Diplomacy - EP Chapter 2 - Issue 299 From: nick@sunburn.uwaterloo.ca (Nick Fitzpatrick) Date: Fri, 06 Nov 1992 13:57:27 +0000 Issue #299 of Chapter Two of the Electronic Protocol By Nicholas Fitzpatrick (nick@sunburn.uwaterloo.ca) November 6, 1992 (1992 11 06) Distributed via: rec.games.pbm rec.games.board bit.listserv.dip-l AND rec.games.diplomacy!!!!!!!!!! (if it exists anywhere yet) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Electronic Protocol Games played on the Diplomacy Adjudicator ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ This issue is approximately 85-90 kB. If anyone does not get the whole thing, or it propogates incorrectly in Usenet, please tell me. **** TABLE OF CONTENTS **** PART ONE - Opinions, Letters, and Editorials: An advanced player rating system WIN92 gamestart rec.game.diplomacy vote results PART TWO - Summary of all moderated games on the Judge: List of game openings List of EP games on the judges For more info about the Washington judge For more info about the Electronic Protocol For archives List of diplomacy adjudicators List of gamemasters PART THREE - Report from the Battle Front Cheetah EOG report DPPE EOG report Hall92 press and results PART FOUR - Danny Loeb's Openings Library Austria ***** PART ONE ***** *** AN ADVANCED PLAYER RATING SYSTEM *** Jamie Dreir and I were discussing how to rate Diplomacy player, in relation to the strength of competition in each game. Here is some pieces he wrote. The idea is to look at the rating system used in the game of Chess. The problem is, that in Chess, when one player consistenly beats another player, he must be a better player. But when you have seven players, there is too much left to chance. From: Jamie <PL436000@BROWNVM.brown.edu> Date: Thu, 22 Oct 92 17:43:22 EDT I found out a bit of info on how FIDE determines chess ratings. I'm looking for more. For the first 20 games a player plays, the rating is determined as follows. (Actually, no, the FIRST game I think works some other way, I don't know exactly how you get your initial rating, but that should be easy--just assign someone an initial rating.) Multiply number of games already played (not including the current one) by your current rating. Call this result your Total Score. Add to Total Score your opponent's rating. If you win the game, add another 50 points. If you lose, subtract 50. If you draw, add nothing. Now divide this figure by the total number of games you've played, INCLUDING the current one. In effect, you average your initial assigned rating with the ratings of all the players you've played so far adjusted for your result in those games. I see some drawbacks to this system, and I'm sure they are why FIDE uses another system after you've played 20 games. (It is alleged to be very complicated.) Roughly, applied to Dip it might go like this. Take the total of the ratings of all players in the game and divide by seven. Add 50 (or something). Call this the Game Sum. Suppose player X shares in a N-way draw. Then subtract X's rating from the Game Sum: call this the player's Game Surplus. Then divide by N, call the result the Available Surplus. Add to the player's old score the Available Surplus divided by the total number of games the player has played. So much for winners. For losers, subtract points as a function of the average rating of the players in the game. ==== As I said, this has drawbacks. If you play in a game in which the average player is 50 points worse than you, you're gonna lose rating points even if you win! I guess I can see this for chess, almost, or at least not letting someone gain any points for beating someone much worse than he is. But not in Dip. In Dip, a really good player should still get points for whipping a bunch of intermediates, because they are that much more likely to beat up on him. I dunno. This doesn't look too good for our purposes. Maybe I'll try to come up with some variant. Or I'll try to get the more complicated FIDE formula. Jamie From: Jamie <PL436000@BROWNVM.brown.edu> Date: Thu, 22 Oct 92 18:00:12 EDT This just in. .04(Opponents rating - your rating) + or - 16 for win or draw. Add this to your current rating. Apparently that's an approximate formula for the UCSF chess ratings. But to get the exact formula, you supposedly need a set of tables that UCSF uses. Drat. Again, this has limited application for Dip. If your opponents are good enough, you get points for losing. Yuck. We might try this: For losing, being eliminated, you ALWAYS lose n points. For sharing a draw, you get [k*(avg. opponent rating - your rating)/# sharing draw] + m For surviving, you get k*(avg. opponent rating - your rating) So surviving among players better than you nets you points. Looks like a reasonable start. Jamie From: Jamie <PL436000@BROWNVM.brown.edu> Date: Fri, 23 Oct 92 10:31:41 EDT Picked this off the CHESS-L list. Jamie ============ From: "William R. Shauck" <shauck@MV.US.ADOBE.COM> [7] How Ratings are Calculated: USCF Rating, Simplified ------------------------------------------------------- **For first 20 games (provisional rating), use the following system:** Take the rating of the opponent +400 if the player wins. Take the rating of the opponent -400 if the player loses. Take the rating of the opponent if the game is a draw. Average these numbers. (If unrateds play other unrateds, this requires several iterations of the above.) **After 20 games (established rating), use the following system:** Players rated under 2100 can win/lose a maximum of 32 points per game Players rated 2100-2399 can win/lose a maximum of 24 points per game Players rated 2400 and up can win/lose a maximum of 16 points per game (This maximum is called the K factor. In a 1/4 K tournament, divide the above numbers by 4.) If players of equal rating play, the loser loses half of the maximum, the winner gains the same amount. No change for a draw. If players of unequal rating play, the higher-rated player gains fewer points for a win, but loses more points for a loss. (The lower-rated player does the opposite, of course.) A higher-rated player loses points for a draw, a lower-rated player gains points. For players rated 400 or so points apart, the maximum rating change is used for an upset, and the minimum gain/loss is 1 point if the much higher-rated player wins. The true formula for the number of points won/lost versus the ratings difference is a curve, but a straight line approximation for players with a K factor of 32 points can be used, where every 25 points of ratings difference is one additional rating point gained/lost starting from a beginning of 16 points for a win/loss, and from zero for a draw. (I.e., for a 100 point difference, the higher-rated player gains 16 - 4 = 12 points for a win, but loses 16 + 4 = 20 points for a loss. If a draw, the higher-rated player loses 4 points, the lower-rated player gains 4.) The actual formula is as follows: K = K_Factor delta_R = Opponents_Rating - Players_Rating Expected_Wins = 1/(10^(delta_R / 400) + 1) New_Rating = Current_Rating + K (Actual_Wins - Expected_Wins) An established player's rating cannot drop below (his rating - 100) truncated to the next lowest hundred (i.e., a 1571 player cannot drop below 1400). This is called the rating's floor. -- William R. Shauck Internet: shauck@mv.us.adobe.com Adobe Systems Incorporated uucp: ...!{decwrl|sun}!adobe!shauck *** WIN92 GAMESTART *** Date: Fri, 6 Nov 92 12:53:52 +0100 From: loeb@zephyr.greco-prog.fr (Daniel LOEB) Could you please tell the readers of EPC2 and the participants of HALL92, that I'm starting an unlisted WIN92 game on the JUDGE. Eric Klien wants to have it run, so I've agreed to run it. Players are: xll0pfg@luccpua.bitnet/Paul Glenn (2.50) bohman@math.rutgers.edu/Tom Bohman (6.00) patp@lims01.lerc.nasa.gov/Patrick Plaisted (2.50) sullivan@erim.org/Richard Sullivan (2.08) wkm@mti.sgi.com/Keith Mortensen (0.00 in 1 JUDGE game) cebulad@physics.orst.edu/Dave Cebula (9.06) sbest@clasic.nsc.com/Scott C. Best (2.50) The ratings are not quite as high as in WIN92, but perhaps some of these players also have non-JUDGE wins to their credit. In case, I need replacement players, I will take the first people meeting the following criteria. (1) Registered ADVANCED player on the JUDGE. (2) At least 2.08 points on the JUDGE HALL of FAME. (3) No recorded draws in any game with a player in WIN92 according to HALL of FAME. (4) Not the same-site as someone in WIN92. (5) Nonnegative dedication. I recommend that anybody who meets these criteria sign up immediately as an alternate. Thanks. Yours, Daniel Loeb loeb@geocub.greco-prog.fr *** rec.games.diplomacy VOTE RESULTS *** The Usenet vote for rec.games.diplomacy has been completed. The vote was 237 yes to 25 no. Sites should start creating the group around November 9. ***** PART TWO ***** **** LIST OF GAME OPENINGS **** 3 Crowded (11 player) and 1 Loeb9 (9 players) game now forming!!!! Games forming on South African and Australian judges Moderated Replacement Openings include: junebug, locust, pillbug, wasp, leopard and diablos Unmoderated games openings include: zoom, gord, elguapo, sultan Unmoderated Australian judge openings: twinkles and cable Signups available for the following moderated games in formation: senlac, boyne, fog, amnesia, nun and ix (tegner for Swedish speakers only) baldric and silly at Australian judge. float at South African judge **** LIST OF EP GAMES ON THE DA **** --- EXPLANATION --- Here is the monthly update on games played on Judge. Each game is represented by a line of data (followed possibly by a line of comments --- please send me comments I can use if you are a GM!). The games are sorted according the variant rules which are used. Also if you have an EP number, and I don't, please send it to me. Column Explanation ------ ----------- (1) Name of game including a "#" if game is "private" or "unlisted" (2) Electronic Protocol number (and Chapter) if available. (3) Name of the GM (see list of GMs below). (4-10) Updates on game in chronological order (most recent on the right) The updates for a game in formation indicate the number of players needed to start. For example, -5. The updates for a game in progress indicate the season (F for Fall or S for Spring), the last 2 digits of the year, and the phase (M for movement, B for builds, and R for retreats). All this is possibly followed by the indication of the number of replacement players (-1), temporary replacements (T1) needed, or needed later on (*1). I welcome short one or two line statements from ANY of the the players of the following games, especially those managed by Ken Lowe. --- LIST --- Name EP# GM Apr03 Jun30 Aug26 Sep15 Sep29 Oct20 Nov05 ------- --- -- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- STANDARD RULES baldrick Bob -7 -5 -5 This game is on the Australian judge, players are asked to list the game before joining. (ie has grey press, etc) cheetah 225 desper S01M F05M F06B F08M F10M Over See EOG summary in part 3. croatia 148 Nick F06M F10M F12M F13R F14B S16M F17M Most advanced standard game on judge. E and F crush T. 17-17? diablos j_oregan -5 S01M F01M F02M F02B-1 S03M-1 fall Gummi ? S02M S03M F04M S05M float Vincent -6 This game is on the South African judge (judge@shrike.und.ac.za) Vincent tells me he has now upgraded to judge version 10.0 grass 248 Karl S01M S04M S06M-2 S07M F07B F08M F09M German language game. hall92 200 Nick F01M S03M Hall of Fame game. Will Turkey be first out? Observer press can be obtained with HISTORY command. kaiser 249 Karl -3 F05M F07B S08M S09M S10M F11M T in Pru while R in Bul! I vanishing. EG fight. lion 253 Desper F01M High dedication game, featuring Mark Nelson's judge debut! marengo 129 Scottb F11B S14M S14M S14M-2 F14R F15M S16M Oldest standard EP # in Chapter 2. peregrin 236 Casmacin -6 S01M F01B F02M tegner Per -3 -3 Swedish language game. Endast svensktalande. ulm 235 Marty -6 S01M F01M S03M wren 223 Casmacin F01B S03M S04M S05M F06M infinite 166 Ken F02M ? F08M F09M F10M F11M S12M karat 185 Ken S01M ? S05M F06M F07M F08M F09M newton 188 Ken S01M ? S07M S08M F08B F09M F10B pint 190 Ken ? S06M-1 S07M S08M F09M F10B quart 191 Ken ? F06M-2 S07M F07M S08M F09M rad 205 Ken ? F04B-1 F05R F06M S07M F08M second 206 Ken ? S06M F06M S07M S08M S09M ton 207 Ken ? S03M-2 F04M S05M S08M S07M unit 208 Ken ? S05M F05M F06M S06M F08M volt 209 Ken ? S04M F04M S05M F05R-1 F06M watt 210 Ken ? F02M-3 F02B S03M F04M S05M ant 211 Ken ? S04R S05M F05M F06B S08M beetle 212 Ken ? F04M F04B S05R F05B F06M cicada 213 Ken -3 F03M S04M F04R F06M F06M dragnfly 214 Ken S03M S03R-1 F03B S05M S05M earwig 215 Ken F02M F03M F04M F05M S06M fly 216 Ken S02M F02B S03M F03B F04M gnat 217 Ken F02M S03M F03B S04M-1 F04R hornet 218 Ken S01M S02M S02R S03M S04M inchworm 219 Ken S01M F01M F02M F03B F04M junebug 220 Ken S01M S01M S02M S03M F03M-1 locust 221 Ken -1 F01M F02B S04M F04M-1 moth 224 Ken S01M S02M F03M S04M pillbug 227 Ken S01M F01M F02B S03M-1 spider 228 Ken S01M-1 F01M-1 F02M S03M tick 229 Ken S01M S01M S01M-1 S02M wasp 230 Ken S01M S01M F01B S02M-1 antelope 232 Ken -5 S01M S03M F04M beaver 233 Ken F01M S03M F03B cow 234 Ken S01M S02M-1 F03M dog 237 Ken S01M S02M S03M elk 240 Ken -7 F01M F02M ferret 241 Ken F01M S02M gorrilla 246 Ken S01M F02M hedgehog 247 Ken S01M F01M iguana 251 Ken -3 S01M jackel 254 Ken S02M kudu 255 Ken F01M leopard 257 Ken F01M-2 monkey 258 Ken S01M narwhal 260 Ken S01M otter 261 Ken S01M pinto Ken -7 STANDARD GUNBOAT - Identities of players unknown. dppe 239 Loeb S01M F05B S08M S09M S10M F11M Over The last game with non-human players. See EOG report in part 3. eldritch j_oregan S02M S04M S05M F05B F06M S08M fog Josh -5 Shadows - the sequel pressure 256 Josh -4 S01M-1 White PARTIAL press - like standard, but anonymous sarajevo 195 Desper F03B F04M S06M F07M S09M Liverpuddlians taking Russian lessons shadows 259 Josh S01M Partial-press, can be faked! sinister 244 Starkey -7 -7 S01M-1 F02M An Evil game for Evil Players *Please* read press help! trafalga 243 Marty -7 -5 S02M F03M STANDARD GUNBOAT ROUND-ROBIN - Each player plays all 7 powers in 7 games. game 2 174 Jamie F05M F06M F07M F09M Over game 3 175 Jamie F07R F08R F09M F10R Over game 4 176 Jamie F02B S03R S04R F06M F07M game 5 177 Jamie F01M F02M F04B F05M game 6 178 Jamie S02M YOUNGSTOWN RULES (10 players) Extended map including Asia and Africa. dien 124 jdr F11M F15M F18M S19R S19R F20M S21M giggles dwisemanS10M S12M F13M S14M S14M S14M Over Local ERIM game timor 160 nick F01M S05M F07M F08M F09M S10M-1 S11M YOUNGSTOWN GUNBOAT GAMES celebes 197 nick -8 F03M S04M F05M F06R F07R Super warp 36h deadline, 72h grace, 7 days a week. luzon 192 Marty F04M-2 S05M F05M F06M F07R S09M Warp speed. 24h deadline, 72h grace. mindanao 231 Marty -6 -4 S01M S01M S02M F02M shuppan 245 Josh -8 -5 S01M F02M A White Press Gunboat!! sumatra 182 nick F05B F07M F08M F09M F09B-1 S11M Warp speed. 24h deadline, 72h grace. sunda 171 nick F05M S07M-1 S08M-2 F09M F10B F12M Warp speed. 24h deadline, 72h grace. YOUNGSTOWN DUPLEX RULES (5 players) Same as Youngstown, but 2 powers each. burmese Desper -0 siamese Desper -0 zen2 252 Nick F01B Pairs are FI, ET, AC, GJ and IR CHAOS RULES (34 players) Regular map. Each SC is owned by a different player. avalon NONE -20 -9 Any-site. fontenoy 114 jdr F10M F15M F17B F18R F19M F20M Over Munich (Danny Loeb) take sudden solo win. Report in later EPC2. iona 169 jdr F02M S06M F08M S09M S10M S11M F11M zenith 250 NONE -11 F00B*2 F01M F01B F02M S03M Any-site. CROWDED RULES (11 players) amnesia Matt -10 CROWDED GUNBOAT RULES (11 players) nun Matt -9 sardines Josh -7 White Press GREAT BRITAIN RULES (7 players) Britain starts with 6 SC's but all armies! hastings 139 loeb F07B S16M F19M F20M F21B F23B F24M E stabs F, F stabs E and T. This game could go on for years! senlac Matt -7 -6 -7 -7 LOEB9 GUNBOAT RULES (9 players) ix Josh -4 1898 RULES / GUNBOAT GAME corsica 222 dmb S00M F00M-1 S01M F01M S03M F03B boyne Marty -6 -6 -3 -3 silly Matt -7 -7 This game is at the Australian judge solo 242 Josh F00M S02M England in Brest, Germany in Paris. MACHIAVELLI RULES - An economic variant of Diplomacy marketed by Avalon Hill. sober andre F54M F55M S56M U56M-1 F56B U57M A gunboat Machiavelli Variant without Loans and special units. **** FOR MORE INFO ABOUT THE JUDGE**** For X: Send Y to JUDGE@U.WASHINGTON.EDU: ------ --------------------------------- (*QUESTIONS ABOUT A CERTAIN GAME*) More detailed information about a game: LIST <name-of-game> History of a game: SUMMARY <name-of-game> Detailed Recent History of a game: HISTORY <name-of-game> Regular updates for a certain game: OBSERVE <name-of-game> <password> Copy of variant rules: GET INFO.<name-of-variant> or GET PRESS or GET GUNBOAT (*GENERAL QUESTIONS*) General information HELP Update of the list of games above LIST More detailed list LIST FULL To be informed of all game changes OBSERVE CONTROL <password> Default house rules GET EP.HOUSE.RULES Other information: Contact me (nick@sunburn.uwaterloo.ca) or Ken Lowe (jdr@u.washington.edu) or your game master (see list below) **** FOR MORE INFO ABOUT THE ELECTRONIC PROTOCOL **** To solve Email problems, contact one of the email wizards: swb@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu, andre@hern.stonemarche.org eisen@cs.jhu.edu, eisen@jhuigf.BITNET, or wcw27974@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu Other information: Contact Eric Klien (eric_s_klien@cup.portal.com) **** FOR ARCHIVES **** 1) Use the HISTORY command for recent game result. (see above) Use the GET command (especially GET FLIST) to receive JUDGE related files. 2) Contact the archivists, jlitvin@hfglobe.intel.com/Jo|n Li|<4AppDBOno[_zq<F Machine: Directory: Contents: Milton.U.Washington.Edu /public/misc judge source, postscript maps FTP.FU-Berlin.DE /pub/misc/diplomacy variants, hall of fame, postscript maps, articles, judge source (slow!) 137.248.151.12 /pub/incoming/Ep-Chapter Old issues of EP. **** LIST OF DIPLOMACY ADJUDICATORS **** COUNTRY ADDRESS KEEPER USA judge@u.washington.edu jdr@u.washington.edu Australia judge@gu.uwa.edu.au ddt@gu.uwa.edu.au South Africa judge@shrike.und.ac.za vincent@cc.und.ac.za **** LIST OF GAME MASTERS **** Bob Blanchett s1029708@giaec.cc.monash.edu.au David M Bowen dmb@bigd.cray.com dmb@sequoia.cray.com Marty Brumm marty@pc1504.Chemie-Uni.Marburg.de Dave Cebula cebulad@physics.orst.edu Rick Desper desper@math.rutgers.edu Karl Dotzek karl@adler.ims.uni-stuttgart.de Jamie Dreier pl436000@brownvm.brown.edu Nicholas Fitzpatrick nick@sunburn.uwaterloo.ca Gudmundur Bjarni Josepsson gummi@rhi.hi.is Danny Loeb loeb@geocub.greco-prog.fr Ken Lowe jdr@u.washington.edu Michael Luft scottb@cs.utexas.edu Sean MacIntosh casmacin@atlas.cs.upei.ca Matt McLeod C9106225@cc.newcastle.edu.au John Aidan O'Regan J_Oregan%csvax1@iruccvax.UCC.IE Josh Smith irilyth@fenris.claremont.edu Sean Starkey starkey@netcom.com Andre Verweij andre@duteina.tudelft.nl andre@hlniob.uucp. Per Westling c85perwe@ida.liu.se Vincent vincent@cc.und.ac.za ***** PART THREE ***** *** CHEETAH EOG REPORT *** Endgame comments and summary of Cheetah: The game Cheetah was recently completed, in a 5-way draw congratulations to Rick Desper for keeping ALL the original players, and for a fast game. Cheetah only started at the end of June! Summary of game cheetah through S1910M. (EP 225) Master: Rick Desper desper@math.rutgers.edu Austria: John Godfrey godfrey@wdc.sri.com England: Sean Starkey starkey@netcom.com France: Ken Lo lokendr@ecf.toronto.edu Germany: Roy Y.K. Li h8902948@hkucc.hku.hk Italy: Ken Ross kar@swift.cs.columbia.edu Russia: Steven Stuart stuart_s@ocf.Berkeley.EDU Turkey: Dave Marshall dmarshal@Stars.Reston.Unisys.COM Game parameters are/were as follows: Move clock 720 min 3.00 next 48.00 grace 48.00 delay 0.25 days -mTWTF- Retreat clock -1 min 0.00 next 24.00 grace 48.00 delay 0.25 days -mTWTF- Adjust clock -1 min 0.00 next 24.00 grace 48.00 delay 0.25 days -mTWTF- Access: Different-site, Level: Any, Moderated, Dedication: -10. Variant: Standard. Flags: NoNMR, NoProxy. Press: White, No Fake Broadcast. Historical Supply Center Summary -------------------------------- Ven Nap Edi Lvp Par Por Bel Mun Ber Swe Stp Mos Con Smy Rum Ser Vie Year Rom Tun Lon Bre Mar Spa Hol Kie Den Nor War Sev Ank Bul Gre Bud Tri 1900 I I I . E E E F F F . . . . G G G . . . R R R R T T T . . . . A A A 1901 I I I I E E E F F F F F F G G G G G R E R R R R T T T T R A I A A A 1902 I I I I E E E F F F F F F G G G G G R E R R R R T T T A R A I A A A 1903 I I I I E F E F F F F F F G G G G G R R R R R R T T I A R A I A A A 1904 I I I I G F F F F F F F F G G G G G R R R R R R I T I A A A I A A A 1905 I I I I G F F F F F F F F G G G G G R R R R R R I T I A I A I A A A 1906 I I I I G F F F F I F F F G G G G G R R R A R R I T A I I A I A A A 1907 I I I I G F F F F I F F F G G G G G R R R R A I A I A I I A I A A A 1908 I I I I G F F F F I F F F G G G G G R R R R A I I I I A I A I A A I 1909 I I I I G F F F F F F F F G G G G G R R R R R A I I I I A A I A G I History of Supply Center Counts ------------------------------- Power 1900 '01 '02 '03 '04 '05 '06 '07 '08 '09 Player Austria 3 4 5 5 6 5 6 7 5 4 John Godfrey England 3 4 4 2 Sean Starkey France 3 6 6 7 8 8 7 7 7 8 Ken Lo Germany 3 5 5 5 6 6 6 6 6 7 Roy Y.K. Li Italy 3 5 5 6 7 8 9 10 12 10 Ken Ross Russia 4 6 6 7 6 6 5 4 4 5 Steven Stuart Turkey 3 4 3 2 1 1 1 Dave Marshall Index: 10 24 24 27 31 32 32 35 38 36 Index is the sum of squares of the number of supply centers divided by the number of players. It is a measure of how far the game has progressed. Broadcast message from desper@math.rutgers.edu as Master in cheetah: I have five "yeas" so the five-way draw goes through. I will probably GM another game in the near future: either a high-dedication game or a double-player Youngstown game (or both). All of you would be welcome there (if I set the dedication rating too high, and you want to play, drop me a line. I'll make exceptions for veterans.) One nice thing about Cheetah was the fact that all of the players stuck with it all the way through, and submission of late orders was hardly a problem at all. I credit this partially to my exclusion of players with negative dedication rating. I'll look to continue this trend in the future. Rick Broadcast message from lokendr@ecf.toronto.edu as France in cheetah: I would like to thank all my fellow players for an _interesting_ game. True, a 5-way draw is not the most exciting, but I think it was inevitable since none of us really, were willing to lose. Thanks to Rick Desper, for one of the most efficient moderated games I have played to date on the Judge. The game ran so smoothly and quickly, I was very impressed indeed. His constant pushes to late players kept things rolling and I for one, do not enjoy everlasting lagging games. Thanks Rick :) As for the game, I think things would have turned out much differently if Italy had not stabbed me so early on in the game. At a time where I was tempted to continue my assault against Russian and German fleets, I predicted (with the help of my German and Russian colleagues) of a possible Italian advance. And sure enough.... I think if Italy and Austria had helped me out from the other end, we would have been left with 3 powers of which I would be the weakest and the next target leading to a 2-way draw or perhaps a win. Interesting moments: I was completely awe-stricken with Germany's defense. I distinctly remember one point where I went for the gusto and tried for Munich, Belgium, London, Edinburgh and the North Sea (I think) -- well, anyways _I was going for it all_ and because of one miswritten order and void support from Russia, everything bounced and I didn't get a single thing. It was actually quite funny AND humiliating at the time. Thanks to everyone again for playing and I hope I have the honor to play with you all again some time, some place. Good luck in your future conquests and don't drink and drive. Kendrick Lo France in Cheetah University of Toronto Message from godfrey@wdc.sri.com as Austria to Master in cheetah: Cheetah end-of-game notes from Austria-Hungary: This was a good, well-run game, with dedicated players and GM. It's unfortunate we couldn't produce a more fluid game. Both France and Germany wrote me that they felt from early on that Italy and I were irrecovably united. It's ironic, because I suspect that Ken (Italy) and I are both the kind of player who would prefer a more fluid, diplomacy-oriented game to a military slugfest. However, our initial success at eliminating Turkey through the Key Lepanto formed a strong alliance between us, and it also left our forces so intertwined that it was hard to entertain other options that were offered to each of us until it was too late. If I learned one thing about the Lepanto, it's that Austria and Italy have to break into France and/or out of the Med quickly, or else a stalemate can easily result. (Italy tried, but France anticipated him; perhaps if we'd tried sooner.) Alternatively, either Italy or Austria should ally with France and stab his partner -- but then, part of the rationale for any Lepanto is that if Italy and Austria don't help each other, they both stand a good chance of being eliminated. In this game, Italy had plenty of opportunities to do me in, and I appreciate his restraint. When he finally did stab me it was legitimate, but it was too late to shake things up in the game, so after a few turns he agreed to call the attack off. If he had stabbed me earlier, I'm sure we wouldn't have ended up with a five-way draw; however, he probably wouldn't have emerged as the winner, given the strong French-German alliance. John Godfrey Broadcast message from kar@swift.cs.columbia.edu as Italy in cheetah: Let me say thanks to all for the game. I also appreciate everybody's dedication in not leaving the game. I enjoyed playing this game very much. I look forward to playing with any of you again. In this game I was probably the player with the most choices and decisions to make. My first decision was to play a Key Lepanto with Austria. I also signed a peace agreement with France. We modified the Key Lepanto slightly on the second move so that Austria did not support me into Serbia. A consequence of this was that both Russia and Turkey believed I was still attacking Austria. I got good information from them that helped protect both myself and Austria, and gave Turkey little idea of the impending attack on Bulgaria. The only one to recognize the Lepanto was Germany, who either didn't share the information or wasn't believed when he did. The next opportunity I had was one proposed by Russia in which the two of us attack Austria, and then divide the remainder of Turkey. I was not sure he was genuine (it turned out he was; had I known he was genuine Austria and I could have taken Rumania then, and advanced much more quickly against Russia). The attack would have been impressive, reducing Austria from 5 units to 0 in one move. However I assessed that Russia would gain more from such an arrangement than Italy, and could break the game open. At this point Turkey almost succeeded in breaking up the Austria/Italy alliance by telling each of us about fictional agreements against the other. Now France and I joined in a short-lived attack on Germany, a one-move unsuccessful attack on Munich. I suggested to Germany that I was more interested in attacking France with his cooperation. I judged from the position that it was in Germany's interest to attack France, but he did not seem to agree as his moves indicate. As a result, France was now aware that Italy may be planning an attack. Because of a probable warning from Germany, France was able to relocate forces just in time to defend solidly. My build of another fleet against France's wishes must have been a certain tip-off, but I couldn't attack France without it. I did manage to get Marseilles, but the Mediterranean was blocked. And Austria was blocked in the east. I should mention that at two points up to now I strongly considered stabbing Austria. However I judged that doing so would strengthen Germany and Russia, who would continue to attack Italy once Austria was out of the way. I also considered a three-way alliance between Austria, France and Italy, but judged that I would be sandwiched in such an alliance, and unable to adequately support my units in central Europe. If such an alliance were to succeed, Austria and France would have only me to attack. So the game seemed stalemated, with a France/Germany/Russia alliance, and an Italy/Austria alliance. Germany called for a draw vote. I figured it was worth trying for a win, even if that was an unlikely prospect, by stabbing Austria and seeing if the northern alliance would be rearranged. It became clear that there was no perceptible rearrangement of alliances, and so, at the last minute Austria and I re-aligned to preserve a stalemate. While a 5-way draw may seem a bit cowardly, I do not think that anything I could do would give me a chance of winning. I believe that the other players also hold this view about their positions. Ken Ross Italy in Cheetah Broadcast message from H8902948@hkucc.hku.hk as Germany in cheetah: I want to thank all of you in the game Cheetah. Especially to our master, Rick. His effort in pressing late players (me included) made the game smooth and efficient. Early in the game, negotiation was active and surprisingly honest at the beginning. Probably because that not much promises or agreements had been made. Uncertainty and suspisious jammed the communication channels between EFG. Any one could be the victim of the other two. Eventually it turned out that England was the poor guy, iwth Russia intervention from the northern seas. With England gone , the AI alliance menacing and according to my ultimate goal of survival, the FRG triple alliance was formed. I got many chances to raid the Scandinavia holdings of Russia. But doing so required the retreat of my garrison fleet in English seas, which would likely encourage a French stab. If France had commited heavily in the med eariler, things may be different. Fortunately, this defensive effort stopped a french stab and discouraged the upcoming attack. I think it was the most critical point for my survival inthe game. Thereafter, I proceeded with extreme caution. A bit coward, yes. But what can a poor lamb do inside a wolfpack? :-) Kaiser Roy Li Cheetah Broadcast message from stuart_s@ocf.Berkeley.EDU as Russia in cheetah: I also enjoyed this game very much, because it was kept up with the same players and it continued to be fast. I am sorry that near the end I got a little slow in responding, but I got a job about a month ago and did not have as much spare time and I also had to cut back on my saved mail so at one point I lost my units, but I of course found them again :) I think that I and Italy would have made a very deadly combo especially after we could have taken all of Austria in one move back in the third or second year and we could have taken him from 5 centers to 0 centers in one turn. It would have been one for the record books. Turkey also knew the plan. I saw this and told Italy and he said 'yes', but I guess he thought I would have the upper hand. All and all I thought this was a great game and I would love to play with all of you again. Steven Stuart Russia Cheetah *** DPPE EOG REPORT *** Summary of game dppe. (EP 239) (Standard no-press non-humans-allowed gunboat diplomacy game). This game was part of the Diplomacy Programming Project. For more information, contact loeb@geocub.greco-prog.fr Master: Danny Loeb loeb@geocub.greco-prog.fr Austria: Charles Arsenault charlesa@pike.ee.mcgill.ca from S1905M: Sean Starkey starkey@netcom.com from S1908M: Dan H|rning d91-dho@nada.kth.se from S1909M: Erik Ljungberg t86_erik_l@maja.teknikum.uu.se England: Andre Verweij andre@duteinh.et.tudelft.nl from F1905M: Andrew Percey mhs!allied!andy_percey@attmail.com from F1907M: Eiji Hirai hirai@cc.swarthmore.edu France: Stephen Clancy CLANCY@ITHACA.BITNET Germany: Michael Baswell EWN@CORNELLA.cit.cornell.edu from F1903B: John Godfrey godfrey@wdc.sri.com from S1908M: Greg Dilworth rgd3729@tamsun.tamu.edu Italy: Diplomacy Diplomat (at turns except F1904M, F1907M) F1904M: Eiji Hirai hirai@cc.swarthmore.edu F1907M: Barrie Treloar bjtreloa@teaching.cs.adelaide.edu.au Russia: Yawar Ali YALI@BNR.CA Turkey: Jamie Dreier PL436000@brownvm.brown.edu Historical Supply Center Summary -------------------------------- Ven Nap Edi Lvp Par Por Bel Mun Ber Swe Stp Mos Con Smy Rum Ser Vie Year Rom Tun Lon Bre Mar Spa Hol Kie Den Nor War Sev Ank Bul Gre Bud Tri 1900 I I I . E E E F F F . . . . G G G . . . R R R R T T T . . . . A A A 1901 I I I I E E E F F F . F . G G G G G . R R R R R T T T T A T . A A A 1902 I I I I E E E F F F F F G G G G R G R E R A R R T T T T A T A A A A 1903 I I I I E E E F F F F F G G G G G R E E A R R T T T T T A T A A A A 1904 A I I I E E E F F F F E G G G G G E R A A A A T T T T T A T T T G I 1905 I I I I E E E F F I F E G G G G G E R A A A A T T T T T T T T T G T 1906 I T I I E E E F F F F F G G G G G E E A A G A T T T T T T T T T G T 1907 T I I I E E E F F F F F E G G G G E E E A G A T T T T T T T T T G T 1908 T I I F E E E F F F F F E E G E G E E E A G A T T T T T T T T T T T 1909 T I I F E E E F F F F F E E G E E E E E E T A T T T T T T T T T T T 1910 T T T F E E E E F F F F E E E E E E E E E T T T T T T T T T T T T T 1911 T T T T E E E F F T F F E E E E E E E E E T T T T T T T T T T T T T History of Supply Center Counts ------------------------------- Power 1900 '01 '02 '03 '04 '05 '06 '07 '08 '09 '10 '11 Player Austria 3 4 6 6 6*\ Charles Arsenault 4* 3 2 \ Sean Starkey 2 \ Dan H|rning 1 Erik Ljungberg England 3 3 4 5 5 \ Andre Verweij 5 5 \ Andrew Percey 7 9 11 13 12 Eiji Hirai France 3 4 5 5 4 3 5* 5 6 6 5 4 Stephen Clancy Germany 3 5 5 5 \ Michael Baswell 6 6 7 6 \ John Godfrey 3 1 Greg Dilworth Italy 3 4 4 4 4 5 3 3 2 2 Diplomacy Diplomat Russia 4 5 5 3 1 1 Yawar Ali Turkey 3 5 5 6 8 10 11 11 12 13 16 18 Jamie Dreier Index: 10 18 24 24 27 30 34 34 39 47 64 69 * = 1 unused build. ---- Broadcast message from England in dppe: -------------------------------------- My biggest flub was in incorrectly thinking that France was about to attack when when France ordered a fleet into the Mid Atlantic. I couldn't figure out what France was doing until too late. By that time, I had decided that I needed to get French supply centers before Turkey could get them if France really was attacking me. However, I was stupid. I should've risked it, trusted France and assumed that France was doing the intelligent thing. Oh well. I apologize. I truly am sorry. I was hoping that France and I could at build a stalemate line against Turkey but I really screwed it up. Eiji Hirai hirai@cc.swarthmore.edu ---- Broadcast message from France in dppe: ------------------------------------- I had not anticipated a stab by England so soon. I figured (incorrectly) that England would see my continued resistance against Turkey as being in his best interests, and would therefore let me alone. But then I never had a great level of trust towards England, based on some earlier battles we had in and around Spain. My move into Mao from Naf was therefore probably overly cautious, and served only to provoke an aggressive English response--not wise on my part! Congratulations to Turkey on a game well played. --Stephen Clancy, France in dppe clancy@ithaca.bitnet ---- Broadcast message from Turkey in dppe: ------------------------------------- DPPE was the most interesting game of Gunboat that I have ever played, and possibly the most interesting game of Diplomacy. I'm sure it was not QUITE as interesting for the rest of you, but several of you played beautifully, I was extremely impressed. I have to say that I won largely by circumstance, and by exploiting bad strategies of two of the powers (at least *I* think they were bad strategies). For excellence of play, I think it was a very even match among three or four of us. I will say just a bit about my own strategies as they developed, and then a few words about each of yours. I hope you won't find this presumptuous--I have all this "discussion" bottled up after a long, intense game of Diplomacy which I couldn't discuss with anyone during the game. The opening went about as I planned. I opened friendly toward Russia, he opened aggressively toward me, and I got the upper hand. I think my best play of the game, tactically speaking, was the manouvering of my fleets in the first few years. I snatched Sev, put my fleets out into open water, and prepared to sail out against Italy. That was my plan; I figured if I was successful, I would have Austria scissored and would also have a good jump toward the stalemate line. The only problem was, Austria was growing too fast. So I stabbed, and I'd have to say that was my best *strategic* decision of the game, and of course I was very lucky that Germany chose the same time to stab at Austria. >From then on, my strategy was pretty simple. I would try to keep my opposition fragmented; thus, for example, rather than playing for the elimination of Austria, I would leave him be while I pushed against Germany and Italy, trying to keep those three balanced. I never would have done that in a standard Diplomacy game. The strategy was tailor-made for Gunboat: make sure that as few of the pieces arrayed against me could coordinate their moves as possible. Of course, it didn't hurt that one of those powers was played by the Diplomat. So, that was my game plan. It would have been interesting to see how it faired if England had played differently. So here are my comments about each of my foes. Italy I guessed early that Italy was Diplomat, but I was keeping an open mind about it. I hadn't been watching France or England closely enough to rule them out (though it became VERY obvious later that France was human), and it could even have been Russia, though I was inclined to think not. My guess was based mostly on the fact that Italy's moves had no focus, he was just pushing the pieces around. But sometimes that can actually be a strategy for Italy, so I couldn't be sure. There were two more specific cues, though: Italy almost never supported himself (but he did on one key move, that actually threw me for a short while), and he twice put a fleet in Piedmont, which is certainly the silliest place on the board for a fleet (has anyone ever seen a fleet in Piedmont before?). Obviously, I benefited a great deal from the fact that Italy was played by an automaton. I benefited in a strange way, one I would not have expected: it wasn't that I could roll over him, easy prey, but rather that I didn't HAVE to roll over him to get where I wanted to go. I could play around instead. In 1907, Fall, I didn't take Naples even though it was indefensible (I could have sailed in unopposed from TyS), because it was clear to me that France was threatening, and I knew I could defeat Italy later with no problem, and that he would make no trouble for me in the interrim. Nice try, Diplomat. You still have a long way to go. Russia I didn't get much of a sense of your play, because you were so consistently unlucky, right from the opening when you guessed but failed to take one of my home centers from Black. If you had, it would have been a VERY different game. But that was the story of your whole, brief presence in the game, I think. I was a bit surprised that you abandoned Mother Russia and headed for Scandinavia. I guess it looked safer at the time. Austria And talk about bad luck.... You grew too fast, even for a Gunboat game. That's hindsight, and I admit I probably would have done the same thing. Your rise was impressive, your fall was nothing short of spectacular. In case the Northerners weren't watching, Austria went from the dominant position in the game, the favorite to win the whole thing, owning Vie, Bud, Tri, Ser, Rum, and StP, with a strong play for Ven, War, and Mos, straight to ruin on the next move, an almost hopeless position, fragmented and with no home centers at all. I was especially struck by the fact that you had units in Norway and Venice, and owned them both, but owned none of your own centers. I'll bet that's a first! I kept wondering whether the other players were noticing the small but significant little skirmishes over Ukraine, which you won for about 4 successive moves, driving me nearly crazy; or the interesting point that when I trapped one of your pieces and destroyed it, you were permanently weakened since you could never rebuild. I bet Germany noticed. I won't say that I left you sitting there in Russia just out of respect--obviously, it was because I knew I could come get you whenever I wanted to, and I was after Germany. But I was glad to see you survive those extra years. You deserved that much, at least. Germany You consistently surprised and impressed me. First, there was your move into Vienna. I saw the logic, but the execution and timing was perfect. I was practically taking notes. Then, there was your decision to withdraw the knife from France and return to face me. Again, it made perfect sense, but it took a lot of courage and I wasn't expecting it. My advantages were pretty daunting from the start. I had numbers, I had time on my side, I had perfect coordination while you had to guess at what Austria and Italy were going to do. And yet you slowed my progress to a crawl. But I knew it would continue. I imagined you beating your head against the nearest wall as the English sailed into your ports. Actually, at first I thought it was a clever plan--England would take a city from you, you would disband a fleet, England would give it back, you would build an army. But, er, no, that wasn't the plan. I think I would have thrown in the towel before you did, vacating the south and pitching everything against the Brits. You have the patience of Job. It was a pleasure. England I don't get it. You disengaged from France, that made sense. I expected to see you try to pop armies into Scandinavia and then into Russia from the top. I hope you're going to explain your plan. Did you think I wasn't a real threat?? Or did you figure I was sure to win, so you may as well try to come in second? I didn't really watch your tactics, we were never anywhere near each other, so I really have nothing else to say. Then again, in the end, you ALMOST pulled it off, the whole thing. If France had moved from Spain to Marseilles on the very last move, I think there was a good chance you could have forced a draw with me. France Ah, France. The truly wonderful thing about this game was, every time I gained the upper hand against one enemy, thinking that NOW I had conquered my really formidable foe, another one, equally formidable, would pop into place. I had counted you out practically right away. You were squeezed, attacked by ALL THREE neighbors, you were in tatters.... And the suddenly you weren't. When I saw you chasing the Brits back up north, I was quite pleased--I thought you would follow them and go teach them a lesson, or something. When you swung back, I smiled to myself--I obviously had you seriously outgunned, and I had beaten you to the key positions. Right? Hmph. I was quite proud of my move in Fall '07, though I kicked myself for letting you set up in Naf, Wes, and GoL the season before. It wasn't 'til that point that I began to realize how critical positioning was going to be. If you had taken Tun and TyS at once, I might never have gotten you out. I was starting to calculate whether I could win by overrunning Germany, and I was figuring I would have to march through Munich and Ruhr and bother you in Burgundy if I wanted to make progress in the Mediterranean..... Notes on the Endgame: I thought Germany's debuilds in winter before 1909 were a bit churlish. He gave up any chance of winning, in fact, he assured his own elimination, by ceding his remaining centers to England. And he did this despite the fact that England stabbed him in the back when Germany was making a valiant effort to stave off the aggressor, namely me. So my estimation of the Germans declined a bit. Once England had completely replaced Germany without allowing me to grab any German centers, I was more impressed, and more worried. Now the entire game depended on whether I could take Tunis and Marseilles. I wasn't sure that England realized this. There was a fairly obvious stalemate line through the middle of Eastern Europe, and there was really never any serious question of either of us taking the other's centers once that line was set up. I guessed that England would now come to help France against me, and was ready to accept a 3-way draw (stalemate lines in the relevant part of the Mediterranean would also be easy to set up). But no. England stabbed France in Fall of 1910. I could hardly believe it. I thought at that point I would win easily. But AGAIN, I had underestimated the resources of my foes. It looked like there was a chance that England could set up a stalemate line that included the French forces, then pick them off without leaving an opening for me. The result would have been a 17-17 split. The final year gave me a nervous breakdown. In the first place, I obviously never expected to take Marseilles with that move. Clearly France was expecting English Bur-Mar, Turkish Pie-Mar. Good thought. But it didn't happen. Now, if I had played, say Tyrolia-Piedmont on that move, I would have had a forced win. But I didn't, I didn't put ANYTHING in Piedmont. I was kicking myself. I thought it was almost a sure thing that England would order Bur S Spa-Mar, and that France would order Spa-Mar, Por-Spa, Wes-GoL. That would kick me from Mar for sure. And if France added Bre-Gas, I would have to destroy the army in Mar. If France and England then pulled together, I would be shut down; they could set up a stalemate line and hold me to exactly 17 centers. The Fall was almost anticlimactic. France, apparently hoping to save Tunis, let me keep Marseilles. I thought that was the first mistake I had seen France make. And of course it was the last. Thank you, all of you, for a great game. Jamie, Turkey ---- Comments by Daniel Loeb (GM and DPP Director): --------------------------------------------- Spring 1901 - The Diplomat chose a only moderately popular opening. (Rom-Ven, Ven-Tri, Nap-Ion) used only in 7 other games. Since we were testing only the strategic module, the computer could be expected to have no mercy to Italy's usual ally: Austria. Moreover, at this point, each countries moves are predicted indendantly, so Italy didn't consider very long the possibility that Austria might defend himself as in fact he did. Thus, our program continues to uselessly attack Trieste continuously for the next several years. Finally, our program is not designed to search for convoys, so no consideration was given to any Lepanto-like strategy. Fall 1901 - At this point, we introduced code to give special consideration to supply centers especially during Fall turns. Moves were generated two times. The first time, fleet Ionian Sea held in place. We then increased the weight of all supply centers, and on the second run we had (Rom H, Ven->Tri, Ion->Tun). Spring 1902 - Italy moves to ION and TYS in order to maximize its control of the Mediterranean. The army moves to NAP not for a convoy as you may have supposed, but merely because our program seeks to control enemy territory with all of its units, and maintain control of threatened units. For units to which neither concept applies, the result is pretty much random. Spring 1904 - Our program now calculates possible supports. This turn was limitted to a 1700 iteration search due to a bug. Later searches were much deeper. Turkey suspects Italy and Turkey of being the diplomat. "Russia, on the grounds that (1) he drove Austria out of Warsaw and into Livonia, whence the Austrian army wreacked havoc; and (2) he abandoned his home centers, more or less, on the following move, concentrating instead on attacking Germany.... Italy, on the grounds that (1) he tried a foolhardy attack against France even though A and T weren't fighting, and (2) he did not guard Tunis last move, even though I was in Ion and he thought I was hostile, and (3) he moved a fleet into Pied for no earthly reason." Winter 1905 - My student accidentally let the Diplomat go unplayed during my absnece. Mr. Hirai took control, but I corrected the situation as soon as I noticed it. I set the quiet flag at that point, but in so doing may have revealed the identity of the diplomat to Turkey and the eventual England. Winter 1906 - Russia is eliminated, and Turkey asks if my silence means that Russia was not the diplomat. "If it wasn't Russia, then I still guess it is Italy, but if so then it has improved considerably over its performance in the games published in EP. (I still think I'm going to win, though.)" Fall 1907 - Again we let Italy go CD, and it is played for a turn by a human player. This explains why Trieste is not attacked!? Spring 1908 - Turkey writes: Ok, that does it. The Diplomat must be Italy. It threw me a few moves ago by supporting itself. But look, it has just left Naples indefensible for a Fall move!!!! On the other hand, England must be crazy. Either that, or he doesn't think I'm a genuine threat to win...." As mentioned above, Support is a relatively new feature of our diplomat. However, the program is unable to look more than 1 move ahead, and uses a number of heuristics to compare positions. For this reason, it couldn't see the threat to Naples. Our program is now using an improved search algorithm which takes into accounts the best possible enemy moves. This turn only 1000 iterations. Afterwards, a gain in speed allowed us 4000+ iterations within the time limit; however, our position has already deteriorated so far that it is difficult to estimate how much better our program is now playing. In fact, starting now, our program's survival depends more on the whims of Turkey than on its on ability. Winter 1908 - Turkey asks about the procedures to follow in the case of a draw as Germany hands SC's over to England. Spring 1909 - A series of moves start in which our program consistantly moves Pie-Mar, and Rom H. Neither move succeeds and the computer continues to make these moves since its algorithm keeps on finding the same moves. Fall 1910 - Italy is eliminated. Turkey writes: "Oh well. I tried to keep him around, really I did. And, for a while there, it really looked like France had bottled me up. I was getting depressed. Count on the English to screw everything up. Ya know, you MIGHT throw him out for goofy play. But I guess dumb isn't the same as goofy, huh? ... Better luck next time, Diplomat." I believe the Diplomat had a hard time at playing Italy. He couldn't recognize that attacking his neighbors was not in his self-interest. Moreover, he was unable to convoy, nor move his armies neatly down the Italian pennisula. As a result, he never got any further than Tunis, and had no chances to survive this game. To do better, a diplomatic package is needed along with better long range heuristics. (Some of which remain to be implemented, two years after my article with Mike Hall....) Per Westling is now working on the diplomatic part of our program, and expect renewed testing sometime soon. Thanks again for all your help and encouragement. I hope you enjoyed the game. Broadcast message from Observer in dppe: Greetings, Jamie (Turkey in dppe), I played Germany in dppe from F1903B to F1907B. I enjoyed reading your detailed comments on a game that I dropped out of a couple of months ago, and I congratulate you on your eventual win. > Germany > You consistently surprised and impressed me. First, there was > your move into Vienna. I saw the logic, but the execution and > timing was perfect. I was practically taking notes. > Then, there was your decision to withdraw the knife from > France and return to face me. Again, it made perfect sense, > but it took a lot of courage and I wasn't expecting it. > My advantages were pretty daunting from the start. I had numbers, > I had time on my side, I had perfect coordination while you > had to guess at what Austria and Italy were going to do. And yet > you slowed my progress to a crawl. But I knew it would continue. > I imagined you beating your head against the nearest wall as > the English sailed into your ports. Actually, at first I thought > it was a clever plan--England would take a city from you, you > would disband a fleet, England would give it back, you would > build an army. But, er, no, that wasn't the plan. I think I would > have thrown in the towel before you did, vacating the south and > pitching everything against the Brits. You have the patience of > Job. It was a pleasure. Wow! Thanks for the compliments. When I took over the German position, I thought I had a good chance to expand quickly. No one was threatening my borders, and I had made good inroads into France. I decided to strike out both east and west. Austria was clearly the leader in the game, so I thought it was worth taking a chance at sneaking into Vienna; I figured I would at least tie him up awhile. I was actually rather stunned that it worked; Austria made no effort to cover his home centers. His collapse was indeed spectacular. It was then immediately obvious that you were in the fast lane to win the game. That's why I reversed course out of France (if I remember right, I had made it all the way to Gascony ?) and headed east. I was hoping the other players would see the obvious as well; but England, at least, did not. You're right, I was extremely annoyed at him for attacking me instead of going through Scandinavia. But I distinctly remember deciding that I couldn't spare the units to garrison my rear and face your attack at the same time. It would have been nice to have received help from Italy against you, but obviously this didn't happen. I thought Italy might be the Diplomat, but I didn't feel I had enough evidence to lodge a guess with Daniel Loeb. > Notes on the Endgame: > I thought Germany's debuilds in winter before 1909 were > a bit churlish. He gave up any chance of winning, in fact, > he assured his own elimination, by ceding his remaining > centers to England. And he did this despite the fact that > England stabbed him in the back when Germany was making a > valiant effort to stave off the aggressor, namely me. So > my estimation of the Germans declined a bit. > Once England had completely replaced Germany without > allowing me to grab any German centers, I was more > impressed, and more worried. Now the entire game > depended on whether I could take Tunis and Marseilles. I plead not guilty; overload at work had forced me to resign the game by that point. However, I'm not sure I would be as critical of my successor as you are. I spent a lot of time before I left the game pondering this question, and I had more or less decided that it was better to continue trying to hold back the power that was threatening to win--Turkey--than to resist the stab from the rear. Turning on England would have meant destruction by Turkey. By giving over his centers to England, the new Germany was able to hold you back, forcing you to make some successful moves in the Med in order to win. In a standard game, I might have done differently; when you know who it is who's stabbing you, it makes it easier to be angry with them and choose revenge as a goal. (However, it turns out it would have been misplaced, as England changed hands around the same time I left the game.) If we could have communicated, I (or my successor) might have worked out a deal with you to remain in the game as your subordinate and gone after England, for revenge. But in a gunboat game, none of this was possible. It was especially frustrating to me, in the mid-game, not to be able to write England and tell him "Lay off, I'm busy holding off Turkey!" Oh well, that's gunboat Diplomacy. Again, congratulations! I look forward to meeting you in a game with communications sometime. Best regards, John Godfrey *** HALL92 PRESS AND RESULTS *** Due to limits to the numbers of observers allowed by the judge, I have published some recent press, and results from the game hall92 (EP 200). Here is another comment Danny Loeb made about the openings. In honour of Dave Cebula's success in playing Austria, Danny Loeb's opening library for Austria has been published in this issue. Broadcast message from loeb@geocub.greco-prog.fr as Observer in hall92: I making this public, since as Nick pointed out players can read Observer press whenever they want anyway.... I wrote last turn: >A:15.7% E:23.9% F:19% G:14.1% I:9.1% R:34.8% T:21.3% >... >Austria: Army Budapest -> Serbia. >Austria: Army Vienna -> Galicia. (*bounce*) >Austria: Fleet Trieste -> Albania. >TOTAL: 33 Win:2(Emerald,Ajax), Draw2:1(Inch), Draw3:1(Horse), >Rank 3rd Loss:14, Ongoing:13, Abandoned:1, Unknown:1 >(1a from player's guide, Balkan Gambit, Gal Variation) I should have added that Dave Cebula (the current Austria) played Austria to a win with this opening in the games Emerald and Ajax. However, as we see below: Game Russia Turkey Emerald Ukr-Gal-Bla-Bot Bul-HOLD-Con Ajax MISSING Bul-Arm-Bla In the games, Emerald and Ajax, Dave was not confronted with the Russo-Turk Juggernaut... >I would have to agree that this has been an interesting fall to a somewhat >conservative spring move. I am most interested in the two 'void' support >moves. (France's support of a Italy moving to Munich and Russia's support of >Turkey moving his Fleet to Con.) >In the first case, it seems that there may have been some misguiding or >promises not kept. Did Italy say he would move to Munich, or did France >fabricate this move. It may very well be neither deception on the part of Italy nor invention on the part of France. France may very well have seen little use in moving his army so pledged an open offer of support for Italy to take as he sees fit. This may be a sign of desperation on the sign of France, seeing as how Germany and England are communicating so well. England would not have wasted a convoy to Denmark had he not prearranged a North/South division of spoils. > If Italy knew about this possible support, why did he >give up the extra build? Did he not want to risk upsetting Germany or is he >still a little worried about Austria? Why did France order this move? It is >clear that France has taken a hostile stance toward Germany. Did Italy offer >support and then back out or was this just a French ruse? >I am more puzzled by the Russian support of the Turkish non-move. It would >seem that a R/T alliance is in the works and in the process of moving on >Austria. Why then did Russia order a support of a move which Turkey did not >make? Was there an error in communication, foul play by the Turk or a Russian >ruse to make Austria think that all is not quite in order? Italy is in the classic balancing role. He sees the Juggernaut and offers a Lepanto to Austria's defense. However, Turkey is not naive and moves to the Aegean to short circuit the Lepanto before it starts. The army in Tyrolia had no interest in moving to Munich which he might have gotten but would never have held on to. Instead it will be used to support or hinder Germany in the future so as to better continue a stalemate along German/French lines. In the future, I see England engaging the Juggernaut up North while Austria and Italy do so down south. France and Germany will continue in a world of their own fighting each other. Of course, who really knows what surprises our players have in store for us. Yours, Daniel Loeb, Humble Observer, Hall92 loeb@geocub.greco-prog.fr Fall 1901-Winter 1902 results for hall92. Movement results for Fall of 1901. (hall92.002) Austria: Army Serbia SUPPORT Fleet Albania -> Greece. Austria: Army Vienna -> Galicia. (*bounce*) Austria: Fleet Albania -> Greece. England: Army Yorkshire -> North Sea -> Denmark. England: Fleet Norwegian Sea -> Norway. England: Fleet North Sea CONVOY Army Yorkshire -> Denmark. France: Army Marseilles -> Spain. France: Army Burgundy SUPPORT Italian Army Tyrolia -> Munich. (*void*) France: Fleet Mid-Atlantic Ocean -> Portugal. Germany: Army Kiel -> Munich. Germany: Army Ruhr -> Belgium. Germany: Fleet Holland SUPPORT Army Ruhr -> Belgium. Italy: Army Apulia -> Ionian Sea -> Tunis. Italy: Army Tyrolia HOLD. Italy: Fleet Ionian Sea CONVOY Army Apulia -> Tunis. Russia: Army Ukraine SUPPORT Army Warsaw -> Galicia. Russia: Army Warsaw -> Galicia. Russia: Fleet Rumania SUPPORT Turkish Fleet Constantinople -> Bulgaria (south coast). (*void*) Russia: Fleet Gulf of Bothnia -> Sweden. Turkey: Army Bulgaria -> Greece. (*bounce*) Turkey: Army Smyrna -> Constantinople. Turkey: Fleet Constantinople -> Aegean Sea. Ownership of supply centers: Austria: Budapest, Greece, Serbia, Trieste, Vienna. England: Denmark, Edinburgh, Liverpool, London, Norway. France: Brest, Marseilles, Paris, Portugal, Spain. Germany: Belgium, Berlin, Holland, Kiel, Munich. Italy: Naples, Rome, Tunis, Venice. Russia: Moscow, Rumania, Sevastopol, St Petersburg, Sweden, Warsaw. Turkey: Ankara, Bulgaria, Constantinople, Smyrna. Austria: 5 Supply centers, 3 Units: Builds 2 units. England: 5 Supply centers, 3 Units: Builds 2 units. France: 5 Supply centers, 3 Units: Builds 2 units. Germany: 5 Supply centers, 3 Units: Builds 2 units. Italy: 4 Supply centers, 3 Units: Builds 1 unit. Russia: 6 Supply centers, 4 Units: Builds 2 units. Turkey: 4 Supply centers, 3 Units: Builds 1 unit. Adjustment orders for Winter of 1901. (hall92.003) Austria: Builds an army in Budapest. Austria: Builds an army in Trieste. Italy: Builds a fleet in Naples. England: Builds a fleet in Edinburgh. England: Builds a fleet in London. Turkey: Builds a fleet in Smyrna. Russia: Builds an army in St Petersburg. Russia: Builds an army in Sevastopol. Germany: Builds an army in Kiel. Germany: Builds an army in Berlin. France: Builds a fleet in Brest. France: Builds an army in Paris. Movement results for Spring of 1902. (hall92.004) Austria: Army Serbia -> Bulgaria. (*bounce*) Austria: Army Vienna -> Galicia. (*bounce*) Austria: Fleet Greece -> Aegean Sea. Austria: Army Budapest SUPPORT Army Vienna -> Galicia. Austria: Army Trieste -> Serbia. (*bounce*) England: Army Denmark -> Sweden. England: Fleet Norway -> Sweden. (*bounce, dislodged*) England: Fleet North Sea SUPPORT Fleet London -> English Channel. England: Fleet Edinburgh -> Norwegian Sea. England: Fleet London -> English Channel. France: Army Spain -> Gascony. France: Army Burgundy HOLD. France: Fleet Portugal -> Mid-Atlantic Ocean. France: Fleet Brest HOLD. France: Army Paris SUPPORT Army Burgundy. Germany: Army Munich -> Ruhr. (*bounce*) Germany: Army Belgium -> Ruhr. (*bounce*) Germany: Fleet Holland -> Helgoland Bight. Germany: Army Kiel -> Denmark. Germany: Army Berlin -> Kiel. Italy: Army Tunis HOLD. Italy: Army Tyrolia -> Bohemia. Italy: Fleet Ionian Sea SUPPORT Austrian Fleet Greece -> Aegean Sea. Italy: Fleet Naples -> Apulia. Russia: Army Ukraine SUPPORT Army Galicia. Russia: Army Galicia SUPPORT Army Sevastopol -> Rumania. (*cut*) Russia: Fleet Rumania -> Black Sea. Russia: Fleet Sweden -> Norway. Russia: Army St Petersburg SUPPORT Fleet Sweden -> Norway. Russia: Army Sevastopol -> Rumania. Turkey: Army Bulgaria -> Greece. Turkey: Army Constantinople -> Bulgaria. (*bounce*) Turkey: Fleet Aegean Sea SUPPORT Army Bulgaria -> Greece. (*dislodged*) Turkey: Fleet Smyrna -> Eastern Mediterranean. Retreat orders for Spring of 1902. (hall92.005) England: Fleet Norway -> Skagerrak. Turkey: Fleet Aegean Sea -> Smyrna. Movement results for Fall of 1902. (hall92.006) Austria: Army Serbia SUPPORT Fleet Aegean Sea -> Greece. Austria: Army Vienna SUPPORT Army Budapest. Austria: Fleet Aegean Sea -> Greece. Austria: Army Budapest SUPPORT Army Vienna. Austria: Army Trieste SUPPORT Army Serbia. England: Army Sweden SUPPORT Fleet Skagerrak -> Norway. England: Fleet Skagerrak -> Norway. England: Fleet North Sea SUPPORT Fleet Skagerrak -> Norway. England: Fleet Norwegian Sea SUPPORT Fleet Skagerrak -> Norway. England: Fleet English Channel -> Irish Sea. France: Army Gascony SUPPORT Army Burgundy. France: Army Burgundy SUPPORT Italian Army Bohemia -> Munich. France: Fleet Mid-Atlantic Ocean -> North Atlantic Ocean. France: Fleet Brest -> Mid-Atlantic Ocean. France: Army Paris -> Picardy. Germany: Army Munich -> Burgundy. (*bounce, dislodged*) Germany: Army Belgium SUPPORT Army Munich -> Burgundy. Germany: Fleet Helgoland Bight SUPPORT Army Denmark. Germany: Army Denmark HOLD. Germany: Army Kiel -> Ruhr. Italy: Army Tunis HOLD. Italy: Army Bohemia -> Munich. Italy: Fleet Ionian Sea -> Eastern Mediterranean. (*bounce*) Italy: Fleet Apulia -> Ionian Sea. (*bounce*) Russia: Army Ukraine -> Rumania. Russia: Army Galicia SUPPORT Army Ukraine -> Rumania. Russia: Fleet Black Sea CONVOY Army Rumania -> Ankara. Russia: Fleet Norway -> Barents Sea. Russia: Army St Petersburg -> Finland. Russia: Army Rumania -> Black Sea -> Ankara. Turkey: Army Greece -> Bulgaria. (*bounce, dislodged*) Turkey: Army Constantinople -> Bulgaria. (*bounce*) Turkey: Fleet Smyrna -> Aegean Sea. Turkey: Fleet Eastern Mediterranean -> Ionian Sea. (*bounce*) The following units were dislodged: The German Army in Munich can retreat to Kiel or Berlin or Silesia or Tyrolia. The Turkish Army in Greece can retreat to Albania. Retreat orders for Fall of 1902. (hall92.007) Germany: Army Munich -> Berlin. Turkey: Army Greece -> Albania. Ownership of supply centers: Austria: Budapest, Greece, Serbia, Trieste, Vienna. England: Edinburgh, Liverpool, London, Norway, Sweden. France: Brest, Marseilles, Paris, Portugal, Spain. Germany: Belgium, Berlin, Denmark, Holland, Kiel. Italy: Munich, Naples, Rome, Tunis, Venice. Russia: Ankara, Moscow, Rumania, Sevastopol, St Petersburg, Warsaw. Turkey: Bulgaria, Constantinople, Smyrna. Austria: 5 Supply centers, 5 Units: Builds 0 units. England: 5 Supply centers, 5 Units: Builds 0 units. France: 5 Supply centers, 5 Units: Builds 0 units. Germany: 5 Supply centers, 5 Units: Builds 0 units. Italy: 5 Supply centers, 4 Units: Builds 1 unit. Russia: 6 Supply centers, 6 Units: Builds 0 units. Turkey: 3 Supply centers, 4 Units: Removes 1 unit. Adjustment orders for Winter of 1902. (hall92.008) Turkey: Removes the army in Albania. Italy: Builds an army in Venice. The next phase of hall92 will be Movement for Spring of 1903. The deadline for orders will be Mon Nov 9 23:30:00 PST. ***** PART FOUR - DANNY LOEB'S OPENING LIBRARY ***** *** AUSTRIA *** This is the first of a seven part series that examines the opening for each of the 7 powers. Alphabetically, the first is Austria. This series was last published about 9 months ago, and I thought that considering all the new data, it was time to look again. It's interesting to note that the two wins (Ajax and Emerald) in one of the openings below were won by Dave Cebula. He is presently playing Austria in the Hall of Fame game (hall92) and has used the same opening! Codes for the following tables: W - Solo win Dn - n way draw L - Loss O - Game is still going on, no result available. ? - Result is unknown, if anybody knows info about these games, please contact Danny Loeb (loeb@geocub.greco-prog.fr) or Nick Fitzpatrick (nick@sunburn.uwaterloo.ca) SUMMARY OF OPENINGS FOR AUSTRIA (late October 1992) ------------------------------- A Bud A Vie F Tri #Games Used ----- ----- ----- ----------- Ser Bud Alb 49 (Balkan Gambit, Bud Variation) 2 W: Jutland, Mercury 2 D3: Banditos, Tiberius 1 D4: Radar 1 D5: Portnoy 18 L: Quartz, Berezina, Purple, Land, Guadal, Munk, Koursk, Osijek, Blind, Quebec, Xenon, Dday, Somme, Apple, Hector 22 O: Cheetah, Yellow, Ton, Hitler, Kaiser, Karat, Wren, 1889, Ulm, Tick, Inchworm, Soton, Spider, Amsterda, Beaver, Pompey, Dublin, Gorrilla, Sinister, Caps (Gunboat) Eldritch, Sarajevo 5 ?: Cannon, Nifty, 14epg8, 14epg13, Snake Ser Tri Alb 47 (1b from players guide, Balkan Gambit, Tri Varaition) 2 W: Water, Stockhol 1 D2: Paris 1 D4: (Gunboat) Leipzig 13 L: Vittle, Rose, Manhattan, Whip, Gallon, Ludwig (Gunboat) Mystery, Snorri, Warp, Tuba, Karlxii (NPGun) Bach, Khafji 23 O: Grossc, Slow, Maregno, Earwig, Volt, Lightspe, Twinkles, Pride, Msft, Fly, Gnat, Math, Diablos, Locust, Junebug, Dog, Elk, (Gunboat) Week, Zip, Silence, Lust, Peregrin (NPGun) Dppf, Dppg 4 A: Drewids, Hyperwar, Squid, Gardens 3 ?: 14epg7, Diamond, Flip Ser Gal Alb 35 (1a from player's guide, Balkan Gambit, Gal Variation) 2 W: Emerald, (Gunboat) Ajax 1 D2: Inch 1 D3: Horse 14 L: Juteland, 100andup, Turbo, Swift, Orange, Sparrow, Check, Cubit, Lot, Dram, Furlong, Mach5, Meter (Gunboat) Fast, (NPGun) Dppc, Mess 13 O: Unit, Watt, Ant, Ant, Zoom, Bosnia, Hall92 Cicada, Infinite, Quart, Second, Fall (Gunboat) Banzai 1 A: Muddle 1 ?: 14epg5 Ser Bud HOLD 4 W: Walouf L: Sugar, Dragons, Jugful Ser HOLD Alb 4 (1c from player's guide, Balkan Gambit) O: Pint, Hornet, Ferret A: Lobo ?: Yank Ser Gal HOLD 4 L: Zounds O: Grass, Mars, (Gunboat) Warsaw Ser Trl Alb 4 (Balkan Gambit) L: Bolt O: Comphall, Cow (Gunboat) Gluttony Ser Boh Alb 4 (1-variant from player's guide, Balkan Gambit) L: Boadicea, Acre O: Womble, Surgeon Ser Gal Ven 4 (The Southern Hedgehog) W: (NPGun) Dppb L: Mod, (NPGun) Dppd O: Trafalga Tri Trl Adr 3 (2 from player's guide, Italian Attack, Von Metzke Opening) L: Spam, (NPGun) Conan O: (Gunboat) Avarice Tri* Gal* Alb 3 W: Under ?: croatia, 14epg3 Ser Trl Adr 2 W: King ?: Dragnfly Rum Tri Adr 2 L: austerlitz, Ounce Ser Bud Ven 2 O: Beetle, (Gunboat) Hush Rum Bud HOLD 2 L: Xray, (NPGun) Dppa Ser HOLD HOLD* 2 O: newton, (NPGun) Dpph Rum Bud Alb 2 L: jade O: Antelope SVieGal Gal Alb 1 O: Pillbug Gal Tri Alb 1 O: Tue Rum Gal HOLD 1 O: Rad Ser Trl HOLD 1 O: Moth Rum Bud Adr 1 D6: Normandy Ser Bud Adr 1 L: Zulu Ser HOLD Ven 1 L: Evolt Ser SVen-Trl Alb 1 O: gold HOLD HOLD HOLD 1 L: topple Gal Boh Ven 1 L: (NPGun) Dppe Rum Trl Adr 1 O: Wasp Notes ----- In 14epg3, Bud-Gal and Vie-Tri In Newton, the actual order which judge ACCEPTED was F Tri C A Vie-Gre (!) Excepts from Diplomacy A-Z -------------------------- BALKAN GAMBIT (1.0) <MB:Jun80> The family of openings F(Tri)-Alb, A(Bud)-Ser. This is a true gambit, since the player is giving up much of his ability to defend his home centres against Italy (and, to a lesser extent, giving up some Austrian influence in Rum) in exchange for the virtual assurance of gaining both Gre and Ser. (2.0) <RE:89-90> A name given, like most, by Richard Sharp, to a particular group of Austrian opening moves in Spring 1901, all of which share in common the order A(Bud)-Ser (and usually F(Tri)-Alb). The name explains it all: a `Gambit' is a move that risks loss in one area for a hopefully better chance of gain elsewhere, in this case the Balkans. It is a commitment by Austria to taking up two centres in the south (Serbia and Greece) and is thus generally regarded as anti-Turkish. There are several variations, mostly involving A(Vie), of which the Trieste, Budapest and Galicia versions traditionally account for a significant proportion of Austrian opening moves - indeed, Balkan Gambits are widely regarded as the only `sensible' alternative to the 'Southern Hedgehog' (qv). Notice should also be taken of the so called "Houseboat" variation of the Balkan Gambit, in which F(Tri) Holds instead of moving to Albania. (3) <MN:Jan92> The Balkan Gambit is most commonly defined as *any* Austrian opening which includes the moves A(Bud)-Ser & F(Tri)-Alb. In the 1960's it was common to see the Budapest variation (A(Vie)-Bud), an attempt to take three centres. In the early 1970's Italy often opened A(Ven)-Tri and accordingly the Budapest variation lost favour with the Trieste variation gaining in popularity (A(Vie)-Tri). The Balkan Gambit is a risky opening: if both Italy and Russia attack Austria in Spring 1901 it is unlikely that Austria will live to tell the tale. A commonly seen variation is the Galician (A(Vie)-Gal) which offers Austria some defense against most hostile openings. In the 1980's Italy has moved towards opening A(Ven)-Tyr, A(Rom)-Ven. Accordingly some Austrian players have used the rarely-seen Tyrolian variant A(Vie)-Tyr which, if Russia is friendly, gives Austria a strong position provided Italy has opened to Tyr and not Tri... Postal play has, on occasion, seen the Bohemian variant but this has nothing to commend it to Austrian players; even if England/France/Italy & Russia have all agreed to attack Germany... Finally in the early 1970's the A(Vie)H option attracted support from Don Turnbull, I presume as a result of FTF experience as this opening has not (to my knowledge) been played in a British postal game. BALKAN GAMBIT, BUDAPEST VARIATION (1.0) <MB:Jun80> The Balkan Gambit with A(Vie)-Bud. Austria thus takes no defensive measures against Italy or Russia. In return, he has two pieces adjacent to Rum. He can also accept Russian support into Bul and still have A(Bud)-Ser. See Ionian Gauntlet and Key Opening. BALKAN GAMBIT, GALICIAN VARIATION (1.0) <MB:Jun80> The Balkan Gambit with A(Vie)-Gal. When it succeeds, you have two units on Rum, plus the threat to War which may well distract A(Ukr) away from Rum ---but risks Tri. If it fails, you have shielded two home centres from attack, and are in a decent position to limit further mischief from any Italian A(Tri). BALKAN GAMBIT, TRIESTE VARIATION (1.0) <MB:Jun80> The Balkan Gambit with A(Vie)-Tri, designed to defend against Italy. The paradox is that an Italian attack is more likely to begin with A(Ven)-Tyr rather than A(Ven)-Tri. If there is a A(Tyr), A(Ven) you can still force Italy to guess (Vie or supported attack on Tri), being able to divert A(Ser) to defend Tri. This is the single most popular Austrian opening. HEDGEHOG (1) <MB:Jun80> A(Vie)-Gal, F(Tri)-Ven & A (Bud)-Ser/Rum. This is designed to deal with the I-R attack, and generally bespeaks an alliance with Turkey. With the Serbia option, barring German intervention, Austria is certain of a build, although he has a greatly reduced chance of two. As such it is the reverse of the all-or-nothing approach of the Balkan Gambit. (2) <RE:89-90> Named coined in 1975 by Richard Sharp for the Austrian opening, F(Tri)-Ven; A(Vie)-Gal; A(Bud)-Rum - perhaps the most famous of all Diplomacy openings. Through his subsequent book, "The Game Of Diplomacy", Sharp popularized the now classic A(Bud)-Ser variation, dubbed "The Southern Hedgehog", which has since become one of the two most common openings for Austria. The aim is to afford Austria, so often the first player eliminated from the game, complete protection against early attacks by Italy and Russia, whilst the Southern version also ensures a fourth supply centre, in Serbia, with the possibility of supporting A(Gal)-Rum in Autumn. The moves to Gal and Ven, through superficially speculative, are of largely defensive intent, standing off the likes of A(War)-Gal and A(Ven)-Tri (or, still worse, A(Rom)-Ven, following up A(Ven)-Tyr) - like the Hedgehog, says Sharp, this opening is "ferocious in appearance but cowardly at heart, hence the name". IONIAN GAUNTLET (1) <MB:Jun80> Edi Birsan's take-charge opening for Austria: F01 A(Ser)-Gre, A(Tri/Bud)-Ser, F(Alb)-ION. This gives Austria a more forward position for S02, at the risk of losing Gre. ITALIAN ATTACK (1) <RE:89-90> One example of the many fully committal attacks that can be launched in Spring 1901, in this case by Austria on Italy. As such it is a suitable contrast with the Hedgehog opening, involving F(Tri)-ADR, A(Bud)-Tri and A(Vie)-Tyr. If Italy opens with A(Rom)-Nap, he's lost Venice - though the Balkans are for Russia and Turkey to carve up. This opening is invariably popular with Turkey, Italy's perennial rival in the Med, but is usually regarded as one of the more "bizarre" openings. Still more "bizarre" are the likes of the "Beaujolais Nouveau" mentioned in a very early Vienna but never used (it's a French opening: all three units are ordered to Gascony in Spring 1901), and Denis Jones' "Yorkshire Pudding" (qv) opening for England along similar lines (F(Lon)-Yor, A(Lpl)-Yor, F(Edi)-Yor). I believe that Denis has excelled by actually using this opening once or twice. VON METZKE OPENING (1) <MB:Jun80> Conrad's favourite: A(Vie)-Tyr, F(Tri)-ADR, A(Bud)-Tri. Some claim that the poor statistics for Austria in the early days of the hobby are due in part for Conrad's penchant for both Austria and this opening. Excerpts from the Player's Guide. --------------------------------- 1. A Bud-Ser, A Vie-Bud, F Tri-Alb unlisted 2. A Bud-Ser, A Vie-Tri, F Tri-Alb OPENING 1: "This is virtually _the_ opening for Austria. It is followed by F Alb-Gre, A Ser S F Alb-Gre gaining two centers. Austria should make no other opening without sound and sufficient reason. Here the burden of defense is left mostly to A Vie. What the Austrian player does with that unit depends on whom he distrusts most....." "1b: Here the object of distrust is Italy. (A Tri) can still defend against Russia if she moves to Galicia. As in (1a) however, the defense is primarily a guessing game." 3. A Bud-Ser, A Vie-Gal, F Tri-Alb OPENING 1: see above "1a: Here the object of distrust is Russia. The moves defends against (A War-Gal) which would threaten Vienna and Budapest. If (A Vie-Gal) succeeds, it may still defend Vienna or Budapest (if Italy slips into Trieste). More importantly, it offer the anti-Russian option of (A Gal-Rum, A Ser S A Gal-Rum). If Turkey is friendly (F Alb-Gre) may still succeed. Austria thus has the possibility of 3 builds! The Fall 1901 moves (A Gal-Ukr) is also possible. It's devastating for 1902." 4. A Bud-Tri, A Vie-Trl, F Tri-Adr OPENING 2" "This seemingly suicidal set of orders has on rare occasions given good results. If it succeeds, Venice falls and Italy is crippled. (Italy's (A Ven-Trl, A Rom-Ven) would save Venice however.) These orders might be used in the special circumstance that Austria is allied with Russia AND Turkey. The alliance strategy would call for the rapid destruction of Italy in order to hit France and break into the Atlantic. Even so, Austria is usually foolish to give up Serbia. 5. A Bud-Ser, A Vie-Boh, F Tri-Alb OPENING 1: see above Variant: "A Vie-Boh is marginal: if Russia is absolutely friendly, and if there is definitely an Anglo-German alliance against France, it provides good options. It will help preserve the Balance of power in the west." 7. A Bud-Ser, A Vie H, F Tri-Alb OPENING 1: see above "1c: This non-move may keep everybody happy, but it is very passive and not recommended. It allows the defense of (A Vie-Bud, A Ser-Bud) if Russia has ordered (A War-Gal). (However if Russia then orders (A Gal S AUSTRIAN A Ser-Bud) the result could be only 1 build or none in 1901!) Up