Dip 1194 – 1900 Variant
A slightly expanded map of Europe with a couple of rule changes. It ended in a three-way draw between
Britain, Germany and Turkey.
Click on the hyperlinked names for the EOG
Players
|
|
Power |
Name |
Duration |
|
GM: |
|
Spring 1900-end |
|
|
Players: |
|
Spring 1900-end |
|
|
|
|
Saku Meskanen |
Spring 1900-Fall 1907 |
|
|
|
Shane Armstrong |
Spring 1900-end |
|
|
|
Jonathan Lewy |
Spring 1900-Fall 1902 |
|
|
|
Ray Bruce |
Spring 1900-Fall 1911 |
|
|
|
Chris Jones |
Spring 1900-Fall 1904 |
|
|
|
Spring 1900-end |
|
|
Observers: |
|
Rodolphe Boulanger |
|
|
|
|
Baron Von Powell |
|
|
|
|
Charles Roburn |
|
|
|
|
Luis |
|
|
|
|
Andrew Hain |
|
Supply Centres
|
Year |
00 |
01 |
02 |
03 |
04 |
05 |
06 |
07 |
08 |
09 |
10 |
11 |
|
Austria |
5 |
5 |
3 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
Britain |
7 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
7 |
7 |
9 |
9 |
11 |
8 |
9 |
11 |
|
France |
7 |
8 |
10 |
11 |
14 |
13 |
11 |
11 |
7 |
5 |
2 |
0 |
|
Germany |
6 |
6 |
7 |
6 |
6 |
7 |
6 |
7 |
9 |
9 |
11 |
11 |
|
Italy |
3 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
Russia |
5 |
4 |
2 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
Turkey |
5 |
7 |
9 |
10 |
10 |
10 |
12 |
12 |
12 |
17 |
17 |
17 |
History
|
First of all, I'll let you guys discuss the game and the variant - I never really got the feel for how the variant changes things, but I enjoyed watching the swings in power over the course of the game. It's not often that a 14-centre power is eliminated by the end of the game. I'm glad to see a game with no replacements, although Shane - must try harder on timeliness! Hope you guys have a good 1900 tournament. I'm going to wind up a couple of my games and review what I want to do next. There was a clamour for another game of Stab!, so perhaps when 1196 finishes I'll have time to run that. Requests are always noted. |
|
I'm really struggling to find the right words as I compose this EOG statement. I really do not want to sound negative. My apologies if some of these comments sound harsh. While I read and understood Stephen Worthy's house rules before I signed up for the game, and knew it was going to be a non-NMR game, I found the implications of this rules frustrating as the game progressed. It appeared that every season the same player, Kaiser Shane, was late in submitting his orders, yet was tracked down by the GM and not replaced despite all the missed deadlines. This led to an incredibly slowly paced game. At times I wondered if the rules were being abused. I want to be sympathetic to Shane's real life situation with a stressful job and moving homes. If nothing else, I wish Shane, in recognition of his unforgiving schedule, had had the courtesy to the other players to voluntarily withdraw from the game to allow someone with more free time to take the commitment. The most frustrating such episode was when Archduke Saku requested an extension due to his military commitment, and a two week period existed between the publication of one adjudication and the next deadline. Still that deadline was missed! It's inexcusable not to submit any kind of prelims or orders over the course of two full weeks! I'm sorry, Stephen, but I will never again play with any GM who uses such non-NMR house rules. One of the secondary problems with this consistent tardiness was the lack of clarity on the status of orders already submitted. When Shane was frequently late, I wasn't sure where that left the rest of us. Could we change our submitted orders or were they locked in stone with the passing of the deadline. A third issue I saw was that too often I didn't know what the status of the game was. Frequently, a deadline would come and go with no word from our GM. Sometimes it was 48 or 72 hours until an adjudication was published or a notice about a late power was broadcast. I wished that quicker notification was offered. As to the variant, I LOVE 1900, and I'm not afraid to say it. I know one of Baron Powell's goals, as stated in his Gamer's Guide to 1900, was to increase player interaction. From playing Turkey, I can definitely say that he has succeeded. I've played Turkey in standard Diplomacy, and often, after an initial greeting, the western powers ignore Turkey diplomatically until mid-game. With the British fleet in Egypt and the Suez Canal rules, everyone was actively dipping with me from the starting gun, and that is a welcome change. Active diplomacy, and more active diplomacy, is always a good thing. I actually tracked the number of incoming notes
from each power, before each season, as the game progressed. This is what I
was receiving... (Note: The French
numbers may need to be discounted because President Ray's writing style is to
send multiple short notes addressing individual points rather than one long
note addressing multiple points.)... A B F G I R S'00 4 11 13 5 10 8 F'00 2 5 15 2 2 3 W'00 3 5 15 1 4 2 S'01 2 3 12 1 5 2 F'01 5 9 14 1 6 3 W'01 1 4 7 1 S'02 1 4 8 1 F'02 3 4 13 2 2 W'02 1 4 3 1 2 S'03 3 8 F'03 8 15 2 W'03 3 3 S'04 5 10 1 F'04 1 16 13 2 W'04 3 2 1 S'05 2 4 1 1 F'05 1 4 3 5 W'05 1 S'06 2 4 2 1 F'06 1 4 3 5 W'06 1 2 S'07 1 1 1 F'07 3 17 2 W'07 4 1 S'08 1 1 1 F'08 2 8 4 W'08 S'09 2 2 1 F'09 1 2 W'09 1 1 S'10 1 1 F'10 1 1 W'10 1 1 S'11 1 1 1 F'11 1 1 As to the game, I began by reviewing the 1900 map I wanted to try implementing the principles from the article "Geography is Destiny" by Paul D. Windsor (The Diplomatic Pouch, F1999M). From that article I had learned about the tempi (moves) needed to most efficiently reach victory conditions. I sat down and used the same analysis for Turkey on an 1900 map. At the first ring of growth, Bul is +1 tempi away from the Turkish home supply centers, while Gre, Egy, Rum, Ser and Sev are all +2 tempi away. That brings Turkey to 9 SCs. The next ring is Bud, Mos, Nap, Tri, and Trp at +3 tempi away. That expands Turkey to 14 SCs. If I got that large, I was confident I could strike into a large number of +4 tempi SCs to reach a solo. I started my diplomacy as Turkey gauging the other players across the board as possible allies. I struck it off well with Pope Jonathan, but quickly learned that his diplomatic style appeared to alienate President Ray, Prime Minister John and Archduke Saku. I learned from a previous game how dangerous it can be to tie yourself to an alliance to another player whose diplomatic style is a lightning rod for animosity, it really limits your options for flexibility. I thus ruled out a primary alliance with Italy. As the opening progressed, the quality and quantity of communications with President Ray and Prime Minister John led us to form an early BR-FR-TU triple. We worked quickly, and effectively, to eliminate Russia and Italy, while using Austria as a tool. The next step was to eliminate Austria using Germany as a tool. Through 1903, our triple did a good job at maintaining parity in size to ensure balance. The stated goal was a 3-way draw. By 1904, however, President Ray decided to try for a solo, and leapt out to 14 SCs. At that point Prime Minister John and I reached out to a generally gunboating Kaiser Shane to develop a "stop France" alliance. We were able to bring President Ray back from the brink of soloing, and in fact, he was eliminated by game's end. Our GM, Stephen noted that, "It's not often that a 14-centre power is eliminated by the end of the game." In all the 1900 games since the current map and rules (version 2.6.2) have ben implemented, and that's about 40 completed games thus far, this is the largest power to take such a tumble. The next largest declines were: a 9-center Germany that was eliminated in the DPJudge game 1900vanilla and a 10-center Austria that was reduced to being a single center survivor in Baron Powell's game 040414 "Monte Carlo." At one or two points, President Ray wrote to me extensively about pursuing a 2-way draw for France and Turkey. I was skeptical. With France's lead in SC count, I questioned President Ray's sincerity in holding back his own growth to allow Turkey to catch up. But even if France was true to his word, a 2-way draw is not easy to achieve. In 1900, the odd number of supply centers on the map deny a dual alliance the ability to achieve a 2-way draw by force alone. This situation was created deliberately in an attempt to encourage more solos. Given the victory conditions, a dual alliance must consider their end-game options. These options do include relying on a concession by the surviving powers. Relying on a concession by the other surviving powers, however, may be a long shot. More likely, I believe members of a dual alliance will be forced to look for an acceptable partner or partners for inclusion in a larger draw, or will be forced to stab their former ally for the solo victory. This theory is supported by the current statistics. There is the only 2-way draw in the 40 completed games under the current version of the map and rules (version 2.6.2). That's only 2.5%. When we consider all the completed games of 1900, under the current and previous versions of the map and rules, which is a total body of 87 games, this is only the fourth 2-way draw. That's only 4.6%. As France was worn down, I also decided to take a shot at a solo. I cannot lie, part of the reason, besides the desire to simply win the game, was to deny Kaiser Shane a seat at the victory table. My frustrations with his inability to meet deadlines made me question whether he truly deserved to have a seat in the winner's circle should a 3-way BR-GE-TU draw result from France's elimination. In the end, the simple desire to end this game, with its plodding pace, was more important. I recognize that at 17 SCs, Turkey still had options to pursue for a solo. My frustration with the game decided me against the prospect of 4 months of delays and missed deadlines to get in only one or two more game years. The recently started 1900 tournament was also a factor in conceding a draw that included Germany. To John, Ray and Jonathan: I especially enjoyed dipping with your three throughout the game, and would look forward to crossing swords with any of you in future contests. |
|
First, regarding the subject of game
delays: I agree with Chris that the
long delays were a frustration in this game.
It really bogged down at times, and I lost interest a bit by the
end. However, I still think that NMRs
are very disruptive and could easily ruin a game if one country benefits
disproportionately from a neighbor’s NMRs.
I prefer a middle ground.
Maybe a three strikes & you’re out policy – i.e, replace someone
after his third lateness. This was my first 1900 game, and I am quite favorably impressed. In particular, the Suez Canal rule and the increased importance of Africa are very good additions to game play. I think the fact that my England could be allied to Turkey from the very start, and remain so throughout most of the game, makes the game much more dynamic. My view on England is that it is much more flexible strategically than England in Standard Dip, but that flexibility comes at a price. Specifically, it is possible, as happened in this game, for England to continue to have an influence in Russia, the Atlantic, and Africa throughout the entire game. Unfortunately, this flexibility may be just another name for over-extension (as was also sadly the case in this game). Although I enjoyed England’s ability to influence events over much of the board, I wasted a lot of moves shuttling between hot spots. (In particular, having to pull back from my offensive in Russia/Scandinavia to defend against France in the Atlantic, and then on to Africa to take on Turkey). If I were playing England again, I think I would prefer to consolidate power a bit more, probably by giving up Egypt, bringing that fleet back to the Mid-Atlantic, and focusing on the West. Or is that just wimpy? I think the balance among the powers is quite
good, with the possible exception of Italy.
I don’t want to pass judgment with only a minimum of experience in
1900, but it seems too easy for an anti-Italian alliance to destroy Italy’s
chances quickly without significantly impacting the alliance partners’ other
fronts. In both this game and the
tournament game I am in now, Italy was quickly crippled by other powers who
were able to devote one unit each to the campaign. It’s almost as if the units tasked with defending the attacking
countries’ flanks were able to serve that purpose while at the same time
effectively attacking Italy.
Obviously, Italy can win. It
just seems that he has a tougher road than the other powers. Regarding my strategy this game: I initially wanted to attack France. I changed my mind for three reasons: 1) I didn’t believe that I could count on
German or Italian cooperation. 2)
Given the large amount of press received from Ray of Germany and Chris of
Turkey, especially compared to some of the other powers, I thought that a
B-G-T alliance would be well-coordinated and could jump out to an early
lead. 3) Ray and Chris seemed to be
the most experienced players, and hence the most dangerous. I wanted to hear what they had to say on a
regular basis. Keep your friends
close and your enemies closer, and all that. Good game all. See you next time. |
