Name

Nation

Duration

GM:

Randall Shane

Winter 1900-end

Players:

Stephen Worthy

France

Winter 1900-end

Bill White

Italy

Winter 1900-Fall 1909

Greg Sorenson

England

Winter 1900-Fall 1904

Nate Wooley

Germany

Winter 1900-Fall 1911

Ben Hothem

Turkey

Winter 1900-end

Identity not revealed
Kendahl Johnson

Russia

Winter 1900-Fall 1909
Winter 1909-end

Andrew Rae

Austria

Winter 1900-end

Year

01

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

10

11

12

13

Austria

5

5

6

5

5

5

5

5

4

2

0

0

0

England

3

3

3

2

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

France

5

6

5

6

8

8

8

8

9

9

10

12

12

Germany

5

5

5

5

6

5

3

3

2

2

2

0

0

Italy

5

5

5

5

4

4

3

2

0

0

0

0

0

Russia

5

4

5

5

5

5

7

7

8

8

7

5

5

Turkey

5

6

5

6

6

7

8

9

11

13

15

17

17

Andrew’s EOG

What an abysmal game on my behalf, I believe my narrow-minded duplicity cost me in this one, but well done to those that were able to take advantage of the situation. My game highlights were building the fleet on the black sea, it really was a landmark, and feeling as though I slowed the truck enough to force the draw. My feeling was that had the Turk been less slugish, taken a few more risks and pushed the envelope a little more this game would have been comfortably wrapped up long before the draw became obvious. But congratulations to Turkey, France and a lesser extent Russia for their results.

Setup Dip provided a little extra thought early on and I think it disadvantages countries that can be set upon in the setup. I mean the Turkish setup on Russia was just cruel and he had no power to stop it in a gunboat game. None. Further I think the game will lead to a lot more solos as a single power manages to rush for the lines with the aid of their chaos builds. The setup changes the intial aggrevations and flexibility, but it is the chaos builds that really effect the nature of the game in my view. What was the varianty trying to achieve? More solos, then yes, some more interest and flexibility in the opening, then yes.

I’m reasonably satisfied with this result, given the battles I faced to get to the endgame with even the chance of victory. For a few seasons it really did look like a inevitable Turkish victory, but congratulations to Russia for finding a solid position and sticking to it.

The initial placement phase was something I’d come across in GM’ing Stab!, a blind variant with the same phase. My builds were quite heavily influenced by Russia, who benefits from having uncontested access to Norway and Sweden. I’ve tried to counter this in my second game of Stab!, in which I made Finland neutral instead of Russian and let England build in the North Sea, with mixed success.

On the other hand, this game backs up many who would claim that the number of players naturally balances out any advantages by allowing other players to target potential dangers. Russia’s ability to grow swiftly was met in 1901 with attacks from both Turkey and Austria. Perhaps if he’d built an army in Sevastopol instead of a fleet, his chances would have been greater.

The balance of power theory does not, however, help England, who would have to be a tactical genius to win in Setup. England is not favourite to reach any centres in 1901, nor even an equal rival. In fact, England’s only chance of getting anywhere is to concentrate at least two of his forces on one centre and hope other orders go his way. His three choices are to attack Norway, Belgium or France, two of which involved heading south. I decided to build fleets in the north just in case. Army Burgundy was an easy choice – it stopped Germany taking advantage, but also allowed me to cover Marseilles from Italy.

I was afraid that one army would be too few to defend, should anyone take the aggressive route. A fully western-facing Italy - F Tus, A Pie, F Nap - could take Marseilles easily. A Germany with A Ruh and A Mun could break into France with similar ease. In the end I decided that the players in this game were likely to be experienced enough to play it reasonably neutral in winter 1900 and look for messages in other people's play. Germany had a wealth of neutrals to go for before attacking anyone, while Italy is vulnerable to Austria more than usual. England had nothing to lose by attacking me, so I prepared for a possible English invasion.

In fact, England had built to head east, and my builds made him turn on me. But without help, he didn’t have a chance; I would always have the numerical advantage. Germany took Belgium, but clearly thought that this was enough to stunt my ambitions and was distracted by his unsuccessful attack on Russia. His entanglement in the East left me free to crush England just in time to turn and face Italy.

By the end of 1905, I was at the height of my potential, but my habit of succumbing to early leader syndrome hit me again. Germany and Italy launched sensible attacks on me to limit my growth, but even combined they could only nibble at one centre each. I was able to wait for pressures from their rear to pull them away from my frontier. Russia did that job for Germany, and Turkey’s aggression should have done it for Italy.

In 1906, Turkey took Naples. Italy could have recovered his situation. He could have withdrawn and defended his centres. But his success in taking Spain, combined with stop-the-leader zeal and the freedom of not having home centres must have swayed him. He kept on bashing away at Iberia and Marseilles for five years while Austria and Turkey divided the Italian centres. I matched his three units in the south and waited for him to get bored, but perhaps he felt his most telling contribution would be stopping me.

By the time Italy was no more, Turkey dominated the east. Austria was a dead man walking, with no support from a Russia romping through Germany. I felt 1910 was a pivotal year. Turkey was a certainty to have 15 centres soon, and I didn’t want to distract or weaken Russia. Ideally, we would have wiped out 2-centre Germany and turned on Turkey. However, at this point a new Russia came in. I had no idea if this one would realise how dangerous Turkey was, so I proposed a Turkey solo to bring the matter to his attention.

Nevertheless, I finally decided to make a move which may or may not have been a mistake. Russia had three fleets and soon would have nothing to do with them. Even if he had turned immediately on Turkey, he could have stalled Turkey easily and taken advantage of my fleets being held up in the Med. A stab would have been too tempting and utterly catastrophic for me. I took Norway, desperately trying to suggest to Russia that he disband a fleet and make a stable alliance between us more easily. However it was far too much to expect, and Russia spent much of the next few years trying to shift me. It gave Turkey the mometum to go on and take Moscow, Warsaw and Munich.

However, I managed to create a stalemate in the south and hold onto Norway. The hardest job in achieving the draw was Russia’s. He needed to hold one of Berlin and Munich and did so, ignoring my ill-advised suggestion of A Berlin – Munich. That suggestion haunted me for a whole year, because I knew he had found the stalemate position already. If he had listened to me and I stopped supporting the move, we would have lost. So I spent the last year suggesting both A Berlin to hold and A Berlin – Munich.

I felt I had a really good chance in this game, and felt myself to be the favourite even a couple of years into Italy’s seige. While I would claim Italy did the wrong thing in continuing a futile attack on me, he might claim that to scupper another’s chances was a victory of sorts. Turkey played a solid game, as did Russia, who couldn’t possibly have been expected to read my inept attempts to communicate. No one performed spectacularly enough to deserve a solo, but naturally Turkey gets the moral victory for his near miss.

The variant itself is one of the best I’ve played. Just before this, I’d played in Libby McAfee’s Alpha variant, which is a similar idea deliberately restricted to require more planning. However, the best games are not those with fiendishly intricate rules (as those who witnessed our attempts to codify the Alpha rules can confirm!), but the ones that are instinctive to play. Setup fits that bill. The building innovation allows a skilful player to build momentum to unleash a very quick attack or change direction suddenly and use the element of surprise more effectively.

However, I generally feel that the placement phase is a red herring that should be abandoned. Building in any owned region is good enough to carry the variant in itself. That’s a great game already! If not, I believe a placement in North Sea for England is an absolute must; making Finland neutral is a possibility, but may make Russia too weak.

I’m actually advertising to start up a few new games at the moment and Setup is one I’m keen to run. I’ll have to wait for the designer to take in the implications of the EOG’s of this playtest first, so I hope everyone gets theirs in fast! In the meantime, sign up for my other games!

1. The first phase of the game is a Winter 1900, in which players may build whatever units they choose, as long as these units do not exceed the number of Supply Centers controlled.

3. Builds may be placed in any unoccupied, owned province, subject to the restriction that no fleets be placed in landlocked provinces.