having a better working relationship with the other Powers. Tactical position means having better means of projecting force against others; this latter part usually involves gaining and holding SCs, which is also necessary for a solo victory and for avoiding getting eliminated. This is a strictly utilitarian goal, though, in that both diplomatic and tactical position only have meaning in relation to the above set of win and loss conditions.
    Now, individual Powers and their early-game concerns follow. I'm going to be a bit frivolous here, as this is a major topic - essays have been written and could be of each Power separately. In short:

    England should encourage other Powers on the Atlantic (defined in Calhamer map strategy as everything this side of Gibraltar, Baltic included) to under-invest in fleets so she can keep her dominating hold and impeccable defensive position. Only Norway is considered a default English SC, for the rest she needs to fight. A mid-term goal is to dominate the Nordic sphere; StP, Swe, Nwy and Den form a natural perimeter area that can be easily held once entirely conquered. Another mid-term goal is to occupy MAO and use the superior position against France at will. Short-term goals involve precision strikes on continental SCs in the Netherlands, preferably with diplomatic goals relating to Germany and France. Only rarely does England go into the end-game by occupying the Netherlands entire with armies and continuing from there to a continental strategy; much more common is for her to dominate the Nordic sphere, break the French hold on MAO and then breach a way into the Mediterranean.

    France has no superior offensive options, but she has two default SCs in the Iberian peninsula and an equal option on Belgium, which gives her a very good depth of defense and material right from the start. Usual early game goals involve jockeying for position with Germany in the Bur-Ruh area with the Netherlands as stakes, and jockeying with England on the Atlantic with Bre-Eng-MAO as the stakes. An assault on England is possible, but it doesn't get any easier as the game wears on; an assault on Germany is more feasible, but it has to be managed with care so England does not get to benefit too much. An assault in Italy is not a good option, but sometimes it's mandated by the other choices being even worse. Strategically France has no obvious sphere of interest aside from the free-for-all Netherlands; she can even abandon that for the right price. France makes her own way, all told.

    Germany has a position in the middle of the board, so her mid-term goal is to ensure that she doesn't get caught in a two-front war. This is done by making sure the Tsar keeps his sanity (attacking Germany is stupid, but sometimes Russia is in desperate straits or not thinking straight) and by being decisive in any confrontation in the west. Germany has a stake in the Nordic area, but only rarely manages to dominate it the way England can. In the early game Germany fights for the Netherlands (with perhaps a slightly better position for it than the other two western Powers) and can try out an assault on France, although the latter rarely is very rewarding. Attacking England is an under-appreciated option that can be rewarding in cooperation with Russia. Attacking Austria is usually a stupid move until either France or England has been taken. Hol and Den are considered default German SCs, making her another Power with two nigh-guaranteed early builds.

    Russia has a priority in making sure she dominates one of her two theaters of war at all times; being forced on the defensive in both at the same time usually proves fatal. In the north the early Russian priority is to occupy Sweden (not entirely guaranteed, as we saw) and discourage an English attack on StP, with unit commitment if necessary. Most Russian players choose to be passive in the north aside from these concerns, but it is possible to build another fleet and claim Norway, especially with German support. After that the next natural move is to try to usurp the English position on the Atlantic, which is a mid-game concern. In the south the Russian play is much more complex: Rumania is usually considered a Russian SC in the early game, but the forces in Balkan are vicious and lots can happen. Galicia is a key defensive position for both Russia and Austria, the Power occupying it will usually have the initiative against the other. The Black Sea is crucial to a Turkish attack on Russia or a Russian attack on Turkey, so it has to be dealt with in some manner as well. The ideal Russian play in the area usually involves claiming the northern half of the Balkans (Vie, Bud, Rum at least) while Turkey claims the southern half; alternatively in an attack on Turkey Russia claims the whole of Turkey while Austria might take the Balkans in whole. In the former case Russia continues to Germany and combines her two theaters into an Europe-wide offensive, in the latter case she'll build fleets and essentially usurp the Turkish role in resisting Italy - unless she chooses to stab Austria, of course, trying to engulf the whole eastern triangle on her own.

    Austria is more vulnerable tactically than any other Power due to her supremely open position. This also means that she has the best offensive capabilities when she has the initiative. Playing Austria is very much a diplomatic issue, as the "best" moves for her leave her completely open against at least one neighbour; therefore the choice of who to trust is imperative, as is getting at least one ally to try that trust thing on in the first place. Italy, Turkey and Russia are the candidates, the rest of the board does not matter in the immediate opening. Serbia is considered an Austrian SC at the start, but she can feasibly go for Rumania or Greece as well, and usually should - be aggressive, take risks and work on your diplomacy; you'll either die fast or expand quickly. The first stable Austrian position occurs at six SCs when she controls Serbia, Greece and either Rum or Bul; at that point she is likely involved in either mopping up Turkey or allying with a desperate 3-SC Turkey against an overbearing Russia. In the mid-game Austria can also go for Italy, although that is only possible if she has not left fleet development on the wayside.

    Italy is not as vulnerable as Austria, but she also doesn't have such offensive opportunities. As the saying goes, Italy both wins and loses less than Austria. Tunis is the only SC that is considered indisputably Italian, and an amateur Italy often finds great difficulty in gaining a toe-hold anywhere else. I myself prefer to take Greece with Italy right from the start, and Trieste is also a possibility as we're seeing in this game; however, Italy should know that usually she'll be on the losing side of any splitting of Austria where Russia and Turkey are also involved. After Austria is dead Turkey and Russia will find a new foe in Italy, after all. Thus my dictum: the Italian priority should be to keep both the western and eastern triangles in balance with nobody dying off while Italy herself grows in power. To achieve this Italy can make precision strikes on Marseilles, Munchen Trieste and the Turkish coast; often Italy can't keep hold of these SCs in a feasible configuration, but attacking the right targets can cause force diversions that allow Italy the time she needs to conquer SCs she can hold, such as Tri-Vie-Bud, Gre, Smy-Con or Mar-Spa.

    Finally, Turkey usually consider Bulgaria a given at the start and has to fight for the rest. Her position is very similar to England in being defensively superior but limited in offensive capability; the trick to playing this sort of position is to leverage the safe defense by taking on an ally and trusting in her a bit, which risk'll allow Turkey to progress. The easiest SCs to take in this manner are Greece and Rumania; it is typical that after taking either Turkey will either turn against Russia to bid for Sevastopol, or build fleets and try to surprise Italy. Turkey is, however, usually the lesser force on the Med, and thus has to focus on defence against the Italian, who often has nothing better to do than fight for her life against Turkey. Therefore the well-played Turkey seeks the opportunity to betray Austria to gain Serbia (and become a continental power to a degree) or Russia to gain Rumania and Sevastopol.
  • It's true; there are piles of Diplomacy strategy and tactics essays online. Although Eero's post is as good a summary as you're likely to find, courtesy of his robust Diplomacy knowledge.

    I do find it odd that most Diplomacy strategy online dates from the 1970s. But I guess the game hasn't changed since then, so they're still perfectly valid.
  • That is pretty interesting, I've noticed the same thing. I guess it's because the game was much, much more popular during the '70s than it is now. There are still new sources as well, but they're not perhaps so easily accessible - the Diplomacy World magazine for instance is a pdf instead of an easily-accessible html article collection, which limits its readership only to the most motivated. Heck, I don't read it myself for some reason.
  • While I wasn't excited about playing Turkey two games in a row, it is my favorite power, followed by England and France. Being able to defend myself makes for a better game for me. You can afford not to be aggressive (which I am not), and if you get walloped in the early game, you can hang on until fortunes change,
  • edited January 2010
    Thanks for those breakdowns, Eero.

    I think the newest article I've come across was originally written in the early 80's. I don't remember what the original dates are on the articles I came across on the Wizards of the Coast site.
  • I'll second the thanks for those those breakdowns; interesting stuff. Certainly helped me empathise with those powers further afield than my western counterparts.
  • edited January 2010
    Thanks, that's exactly what I needed - the strategy guides I find online and read, while useful, get bogged down into very specific, detailed what-ifs quickly, and what I needed more was a broad overarching view of things that helped me understand what the other powers generally want without relying on what they tell me. Because, obviously, they've a vested interest in not telling me the truth about that (unless they're a western power, which isn't as useful to me at this point, heh).

    For those players who have more games under their belts than I do, this stuff is probably common knowledge - having actually played the country in question, you know what their needs are from experience, and can judge their players better when they come to you with offers. For me, though, that's close to impossible - while I see the map and I see what happens, the layer with the important bits, how alliances build, change, and break, is invisible to me.

    Though I think I'm learning fast! I find that when you're as weak as Austria is now, people are generally more open about their plans to you, even if only to gloat.
  • Yeah, Diplomacy is definitely a skill-based game in that while the diplomatic aspect isn't necessarily any easier with experience (you don't get that much better in knowing who to trust or whatever in my experience), the strategic aspect definitely is - and when you know which strategic priorities are important and which are not, that also helps you gauge the risks and rewards of propositions made to you, and to predict what the opponent might be trying to do. It's not only knowledge of the map, either - the skills are somewhat transferrable between variants, it just so happens that the Calhamer map has been analysed exhaustively due to its primacy.

    A good idea for a beginner is to try to figure out which of the other players has the most to win by his success and ask that player for strategic advice. For example, in this situation both Germany and England would benefit from a resilient, reviving Austria, so their advice would be likely to have less strings than that of some others. No idea if those players have advice to give, of course.
  • edited January 2010
    And thus Austria falls after a brief and uneventful struggle. I was expecting the German to screw me the way he did, but I assumed that if he's planning to move on me, I'm dead anyway, so decided to try to break out of this circle somewhat and go for Galicia while asking the German to go for Tyrolia. Might have gone for Trieste instead, but that would have only delayed the inevitable and locked me in from all sides with no breathing room at all.

    I now kind of feel that Austria's fate was sealed right after that initial goof. Now, another player might have still made it work - but I was not only new to the game, I also had the reputation of being new to the game, and as such, was probably seen as either a drain on resources as an ally or easy pickings as a target. (One of) My own mistake(s) here was that I shut out the turk nearly immediatelly, pushing him into a strong partnership with the russian from square one. Stupid, stupid, stupid, what can I say?

    Things I learned:
    It pays to display that you're irked at any perceived injustice instead of writing it off immediatelly. That way, you can sometimes get other players to try to appease you if they need you for a move.
    "Trust" is bullshit and entirely secondary to good strategic options (basically... a capacity of making mistakes and still surviving, which I lost very early on). However, this will not stop people from talking about trust due to the reason above.
    Most games =/= the game I'm playing in. Generalized knowledge of what usually happens doesn't help much in the specific jam one can find himself in.

    Anyway, I had fun!
    And now that I'm out of the game... I'd appreciate it if those who had to deal with me told me their impressions (if it's something that would compromise your current plans, then make it private, 'course) regarding my negotiation attempts or my choices of moves. There's always room for improvement, but in my case, it's warehouses of it, I'm sure!
  • DWeird! It's shame, but you played valiantly and with good humour. Our tactical discussions have been interesting and I hope you'll stick around to comment.

    "Trust" is one of those words that looses meaning if thought on for any length of time. Interestingly, "Betrayal" is another.

    Appealing to the explicit tactical advantage gained from an alliance rather than ideological abstracts tends to be my preferred choice, but there will always be those who are gunning for you however reasonable or mutually-beneficial non-aggression would be. I'm of the opinion that Diplomacy encourages mild megalomania. ;)
  • edited January 2010
    Sorry you went down so soon, Daumantas. But your positive attitude is a good one - your first game is a learning experience, like with anything.

    I think you took some good lessons away. And I think you're right that being PERCEIVED as a rookie was as big a hindrance as actually being one.

    And, yes, whatever the strategy articles say about a game is far less important for the specific game you are playing. If you read that Austria should cement a strong alliance with Germany, but the German player in a particular game is crazy, or makes odd choices, or is pointlessly aggressive, or has a strong alliance elsewhere, than that strategic advice is not only useless, it is actively damaging to you.
  • edited January 2010
    Hey Daumantas,

    You certainly made the first couple years engaging!

    Judging by the comments from other players and my own motivations it seems to me that a big issue was nobody being able to say that your moves were reflective of what you told them you were doing. Being unpredictable can certainly be an asset, but not if you can only achieve it through deception. Then you may just paint yourself as completely unreliable, and even those that want to form a beneficial relationship with you will look to other alternatives.

    The first game is always an eye-opening learning experience.
  • The current state of the game:

  • edited January 2010
    That's a quite interesting situation you have there. I especially like the German presence in Vienna, that should prove problematic to everybody - the natural course is for Germany to either give up the SC for tempo advantage, or bring in a considerable force to establish a real presence in the east. I would say more, except there are some far-reaching options, and we'll want to see if you people think them up for yourselves.

    That last Austrian move was rather flashy. The German move was simply lucky (unless Austria gave his plans away to somebody), but the Russian one was expected. As Galicia isn't immediately useful when you go there in the fall, the move would have been of doubtful utility even if Germany hadn't divined a lethal countermove. Italy has also made some interesting choices here, as has England. I won't critique them in depth as the game is ongoing - ask me later if you want to know what seems strange here to outsider eyes. So far it's working quite nicely, at least for Italy.

    The western situation is also dynamic and exciting, there are all sorts of options there. The board does not tell who should ally with whom in an obvious way, so it'll be up to the diplomacy and macro-strategic planning. All western Powers are still very much kicking - in fact, everybody is doing great except for the poor Austrian, whose quick diminishment has boosted everybody else ahead of the curve, some more and some a bit less. (I'd say that the French situation sucks, except that it's nothing that making an alliance, any alliance, won't fix. Whoever he'll decide to ally with should have an edge against the other neighbours of his, so I can't imagine him getting crumbled like an empty juice carton, with everybody else happily cooperating to feed on the carcass. As the neighbours are also under various pressures, France has a chance at an easy come-back against whoever he decides to not ally.)
  • edited January 2010
    I enjoy the fact that this game has color commentary.
  • To those lamenting the dearth of Diplomacy articles written later than 1978 (which might have happened in the first thread):

    There's a fistful of them over at:

    I'm not expert enough to comment on their quality, but at first glance they seem passable.
  • Couldn't Austria move next season to Warsaw and maintain a government in exile?
  • That last image is from after the fall move, so Austria's already dead in it. We skipped the spring here as nobody thought to post it; I only became active myself out of curiousity, what with Austria declaring himself dead and all.

    Seems that they've already played the winter and are now in spring moves:

  • Tactical update, kids. It'll be a decisive autumn for some nations by the looks of it.

  • I don't understand what's going on in Budapest. Are there two units in it somehow?
  • I like how Germany has the balls to fight against Russia, England and France simultaneously. She'll be in trouble soon if this continues, though, as she doesn't have nearly enough units to man all the front she's opened. Italy got taken by Turkey, it seems, which was pretty expected - now it's time for some hard choices as both France and Turkey offer pressure on Italy's harried borders. Together these two central Powers are facing the rest of the board, which doesn't look too good for either of them. They have good synergy where their lines meet, though - both can help each other significantly, or could if they weren't soon pressured into pure defense by the solidifying enemy fronts.

    All nations have rather good chances for inventive moves now, so it'll be exciting to see where the real alliances lie during... The Decisive Autumn!
  • Roger,

    That's the board as it exists after Spring 1903 attacks, but before processing the retreat order(s). In this case, the only retreat is my (the Russian) unit needs to retreat out of Budapest.

    It's annoying that it locks in a 12 hour turn for a single retreat that only has one option.
  • Well, you could always disband the unit altogether. Not that favourable in this situation, of course.
  • Posted By: Eero TuovinenI like how Germany has the balls to fight against Russia, England and France simultaneously.
    Germany is fighting against England? News to me. I would suggest that the only reason Germany has been able to expand so quickly is due to a stable relationship with Britain.

    I look forward to the Autumn and following year; I can't speak at length being a player but I imagine the board will change drastically by the end of 1904.
  • Ah, retreat. Okay thanks.
  • Oh, I don't really know what is going on in the game, not being privy to the on-goings of the Star Chamber - I just shoot my mouth here like any reporter. It's mighty nice of Germany to give Denmark to England in exchange for help in the war against Russia, though, if that is the case.
  • Especially considering Russian support for the attack on Denmark...
  • I said stable, not domestic bliss! Besides, it was a trade-off for Belgium. I remain a supportive ally of the Kaiser (Kaiserine).
  • Fall 1903.


    I may have stretched the truth a little...
  • Nooooo! Germany, not again!
Sign In or Register to comment.