EPTTL Mafia Plays: Diplomacy - Page 15
| Forum Index > TL Mafia |
|
Xatalos
Finland9673 Posts
| ||
|
Hapahauli
United States9305 Posts
On May 12 2014 22:43 Koshi wrote: So you guys played for 5 months and it is a 3-way tie? Errr that was a pretty short game. I think it was less than 2 weeks long? On May 13 2014 00:44 Xatalos wrote: It's too bad I was in the middle of you three :'( If I only wasn't able to be attacked from 3 directions.... Well you kinda set yourself up for that no? That's one of the dangers of allying France. You simply let France/Russia grow too big too fast, and didn't have the diplomatic influence you needed to have in the south. | ||
|
jubil
United States2602 Posts
(please don't get Austria again) : P | ||
|
Xatalos
Finland9673 Posts
| ||
|
Umasi
United States1399 Posts
| ||
|
Alakaslam
United States17324 Posts
| ||
|
Xatalos
Finland9673 Posts
 | ||
|
Hapahauli
United States9305 Posts
On May 13 2014 08:27 Xatalos wrote: Hapa: Yeah, I guess I did. I trusted Austria&Italy to remain allied and cause you enough problems so that you couldn't focus on the north (giving me the chance to claim Scandinavia without much resistance). Unfortunately, you allied with Italy instead and butchered Austria, leaving me in the middle of 3 hostile countries (and a practically defeated Turkey who wanted to somehow fight against you together). I guess I should have seen it coming since Italy never complied with my requests and overall never seemed very interested in working with Austria. Yep. I was thinking about what to write for a general overview of the game, but the game comes down to one simple thing: No one realized that Italy and I were allied until it was far too late. After carving out the south, it was simply a matter of letting the dominant power in the north (one of France/Germany/England) into the 3-way draw. Russian strategy is pretty diverse but comes down to a couple of key objectives:
...and that's pretty much it. If you can secure those two goals, Russia will generally have a promising mid-game. And that's largely how I approached this game. In the south, I made the decision pretty early on to try to pitch for a long-term alliance with Italy. It just offers so many positive benefits to a Russian player:
The first wave of diplomatic communications further strengthened my desire to ally italy - Austria's messages were rife with paranoia, and Turkey rebuffed my initial non-aggression pact offers by demanding control of Sevastopol in exchange for peace. While I eventually talked both of them down and was ultimately secured my boarders (and Rumania) by the first turn, I was pretty convinced that neither would make a good long-term ally. Ultimately, Italy and I established a very trusting relationship and slaughtered the south with some good coordination and well-timed stabs. Turkey and Austria never realized what was going on until it was too late. In the north, my efforts were first to prevent an English/German alliance, ultimately secured by negotiating a 3-way attack on England by myself, Germany, and France. However, Germany taking out England too quickly isn't good for me. So I slowed down German expansion by allowing England into Norway. Furthermore, France displayed some early paranoia of Germany, and was quite receptive when I approached him in Fall 1901 about a future backstab of Germany. Ultimately, France grew too big to quickly and stabbed Germany, securing me against my mid-game threat. Ultimately, the game fizzled into a draw, as France/Italy grew too big too quickly for me to attempt a solo. I probably made a mistake in the south and coordinated too closely with Italy. For example, our 1902 double-stabs of Italy/Austria were perhaps the tactically best way to get rid of both countries, but also made Italy too big to stab later in the game. | ||
|
Hapahauli
United States9305 Posts
...as for what you can do as Germany in your situation to prevent getting surrounded like in that last game... The most obvious point is that you really mis-evaluated what was going on down south. Italy and I were allied from turn 1, and it didn't seem like you ever realized it. Even if you didn't know about our alliance, you have to spend much more time talking with Italy. Italy is a pretty natural German ally, and can take the place of Austria as a southern buffer state if Austria gets carved up. Italy really did not trust you this game (maybe Incognito can talk more about that), and it seems like you didn't do a very good job working on him. Also, it doesn't seem like you were very aggressive/ambitious about creating anti-Russian sentiments down south. I made friends with everyone in the south pretty quickly and without resistance, and by the time you started stroking paranoia about me in 1902, it was too little too late. I was basically feeding Turkey his moves every turn, and Austria was completely blinded by the prospect of getting 3 neutrals in the balkans. Germany NEEDS to keep Russia down to avoid getting slaughtered in the mid-game. If you want to do it effectively, you need to be very active with your diplomacy from the very beginning of the game. Lastly, it seems like you got very complacent with France. After linking the "SeaLion" article to us, you sorta just assumed everything was going to plan. I was shocked how easy it was to convince France to stab you. Like he was openly talking to me about stabbing you as early as Fall 1901, which is a diplomatic catastrophe for you. | ||
|
Xatalos
Finland9673 Posts
Even though you accused me of spreading anti-Russian sentiment, actually I did almost nothing of that kind (besides the anonymous message and the one slightly anti-Russian message to Austria&Italy). To be honest I probably helped you more than undermined your efforts (by helping you to secure Scandinavia and encouraging Austria to trust Italy and to attack Turkey). There's no question that you deserved to win and I deserved to lose | ||
|
Incognito
United States2071 Posts
Alakaslam got slaughtered early because of his paranoia, which made me (and Russia) very wary about trying to form an alliance with him. Oatsmaster unfortunately just got screwed. He wasn't proactive early on, and a combination of a scheming Hapa/Incog and a weak Austria meant there wasn't much he could do to stop his fate. Perhaps due to his freshness to the game, he was unable to convince Russia to form the dreaded Juggernaut. Xatalos talked too much and didn't realize information was leaking. He also seemed to have too rigid of a plan and didn't adjust to account for the alliances that were forming. He presumably proposed a Sealion to France, but a combination of miscommunication and some doubt planting squashed that attempt. I talked to France suggesting that Xatalos wanted to get everyone fighting and wasn't prepared to commit to an alliance, using the example of him proposing me an anti-French alliance and his earlier suggestions that he was going to ally England. I'm not sure exactly what went on with the miscommunication, but I talked a fair bit with France on the first couple moves, which I think messed with possible coordination with Germany (unfortunately time zone coordination may have also played a role in this). This game shows why going with 1901 Sealion moves for Germany is extremely dangerous if you can't count on France to pull through. Without the Fleet build in Kiel, it just makes it that much more awkward for Germany since Fleet Berlin is heavily anti-Russian and there is no good continuation on an English attack. On the south side, its tough to put up with an Italian stab of Austria. Not much he could have done given that I really wasn't going to ally Austria, but the moment the Sealion failed and France got 3 builds, Germany should have surveyed the damage and changed courses, as that would be the best bet to salvage a botched first year. You definitely do not want to be sandwiched by a strong Russia/France, but I don't think Xatalos saw the urgency of the situation, and so from then on it was a lost cause. Rayn unfortunately got screwed by France :\ I wasn't in contact with him much, but I presume that the early game negotiations weren't enough to get him any strong allies. JxN had an awesome first year. Not much to comment on here, but I think that if Germany decided to ditch the Sealion 1902 and offer England/me an alliance against France, it may have been tough for him. As it was, I was busy with Russia in the East, and Germany pretty much stopped communications with me after the Austrian stab, so it was easy pickings from there. Hapa and I were in coordination for the entire game. I did send out feelers to all the other countries to find out whether any other alliances were feasible, but there just were none. Xatalos gave me a good first impression, but unfortunately Germany/Italy have little common interests in the beginning of the game (its a good long-term alliance though). Austria was clearly paranoid, and Turkey is a very awkward alliance for Italy. So ultimately Hapa seemed like the logical ally for the South. I was initially undecided on whether to attack Turkey or Austria first. The good thing about Italy is that you can play pretty non-commital first year. However, after talking to Hapa, we realized that we could execute a double-stab on Austria/Turkey and fight them both simultaneously given that there was no way they could be communicating with each other. So Russia played on Austrian greed to supported Austria to Bulgaria, vacating Trieste and allowing me to stab there. The greed also lost Greece for Austria (which could have almost certainly be guaranteed), leaving him at 4 centers. At this point, Russia is obviously anti-Turkey, and I am obviously Anti-Austrian. However, nobody knew we were both allied, so this allowed me to cooperate with Turkey (and learn/influence his moves) while Russia got information from Austria. Given that Austria just took Bulgaria, it was also highly unlikely that Turkey/Austria would catch on and join together to fight us. Tactically, there is no way Austria can recover Trieste unless Russia changes his mind and supports him. With only 4 units and nothing in Vienna, even dislodging would mean that I could simply retreat (forward!) and occupy a different Austrian center. After considering the larger situation, I convinced Hapa that it was just better to give up the ruse and stab Austria right away, as we could cut him down to 2 centers most likely, with a chance of cutting him down to 1 if we got lucky. At this point, the south is pretty much over. Austria is in shambles, and I have info on Turkeys moves, which doesn't allow for much of a defense. That probably has to be the quickest partition of the South I've ever seen in a game. As for general tips, a) Avoid diplomatic isolation like the plague. In this game, your goals are to a) Survive, b) Draw, c) Win in that order. You can't win unless you can secure a good position in a draw, and you can't draw if you don't survive. You are also unlikely to survive if you are diplomatically isolated. It is extremely tough to come back if you have no friends by the end of Spring 1901 (but not impossible if you play extremely well). b) This is not like playing Mafia. If you try to play Chezinu style, you will fail. The number one objective is to establish trust with players to give you options as well as people to ask if you need help. If you make sure that people can count on you to help them when they are in need, they will be willing to help you. Austria was extremely paranoid this game and failed to give me compelling reasons to ally with him. Its not that Austria is a bad country (its actually very solid if you can get up to 5-6 centers), but that poor communications destroyed any hope of an alliance. c) Talking too much can get you killed. Xatalos offering everyone alliances gave me fodder to suggest to France that Germany was untrustworthy. To his credit, Xatalos didn't make hard promises to everyone (which is a no-no), but you don't want to look like a mercenary. Its a small game, and everyone (should be) talking to everyone. If word comes around that you are trying to pit everyone against each other and sit back and watch, they're going to catch on and punish you for it. d) Talking too little can get you killed. So Xatalos talked a little bit to everyone, but he didn't invest enough into making long-term relationships. While its ok to sniff out what other people are doing, you also want to make sure you are not making solely transactional alliances (designed to get 1 short-term objective). If you can invest time into making 1-2 strong alliances, they will trust you for later in the game when you need help. There's also the added benefit that they might tip you off if they heard that someone else was going to backstab you. e) Focus on long-term alliances. Aside from the Austria/Turkey alliance and the Italy/Turkey alliance, which are very unstable and difficult to maintain, almost every 2-country alliance in the game is feasible. While certain combinations are more powerful or stable than others, your choice of who to ally shouldn't be based solely on the game board. It should primarily depend on who can be a trustworthy long-term ally. After all, tactics only matter if you can trust your allies to do them correctly. So while the map plays a role, you want to ally people, not countries. Even extremely geographically favorable alliances such as Russia/Turkey can fall apart if the relationship between the two players is tense, the gains of conquest are split inequitably, army positioning invites stabbing, or other events conspire to induce suspicion between the two players. This game was basically decided early because nobody besides Russia/me formed a long-term alliance, and England/Austria were isolated early on, with Germany/Turkey to follow shortly. | ||
|
Incognito
United States2071 Posts
On May 13 2014 10:17 Hapahauli wrote: @ Xatalos ...as for what you can do as Germany in your situation to prevent getting surrounded like in that last game... The most obvious point is that you really mis-evaluated what was going on down south. Italy and I were allied from turn 1, and it didn't seem like you ever realized it. Even if you didn't know about our alliance, you have to spend much more time talking with Italy. Italy is a pretty natural German ally, and can take the place of Austria as a southern buffer state if Austria gets carved up. Italy really did not trust you this game (maybe Incognito can talk more about that), and it seems like you didn't do a very good job working on him. Also, it doesn't seem like you were very aggressive/ambitious about creating anti-Russian sentiments down south. I made friends with everyone in the south pretty quickly and without resistance, and by the time you started stroking paranoia about me in 1902, it was too little too late. I was basically feeding Turkey his moves every turn, and Austria was completely blinded by the prospect of getting 3 neutrals in the balkans. Germany NEEDS to keep Russia down to avoid getting slaughtered in the mid-game. If you want to do it effectively, you need to be very active with your diplomacy from the very beginning of the game. Lastly, it seems like you got very complacent with France. After linking the "SeaLion" article to us, you sorta just assumed everything was going to plan. I was shocked how easy it was to convince France to stab you. Like he was openly talking to me about stabbing you as early as Fall 1901, which is a diplomatic catastrophe for you. I was initially pleasantly surprised by your well thought-out early posts, but after that you didn't seem to put too much effort into sustaining the alliance. Germany/Italy can be great if the Sealion works because France is a nice natural target if Italy has fleets to spare. The problem is that you offered too much and made yourself look like a mercenary. And when you're thinking about long-term alliances, you want to look dependable, not mercenary-like. So while I was still open to an alliance, I always had a thought in the back of my mind that maybe I couldn't trust your words. That maybe you were just talking empty words and didn't actually mean it. Since I wasn't committed to an alliance with you, I decided to talk to France just to see what was up (and try to find out if you were telling France the same story you were telling me). I was just trying to find information and wasn't really committed to any one alliance in the North. But it just so happens that after the failed Sealion, you were pretty screwed so we decided to add France to the 3-way instead of you. Another thing was not talking to France enough. While it seems like you two coordinated, you didn't build up trust to the same level as Russia/me. And since you didn't do that, it gave me the opportunity to talk to France myself and make sure that relationship didn't develop. On Russia and Sweden: As I understand it, you gave Russia Sweden in exchange for a non-aggression pact, which is a questionable move. I suppose you understand that Russia/Germany can't be long-term friends. The key to Sweden though is that you use it as a bargaining chip for your interests. For Spring 1901, that primarily is ensuring that Russia doesn't move to Galicia (keeping with your theme of trying to protect Austria). Since bouncing Sweden doesn't carry any meaningful cost, you can always play the waiting game. If Russia makes moves you don't like, you just announce your intention to bounce. Furthermore, if Russia seems like he's going to get too powerful in 1901, you can still bounce. I think you over committed in 1901 to the Sealion without considering what was going on with the rest of the board. Russia was clearly in an excellent position after Spring 1901. Neither Austria nor Turkey was attacking him, he had leverage over Norway, and chances at a stab on Turkey. You were astute enough to cry foul for a potential Juggernaut, but yet you did nothing about it. I can't overstate how good it is for Russia to have no enemies 1901 and chances at 7 builds. I would have unquestionably bounced Russia out of Sweden given the situation. This carries almost no diplomatic penalty (sure, Russia might be annoyed over Sweden, but he can't afford to punish you over it anyway) and allows you to maintain diplomatic flexibility (unlike a Sealion). As Germany, you need to keep the balance of power. You didn't do enough to stop Russia or France from expanding rapidly, even though you clearly had the tools to do it (bounce Sweeden, use your non-committal position and France's channel move to convince England to ally with you against France). One of your strengths as Germany is that you can make non-committal moves without exposing yourself to stabs. I think you gave up this key advantage and proceeded to roll with the anti-English move when this may not have been in your best interest given the Russian/French moves. I feel like you already had your mind set on an anti-English campaign from the start even if you didn't show it in the beginning. | ||
|
Alakaslam
United States17324 Posts
I openly state you can assume a norm of paranoia from me, and this will not deter me from playing. If I lose I lose. Frankly I wanted turkey dead and had no plan after that at all, I assumed Russia was going to eventually steamroll me and was preparing to give him the game as I hate watching stalemates and repeats. I assume(d) that due to my phone, my yoda/Froglish style of speaking, and the diplomatic skill required to win as Austria put all chance of survival out of reach. I struggle to get anyone to even understand what I am trying to say, anywhere, in written communication because... because. I have no clue why it is just like folks find every way to misconstrue what I say. Plus I think so different to begin with that all is odd | ||
|
Xatalos
Finland9673 Posts
Slam: I think your biggest challenges are being too greedy / secretive. By being too (obviously) greedy with your negotiations, you alienate potential allies and announce to the other players that you're aiming to grow fast and to win a solo victory. This means that you become an unstable long-term ally at best and a clear enemy for everyone at worst. Also being too secretive about your plans and moves doesn't help in making other players trust you. If you don't trust anyone at all, you can't expect anyone to trust you either. What would you think if someone offered you an alliance where the other party gained most of the benefits and you'd have no information of his short-term OR long-term plans? I doubt you would be happy to accept.. | ||
|
Xatalos
Finland9673 Posts
| ||
|
Alakaslam
United States17324 Posts
On May 13 2014 19:29 Xatalos wrote: Incognito: All true. I played my first game kind of like a "'mercenary", and it worked out great, but the difference here was that people actually communicated with each other and noticed what I was doing (mostly you&France). This made both of you less trusting of me and basically eliminated my chances of securing a solid long-term ally (once Austria, my first choice of a long-term ally based on geographical positions, was quickly butchered). Slam: I think your biggest challenges are being too greedy / secretive. By being too (obviously) greedy with your negotiations, you alienate potential allies and announce to the other players that you're aiming to grow fast and to win a solo victory. This means that you become an unstable long-term ally at best and a clear enemy for everyone at worst. Also being too secretive about your plans and moves doesn't help in making other players trust you. If you don't trust anyone at all, you can't expect anyone to trust you either. What would you think if someone offered you an alliance where the other party gained most of the benefits and you'd have no information of his short-term OR long-term plans? I doubt you would be happy to accept.. First game I completely offered Germany/ Italy/ turkey my all. Russia wanted alliance and those three were silent, Russia did a timed backstab as my one closest ally to whom I told everything, (yes being quite greedy as you know!- I was very worried about Germany/Italy alliance) And people think I just decide to be unfriendly as Austria See we can't see the old chat logs so that I find a double edged sword. But my memory tells me I said to Germany "hey wanna ally up?" He said nothing, Italy "work together yeah?" NOTHING, now I am getting worried, Germany Italy both making public chats and first message I made was Russia "u wanna fite" feeling it made no sense for Germany to spurn ally, but sure enough he did so I worked with Russia when Russia said "no, actually I would prefer you keep Germany at bay for me" And later I was told I hadn't left any options for Russia. Xata if you look, Russia starts with one more unit than everyone else. I had been counting centers, and planning along us having exactly the same number. After thinking along those lines and then backstab basically Stop preaching I will NOT change, because often enough people assert false intent ok? So if you say "stop being unwilling to ally, you have never been looking or a fair alliance" then I am just going to roll my eyes. Again I don't mind losing. I hold the mindset I hold because I hold it. | ||
|
Xatalos
Finland9673 Posts
But I definitely couldn't go to war against you both, so I asked you to join me in destroying Germany. Your communications started to improve and I even had hopes of forming an alliance with you. However, you refused to give me Rumania and instead promised that I could freely take the northern areas. The problem was just that I'd have to fight in the north with my initial units, with (almost) no help from you, and I'd need to make an enemy of England/Germany/Turkey at the same time. I think a fair plan would have been something like this: I take Rumania and Turkey's home centers. You take the Balkans, then move into Italy and France, while I move into Scandinavia/Germany. Then we'd be set for a 2-way draw or a solo victory for either of us depending on other factors. But it was definitely undoable to let you have everything in the south and have me just slowly fight by myself to possibly gain territory in the north. The fact that you completely refused to negotiate about Rumania indicated that you had no long-term plans to ally with me and that you were just planning to use me to defeat Turkey. Right then Turkey proposed to me that we should make a surprise attack against you and split your areas. It was a lot more lucrative than the previous plan - it would be 3v1 (Italy also wanted to attack you) instead of something like 2v4... and with immediate rewards for me (Rumania, Budapest and Vienna) instead of uncertain rewards far in the future. All in all, I think it's hard to play as Austria and it's unfair to blame you for your lack of success when it's all too common for that to happen. But you should just remember a couple of things in the future: 1) Friendly, clear communication with your neighbors (or even everyone) 2) Focus on survival and prepare for the worst - don't expect stuff to happen as you hope, you need to *make* stuff happen through diplomacy and still have backup plans 3) Don't overextend your forces by conquering areas that you have no hope of holding with your own forces or through a completely solid alliance with someone (for example, conquering Bulgaria in the previous game) | ||
|
Alakaslam
United States17324 Posts
I keep forgetting- Folks one thing about me, is I am a little odd about some countries. Munich and Rumania have personal irl significance to me. That actually makes a lot more sense now. | ||
|
Alakaslam
United States17324 Posts
And Marsailles. But I was never able to realistically own those | ||
|
Xatalos
Finland9673 Posts
| ||
| ||
