Some Diplomacy games are boring and some are exciting, Some are intensely frustrating. Some see great comebacks. Some see honorable play and some see repeated treachery. Some see defeat snatched from the pinnacle of victory. This game was all of this. And the ending was the strangest I'd ever seen! Truly a game to remember!
I'm fairly experienced at surviving the early and midgames, but I've only played in one previous endgame (and that with an alliance). I found that it is much more difficult to try for a solo victory. You have to play very efficiently and not make any mistakes. I'd never been in a position to try for a solo, and my tactical inexperience clearly showed.
The early key was the early stable French/English alliance and the lack of German diplomacy and strange opening which led to Germany's quick elimination. The wise plan for Aus/Rus/Ita/Turk would have been to ally against the Eng/Fra alliance which began to sweep the board. But the other alliances fell apart, allowing us to begin to sweep the board.
England dove into Russia and France moved south against Italy. But the French found their progress very slow and it took a long time for England to move enough armies onto the continent to have any effect against the new Italian-Austrian alliance. The mid game was quite slow and plodding without the ebb and flow of shifting alliances (which is what I like so much). Then I made the serious mistake of becoming too complacent. I didn't plug my lines well and that came back to haunt me later on.
The new Turkish player, KJ Collin, whom I knew quite well, proved the turning point. Having forged a previous very friendly relationship with him, we proceeded to destroy Austria as France was finally crumbling the Italian defenses. But I made a classic Diplomacy mistake by allowing the relationship from a previous game blind me to the realities of a current one. England needed the Turkish help against Austria and then against France. But this allowed Turkey to grow from a two center replacement into a Frankenstein monster.
Then came decision time for me. Should I try to go for a solo victory by stabbing my loyal French ally? Or should we go for a two way draw? I had won a drawn victory before but had never won a solo. So I decided to go for it no matter the consequences.
England was making good progress with Turkish help until I got to 17. Then the game became incredibly frustrating as the Turkish player stabbed England in the Balkans and my whole front reeled back. I am much better at diplomacy than tactics. I'd only played on one endgame before and my tactical shortcomings were exposed.
I made several crucial mistakes at the worst time. I forgot to order a coastline for a spanish attack which would have won the game. I was absolutely disgusted with myself. I became quite disheartened at my inability to finalize a win which I thought I could have gotten. Confederate general Braxton Bragg had a bad problem in that he snatched defeat from the jaws of victory many times. (Interestingly, several of my ancestors fought with Gen. Bragg in the Confederate Army of the Tennessee.)
When I lost the chance for a solo it really frustrated me nuts for a couple of weeks. I finally realized that what I liked about Diplomacy wasn't the winning, it was the manipulation! I've had more fun playing other games as a small power with no chance of winning, but had great fun manipulating everyone to do what I wanted.
Darren worked his minor power status well, playing Turkey and England off each other well. I accepted his offer of realliance, but the game again bogged down for several game years. Eventually I tired of the stalemate. KJ had been working on me for several game years that the French pieces had to go. So I allied with him and stabbed Darren again. I felt bad about it, but I felt that the victory should go to the one who really deserved it.
But after my many mistakes, I felt that I did not deserve to win. KJ had done extremely well in taking Turkey from 2 centers to 17. I had always heard of games where a 1-2 center power came back to win the game. And here I was playing in one! The trouble was, KJ didn't want to win it! He had determined that I deserved the win. He said over and over that he wanted to see me get the win. And I was equally determined that he deserved it.
The end of the game turned into a surreal scene between two gentlemen.
"You first, sir! You take the last piece of chicken!"
"Oh, no! But I couldn't!"
"Oh, but I must insist sir!"
"But I couldn't my good man! I insist!"
and so on.
It was really wierd.
KJ then made a serious mistake. He told me exactly what he was going to do to destroy the French. So I decided to play "Gotcha!" on him. He was still determined that he not win. So I decided to give him what he wanted the least, a win! So I supported his attacks to 18 centers. I knew he'd be really mad with me. Winning is getting your way and preventing someone else from getting his way. I think it was one of the best "stabs" that I've ever done.
Few players are very good at both diplomacy and tactics. I'm fairly good at diplomacy, but not very good at tactics. On the positive side, I did learn something valuable about why I like Diplomacy. At least I won't ever forget to specify a coast again!
I must give Darren a great deal of credit for his play in this game. Even after the grand stab and even after I rebuffed his offers of conciliation, he was never rude nor angry at me. This is a sign of an excellent player, and he definitely deserves credit for his play.
I also give a great deal of credit to KJ. He played Turkey masterfully, stabbing at the right time, playing other powers off each other, and coming all the way back from the brink of elimination. Definitely a deserved win.
And thanks goes to our long suffering GM, who presided over a game that seemed to last as long as the real war did. Thanks to all of you for a game to remember!
Gentlemen,
I think we are all agreed that the game was most enjoyable, and most unusual in the end!
The ebb and flow of pieces is documented in Mikko's and George's EOGs, so I'll just talk about the highlights here. At the beginning, I felt terrible for taking Munich, hitting Germany when he had tried such an interesting Eastern opening. But it worked well as it got me into an alliance with England, which at varying paces, got us some distance.
Then once there were just three of us left, the game dynamic changed - what George talked about when he discussed the 'endgame'. It was here that, in hindsight, I got complacent and left myself open to England's move against me. It very soon became clear that I was being wholeheartedly attacked on two fronts. Now, the game is designed so that 2 vs 1 has a certain outcome, so what could I do? From that point - several years from the end - I decided that I would try to end up as the balance of power. What I first needed to do was to get England and Turkey to a more similar size, so I exposed my east and did what I could to hold England. At one point, Mikko asked if I was playing or just giving up! My idea was that even on one unit, I could decide the winner and so be an equal in a two-way draw.
This was an OK plan, but then I learnt a lot about execution. I agree with George that at this point, week to week, we were dealing with tactics, which is not the best part of the game. I admit I lost concentration (around the same time I moved country and job, but that just adds to my lesson), and that's when I missed a few deadlines (sorry - I'm embarrassed about that). KJ, as ally or enemy, sent consistently strong messages, and I salute that. So I learnt that in long negotiations, stamina is as important as the idea.
Anyway, coming close to the end, when I was on 4 units or so, I thought I was still on course. I did not understand that England and Turkey were offering vistory to each other rather than wanting for themselves! This was the second thing I take from the game - that other players may not have the same idea of a good outcome as you do.
Simple things really, but immense fun to learn.
Thank you all once again. I do hope we get to play together again - and that includes being in a game with you as a player Mr Saari.