• Welcome to Autism Forums, a friendly forum to discuss Aspergers Syndrome, Autism, High Functioning Autism and related conditions.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Private Member only forums for more serious discussions that you may wish to not have guests or search engines access to.
    • Your very own blog. Write about anything you like on your own individual blog.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon! Please also check us out @ https://www.twitter.com/aspiescentral

GRUMPY CAT NEEDS HELP ON "DIPLOMACY" PAPER

Grumpy Cat

Well-Known Member
Grumpy Cat here. I'm grumpy again. I'm doing this thread because of a message I read from Aspergirl4hire. :) I have an outline due next Tues for a paper and it's about the board game "Diplomacy". A picture of the instructions are included below.

So far I have found info on the rules of the game, a formal definition of "diplomacy", and the advantages and disadvantages of each country. There really isn't any way to help me with #5,6,7.

I'm needing some possible game plays (with pictures of game board setup) from the Internet. Some ideas regarding micro and macro analysis of the game.

Anything you guys can come up with I would really appreciate.

PS: At the top under ANALYSIS: what does it even mean to analyze concepts and break them down into their component units???? Wth!!!

PPS: I HATE THIS CLASS!!!!!!

image.jpg


image.jpg
 
Oh God. Diplomacy? Only if you promise to take anything I say with an ENTIRE salt mine.

But papers, I know a little about those.

So, do we have to play diplomacy for the...preemption assignment? If it's generally as suggested in the topic line below I just got from Amazon, I know a bit about Renaissance diplomatic models that could apply in Mantua and the Vatican, as well as how Kennedy's cabinet used history to make a diplomatic decision that reduced the risk of war in 1962...you'll have to tell me if any of that is relevant.

What's your "thesis" or position?
EDIT: Or what states or periods or diplomatic problems interest you for this paper?

At the top under ANALYSIS: what does it even mean to analyze concepts and break them down into their component units???? Wth!!!

Take an idea your professor or one of the textbook authors promoted, and break it up into smaller ideas. If it's not obvious, start with "what is he talking about?" and "why does this matter?" That's always worked for me. Other people may have approaches they like better.




  • r.jpg
  • r.jpg
View full description
Details about Diplomacy Strategy Game Europe Politics Intrigue Treachery Negotiation Fun Play
 
Last edited:
Yes. The class has been playing the game and I have pictures, but I'd rather do my own scenarios of past classic moves.
 
Last edited:
I hate this! (Stomping my feet) I just want to go to bed and wake up after this class is over! Fine. This is what I have - and I'm missing one picture in the middle from being sick. I had the flu - boo hoo.

image.jpg



image.jpg


image.jpg



image.jpg


These are all the moves for Italy.

image.jpg


image.jpg


image.jpg


image.jpg


image.jpg
 
So, the deal is to figure out what the strategy is from 1903 through 1905, based on the class moves by the "player" Italy? To establish what theory or idea is motivating the alliances described by these moves?
 
Let's see the pictures. See if your class is attempting to recreate history or simply play a game to win.

So, the deal is to figure out what the strategy is from 1903 through 1905, based on the class moves by the "player" Italy? To establish what theory or idea is motivating the alliances described by these moves?

Not exactly. I'm with a group of people who are playing "Italy". There are 7 groups and each group represents a country. Each country has a number of fleets or armies and they have to "conquer" other countries "home supply centers" which are the dots in black. One country has to aquire 18 of these centers then they win the game.

Is that about right, Judge?
 
Object[edit]
The object of the game is to use your armies and fleets to conquer as much of Europe as you can. Specifically, you must capture and be in possession of at least 18 of the 34 nations or provinces on the map that contain supply centres - i.e. a simple majority - at the end of a year.

Quite often the game ends in a two-way, three-way, or even four-way draw. Draws are generally agreed upon by all players or are declared after a pre-set time limit has been reached with all surviving participants sharing in the draw.

Geography[edit]
The board is divided into a large number of spaces, each identified by a name (often abbreviated to three letters). There are three types of space on the board: ocean or sea spaces, land spaces, and coastal land spaces. The type of space determines which units can occupy them.

34 of the land and coastal land provinces are supply centres. Possession of these supply centres allows the powers who control them to raise and maintain armies and fleets. As they are also a central part of the game's victory conditions, they are the focus of much of the game's activity.

Each player is given three (save for Russia, which has four) home supply centres. These spaces are the starting point for their owning power's initial forces. The players can then build new units at these home supply centers as they capture further supply centres. New units can only be built on a power's home supply centers. If a power loses all of its home supply centers it may continue to play; however, it may not build new units until it has recaptured at least one of its home supply centers.

Three specific coastal land spaces have multiple and separate coastlines: Spain, Bulgaria, and St. Petersburg. When occupying these coastal areas, fleets are considered to be stationed at one coast or the other, and cannot travel "through" a land space to get to the sea space off its opposite coast. They are readily identifiable by their specific coast names; for instance, Spain is marked with NC (North Coast) and SC (South Coast).

Other specific land spaces do allow fleets to travel through them from a sea space on one side to a sea space on the other. These land spaces are identified by the channel of water that goes through them. For example, a fleet could move from the Aegean Sea through Constantinople to the Black Sea in two moves, as long as those spaces were unoccupied.

Units[edit]
In Diplomacy, there are two types of units: Armies and Fleets. An army can travel in land spaces and coastal land spaces, and a fleet can travel in sea spaces and coastal land spaces.

Although all of the supply centers are on land, only seven supply centers are completely landlocked. Fleets are important to convoy armies across water, support coastal battles, create a blockade on sea spaces so that other fleets cannot expand, etc. Some countries can live without fleets since they are nearly landlocked geographically. Such countries include Russia, Germany, and especially Austria. On the other hand, English fleets are absolutely necessary since without them England cannot convoy armies to the mainland.

All units in Diplomacy move only one space at a time and only one unit may occupy any space at any time. The exception to this rule comes in the form of a successful convoy, where a convoyed army may travel multiple spaces depending on the length of the chain created by the convoying fleets. A convoyed army must embark from a coastal land province and land at a coastal land province. If a player leaves more than one piece in a territory for more than one turn, then those pieces are removed from battle and can not be replaced with another piece.

Game Phases[edit]
Gameplay begins in the year 1901, and there are two moves or Movement Phases per year, one in Spring, and one in Fall.

  • Before each move, orders for all of a player's units are written in secret and submitted to the arbitrator, who then makes all necessary adjustments to the board/map.
  • If a unit is dislodged as a result of the move (overpowered by other players), the player must submit Retreat Phase orders that the unit either be retreated to an unoccupied adjacent province or else disbanded and removed from play.
  • If two or more units are located in the same province for an excess of one (1) turn, they are destroyed and removed from play. A unit may not retreat to the province from where the dislodging unit came or to an "embattled" province, meaning one left vacant by a bounce/standoff that turn.
  • After the Fall move and the subsequent Retreat Phase, and before the next year begins, a tally is made of the total number of supply centers controlled by each Power. A Power controls a supply center if 1) it has a unit (army or fleet) occupying the province with that supply center or 2) the province with the supply center is unoccupied and the Power was the last to occupy that province at the end of a year. Each supply center can support one military unit, so Powers that have gained supply centers over the course of the year can build new units. New units may be created at any of the player's unoccupied home supply centers, but only at these centers, and at most one unit per center. For this reason, no more than 3 new units per player can ever be created at a time (except in the case of Russia, which has 4 home supply centers).
  • On the other hand, if a Power has more units than supply centers at the end of the year, then it must disband units of its choice until it has equal numbers of units and supply centers.
  • Powers may not choose to disband below the number of supply centers in their possession, for this would allow players to replace units in the field with new units back home instantaneously. For instance, a player who has more armies than necessary and wants a fleet in order to capture a far-away supply center cannot simply disband an army and build a new fleet on a home supply center. (See "Movement" below).
Orders and the Movement Phase[edit]
There are four basic orders in Diplomacy: Hold, Attack, Support, and Convoy.

At each Movement Phase, players may order each unit either to hold its position, to attack (or move to) another province, or to support another unit (either to hold its position or to attack a province). Fleets may also be ordered to convoy armies across bodies of water to coastal provinces.

Hold[edit]
This is the default for all units (what they will do if not given any other orders). The unit will stay in its position, and will not move, support, convoy, or do anything. Holding units can be supported by units in neighboring provinces or be attacked by foreign units. If the attacking unit has more units supporting it than the holding unit, the holding unit is ousted from that province and must either retreat or disband (see above).

A hold order is written as follows:

Army/Fleet (Province that the unit is in) holds.

Example: Italy: Army Rome holds.

Attack/Move[edit]
This order moves the unit in one province to an adjacent province. Of course, armies cannot move into sea provinces, and fleets cannot move into landlocked provinces.

A unit may not move into a province held by another unit unless it has support. As units may be supported either in attacking a province or in holding a province, the attacking unit must have more support than the defending unit if the attack is to be successful. If the attack is not successful, the attacking unit does not move anywhere.



A move order is written as follows:

Army/Fleet (Province that the unit is in) to (destination province).


Examples:

Italy
Army Rome to Venice

France
Fleet Brest to English Channel

When the destination province is occupied by another unit, for instance:

Austria-Hungary
Fleet Trieste holds

Italy
Army Venice to Trieste

Army Venice and Fleet Trieste do not move, unless either are attacked or defended by stronger support.


When two units with equal support try to move into the same destination province, for instance:

Germany
Army Munich to Tyrolia

Italy
Army Venice to Tyrolia

Neither of the two units can go into Tyrolia. Army Venice will stay in Venice, and Army Munich will stay in Munich. Again, this is assuming that these two units are the only two units in this little battle, and that they have equal support for their moves.

Support[edit]
Support is the trickiest aspect of the rules, and the most important of the game. Support may involve cooperation between two (or more) powers, and is the only way to make forward progress through enemy territory (unless you can convince the enemy to let you in). Simply put, more support defeats less support.

The support order is given in reference to another unit's move. That other unit's move must be to a province into which the supporting unit could otherwise move. Support may also be given to a unit holding its position. In addition, units giving support can themselves be supported in their holding position.

Support is a unit's sole action for a given move, and supporting units remain where they are (unless they are attacked by greater support and have to retreat or disband during the retreat phase).

Cutting Support: If the supporting unit is attacked during the turn by some other unit, its support is cut. In effect, the support order becomes a hold order, as the unit must defend its province against the attack. Note that a unit occupying the province into which the support is directed cannot cut support, unless its attack successfully dislodges the supporting unit.

Support orders are written thus:
Army/Fleet (Space that the supporting unit is in) supports Army/Fleet (Space that the supported unit is in) to (destination of supported unit)
or
Army/Fleet (Space that the supporting unit is in) supports Army/Fleet (Space that the supported unit is holding)

Example:

NB: Below are complete orders as submitted by all 7 Powers for the Fall 1907 campaign season of a made-up game to help you understand the intricacies of supporting and breaking support. Having a game map to look on with is highly recommended; the one provided at the top of this page is adequate.


We'll start with:

--Germany--
  • Army Ruhr to Holland
  • Fleet Kiel supports Army Ruhr to Holland
  • Army Munich supports Army Ruhr to Holland
Note that in this case the order for Munich to support Ruhr into Holland would not work because Munich does not border Holland and thus cannot support Ruhr in (Munich could, however, support Ruhr if Ruhr were simply holding). The rule for supporting an attack is that a supporting unit must border the province being attacked, but need not border the attacker's province of origin (to support a unit to hold, however, the supporting unit must border the supported unit). Essentially, the supporting unit must border the destination of the supported unit, whether it is its own province or a new province entirely. In sum, Ruhr is actually attacking Holland with the support of only one unit (Fleet Kiel).

  • Army Prussia supports Army Silesia
  • Army Silesia supports Army Prussia
Here, Army Prussia is supported by one unit, and Army Silesia is supported by one unit. The last two moves are legal, and this method of double-support is helpful when there are two units that both could be attacked and dislodged. Of course, if both units are attacked, the support fails.



--England--

  • Army London to Holland
  • Fleet North Sea convoys Army London to Holland (<-- a convoy)
  • Fleet Heligoland Bight supports Army London to Holland
Note that the convoying fleet is not considered to be giving support, so Army London actually has support from only one unit: Fleet Heligoland-Bight.

  • Army Denmark to Kiel
Here England interferes with Germany's plans (see Germany, above) by attacking Kiel with Army Denmark. This cuts the support of Fleet Kiel to Army Ruhr, thereby leaving Army Ruhr's attack on Holland unsupported.

Army London, on the other hand, (see above) is supported in its attack on Holland by one unit (Fleet Heligoland-Bight), thereby enabling Army London to be convoyed successfully into Holland, as long as Fleet North Sea is not dislodged during the convoy.

  • Army Picardy to Brest
  • Fleet Mid-Atlantic Ocean supports Army Picardy to Brest
  • Fleet English Channel supports Army Picardy to Brest
Here Army Picardy is supported by both Fleet Mid-Atlantic Ocean and Fleet English Channel to move into Brest. Unless the French successfully defend it, England will also take Brest.


--France--

  • Fleet Gascony to Mid-Atlantic Ocean
  • Fleet Irish Sea to English Channel
Fleet Gascony and Fleet Irish Sea cut the support by Fleet Mid-Atlantic Ocean and Fleet English Channel for England's Army Picardy (see England, above). Therefore, Army Picardy is now attacking Brest unsupported.

  • Fleet Brest holds
  • Army Paris supports Fleet Brest
Army Paris supports Fleet Brest, and so Army Picardy’s now unsupported attempt to move into Brest fails.

  • Army Burgundy to Ruhr
Army Burgundy does not successfully move into Ruhr because Army Ruhr’s move to Holland failed (see Germany and England, above).


--Russia--

Fleet Sevastopol holds
Army Moscow supports Fleet Sevastopol

Fleet Sevastopol is supported by Army Moscow.

Fleet St. Petersburg (North Coast) to Norway
Army Finland supports Fleet St. Petersburg (North Coast) to Norway

Norway is not occupied, so Russia takes it immediately.

Army Livonia to Prussia

Unsupported Army Livonia attempts to move into Prussia, but since Army Prussia is supported by Army Silesia (see Germany, above), the attack is not successful.


--Austria-Hungary--

Army Ukraine supports Fleet Sevastopol

Army Ukraine supports Fleet Sevastopol, so there are now two units supporting (see Russia, above). In fact, international support is necessary in alliances, whether supporting each other in defence or to attack another Power.

Fleet Trieste holds
Army Budapest supports Fleet Trieste
Army Vienna supports Fleet Trieste

There are two units supporting Fleet Trieste: Army Budapest and Army Vienna.


--Turkey--

Army Galicia to Ukraine

Army Galicia cuts the Austrian support to Sevastopol, thereby decreasing the support to Sevastopol by one unit (see Austria and Russia, above).

Fleet Black Sea to Sevastopol
Army Armenia supports Fleet Black Sea to Sevastopol
Army Rumania supports Fleet Black Sea to Sevastopol

Now, since Fleet Black Sea is supported by two units into Sevastopol, Fleet Black Sea moves into Sevastopol, and Fleet Sevastopol has to be disbanded or retreat. A retreating fleet that is displaced by another force can only retreat into a movable space (i.e. a sea or coastal province that is vacant) which may not be the same space that was previously occupied by the displacing unit.

Since Fleet Sevastopol has nowhere to retreat, it disbands automatically.


--Italy--

Army Apulia to Trieste
Fleet Adriatic Sea convoys Army Apulia to Trieste
Army Venezia supports Army Apulia to Trieste
Fleet Albania supports Army Apulia to Trieste

There are two units supporting Army Apulia into Trieste, but since Fleet Trieste is supported by two units (see Austria-Hungary, above), the attack bounces.

Finally note that the orders for both the army being convoyed and the fleet doing the convoying must use the proper protocol and fully identify the units involved in the convoy. This is a complex manoeuver and becomes more complex if it involves units controlled by more than one power.

Convoy[edit]
This move is used to transfer army units across sea spaces, or to move large distances in one move. Only armies may be convoyed, and only fleets may convoy.

Let us say, for instance, that in Fall 1901 England has the following position:
Army Yorkshire
Fleet North Sea
Fleet English Channel

A convoy order would be:

--England--
Army Yorkshire to Norway
Fleet North Sea convoys Army Yorkshire to Norway

Army Yorkshire will move to Norway, unless another unit should prevent this process by dislodging or destroying the convoying fleet. If a convoy order fails and the convoyed piece could not ordinarily move there without the convoy, the convoyed army unit holds.

The unit being convoyed can be supported into its destination space by any other units that border the destination space, just like any other support. However, if the convoying fleet is dislodged, it cannot convoy the unit and the entire move will fail. Note that convoys are not "broken" as easily as support; a convoying fleet that is attacked but not dislodged will successfully carry out its convoy order.

Convoying fleets can be supported to prevent them from being dislodged or destroyed. Convoying fleets cannot perform any other order.

A fleet on a coastal space may not convoy.

Note especially that the convoyed army's order does not have to specify the convoy - the fleet's convoy order takes care of this. This could potentially lead to a situation where an army is convoyed without the intention of being so.

Abbreviation of Orders[edit]
Most orders are not written out as lengthily as they are in our examples. For instance, here is a set of Russia's moves written in an abbreviated form:

A Mos H
A War-Gal
A Bud S A War-Gal
A Sev-Ank
F Bla C A Sev-Ank

Abbreviations of most provinces are written as the first three letters of the name; for instance, Bal for Baltic Sea, Lon for London, and so on. There are exceptions for the provinces whose names begin with "Nor", as there are several; many use the following: Nth for the North Sea, NAt or NAO for the North Atlantic Ocean, NAf for North Africa, Nwg for the Norwegian Sea, Nwy for Norway.
 
Yes. The class has been playing the game and I have pictures, but I'd rather do my own scenarios of past classis moves....I'm with a group of people who are playing "Italy". There are 7 groups and each group represents a country. Each country has a number of fleets or armies and they have to "conquer" other countries "home supply centers" which are the dots in black. One country has to aquire 18 of these centers then they win the game.

Current understanding: You are part of Team Italy. Team Italy, using diplomacy, is planning on taking over western Europe. You want to use your own scenarios, not the team's actual moves. What have I left out/got wrong?
 
Thanks for providing the pictures. Yes, to win the game a country has to simultaneously control 18 supply centers in a single turn of play.

It looks like Britain, France and Russia are doing a coordinated, full-court press on the Central Powers. To the point where I have to ask, does Germany and Austria-Hungary even have an alliance ?

Italy may have an alliance with Austria-Hungary, but like the other Central Powers given the disposition of their armies it looks like they don't really trust each other enough to disperse their armies where they are really needed. And Italy should be pushing it's fleets west- not east towards Turkey.

Of course virtually none of these moves on the board reflects history at all. I'd just think it would be fundamentally easier to explain the historical alliances and moves of each nation at the time rather than comment on a fantasy scenario which the game presently reflects.
 
Last edited:
Current understanding: You are part of Team Italy. Team Italy, using diplomacy, is planning on taking over western Europe. You want to use your own scenarios, not the team's actual moves. What have I left out/got wrong?

Yes. Actually I think Italy is about to get the boot. I'd rather use examples of old moves so I can back them up on whether they worked or not. Honestly, this paper is so involved that I'm not sure what I'm going to do. And I have to get all the answers to 15 pages of questions and start studying for a test that we're having next Thurs. I need to devote quite a bit of time to that too. Like I said- I'd just like to go to bed.
 
Thanks for providing the pictures. Yes, to win the game a country has to simultaneously control 18 supply centers in a single turn of play.

It looks like Britain, France and Russia are doing a coordinated, full-court press on the Central Powers. To the point where I have to ask, does Germany and Austria-Hungary even have an alliance ?

Italy may have an alliance with Austria-Hungary, but like the other Central Powers given the disposition of their armies it looks like they don't really trust each other enough to disperse their armies where they are really needed. And Italy should be pushing it's fleets west- not east towards Turkey.

Of course virtually none of these moves on the board reflects history at all. I'd just think it would be fundamentally easier to explain the historical alliances and moves of each nation at the time rather than comment on a fantasy scenario which the game presently reflects.

Austria has an alliance with us - Italy. I'm surprised we still do cause I was ready to kill them off in the beginning. :p
 
Oh goodness, I can see why our Grumpy Cat has been bowed up and hissing and spitting lately! It'd be easier to write about chess. I bid thee good luck and good sleeps.

...And just what degree are you studying for!?
 
Austria has an alliance with us - Italy. I'm surprised we still do cause I was ready to kill them off in the beginning. :p

Italy needs a tripartite/mutual defense agreement with Germany and Austria-Hungary. And then convince Germany to push the French back along their own border. This might eventually force them out of Italy as they need more armies to fight Germany to the north. Equally Austria-Hungary needs to move some of their armies westward against France as well. It must be a coordinated attack of all three nations. Otherwise none of these countries seem tactically able to launch independent offensives of their own.

Then perhaps you could start moving your Italian fleets westward, away from Turkey and capture neutral supply centers like Spain and Portugal. Replenish an army placed in Piedmont to guard your west flank against further incursions from France.

I'm a bit surprised that Britain isn't using their fleets as they should. That's very good for Italy as long as it stays in the game.
 
Last edited:
Italy needs a tripartite/mutual defense agreement with Germany and Austria-Hungary. And then convince Germany to push the French back along their own border. This might eventually force them out of Italy as they need more armies to fight Germany to the north. Equally Austria-Hungary needs to move some of their armies westward against France as well. It must be a coordinated attack of all three nations. Otherwise none of these countries seem tactically able to launch independent offensives of their own.

Then perhaps you could start moving your Italian fleets westward, away from Turkey and capture neutral supply centers like Spain and Portugal. Replenish an army placed in Piedmont to guard your west flank against further incursions from France.

I'm a bit surprised that Britain isn't using their fleets as they should. That's very good for Italy as long as it stays in the game.

Judge, I have no idea what you just said. We aren't going to be forming any alliance with Germany as far as I know.

Can you name some famous moves that have worked in the past (preferably with Italy)?

Any ideas on macro and micro analyzing the game?
 
Can you name some famous moves that have worked in the past (preferably with Italy)?

Any ideas on macro and micro analyzing the game?

This isn't chess. Every game is different given a relatively even dispersal of armies and fleets. Politics, ethnic strife and economics aren't factors incorporated into the game. Only geography and topography give one country certain advantages over others, IMO. Above all, it depends on the tactical and diplomatic ability of those players representing their countries. So there are no truly "famous" moves in that regard. The game allows for simply too many variables. If you want famous moves, stick to the actual history of the origins of World War One.

Frankly given the latest picture of the map board it appears that Germany and Austria-Hungary are doomed. Both have been reduced to purely defensive positions guarding their own native supply centers. Had they played a more aggressive and offensive role, being an ally of Austria-Hungary AND Germany would have been a good move for Italy.

That said, it appears that France is only a few moves away from knocking Italy out of the game. If you were in a better tactical situation I'd say make peace with France ASAP, and break your alliance with Austria-Hungary. But it appears simply too late for that, let alone recalling your fleets enough to protect Italy's native supply centers (Rome and Naples). France has no need to form an alliance with Italy, but at this point it's your only chance for survival. You have nothing to lose in trying.

As far as a macro analysis of the game goes, I'd say geography and topography helped Britain, France and Russia. Very smart if they all have a formal alliance. This allowed for greater tactical flexibility compared to Germany, Austria-Hungary and Turkey as well. Italy had more options in this sense, but failed in moving their fleets east rather than west. Leaving them spread out too thin to be effective in convoying armies great distances across the Mediterranean.

And if Italy made only a single alliance with Austria-Hungary alone that was another blunder. Geographically speaking Italy is a nation that has seen many conquerors. Like Russia, it's vulnerable from virtually every direction. These are countries who need many friends in multiple alliances. Of course the tricky part about multiple alliances is reflected in real history. When you have mutual defense agreements that might put you in a war you don't need. Like Austria-Hungary threatening Serbia, with Russia threatening Austria-Hungary which prompted Germany to threaten Russia. At that point both Britain and France were ready to jump in given their alliance with Russia. All ignited by the spark of the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria-Hungary by Serbian national Gavrilo Princip. Equally it should be noted that Austria-Hungary's annexation of Bosnia in 1908 set it all up as a powder keg to explode. And it did.

Moral of the story: Too many alliances can be a tactical advantage, or a tactical nightmare. In a practical sense it's likely to be a combination of both. With the winner being the one making the best alliances and having an optimal ability to withstand attrition.
 
Last edited:
This isn't chess. Every game is different given a relatively even dispersal of armies and fleets. Politics, ethnic strife and economics aren't factors incorporated into the game. Only geography and topography give one country certain advantages over others, IMO. Above all, it depends on the tactical and diplomatic ability of those players representing their countries. So there are no truly "famous" moves in that regard. The game allows for simply too many variables. If you want famous moves, stick to the actual history of the origins of World War One.

Frankly given the latest picture of the map board it appears that Germany and Austria-Hungary are doomed. Both have been reduced to purely defensive positions guarding their own native supply centers. Had they played a more aggressive and offensive role, being an ally of Austria-Hungary AND Germany would have been a good move for Italy.

That said, it appears that France is only a few moves away from knocking Italy out of the game. If you were in a better tactical situation I'd say make peace with France ASAP, and break your alliance with Austria-Hungary. But it appears simply too late for that, let alone recalling your fleets enough to protect Italy's native supply centers (Rome and Naples). France has no need to form an alliance with Italy, but at this point it's your only chance for survival. You have nothing to lose in trying.

As far as a macro analysis of the game goes, I'd say geography and topography helped Britain, France and Russia. Very smart if they all have a formal alliance. This allowed for greater tactical flexibility compared to Germany, Austria-Hungary and Turkey as well. Italy had more options in this sense, but failed in moving their fleets east rather than west. Leaving them spread out too thin to be effective in convoying armies great distances across the Mediterranean.

And if Italy made only a single alliance with Austria-Hungary alone that was another blunder. Geographically speaking Italy is a nation that has seen many conquerors. Like Russia, it's vulnerable from virtually every direction. These are countries who need many friends in multiple alliances. Of course the tricky part about multiple alliances is reflected in real history. When you have mutual defense agreements that might put you in a war you don't need. Like Austria-Hungary threatening Serbia, with Russia threatening Austria-Hungary which prompted Germany to threaten Russia. At that point both Britain and France were ready to jump in given their alliance with Russia. All ignited by the spark of the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria-Hungary by Serbian national Gavrilo Princip. Equally it should be noted that Austria-Hungary's annexation of Bosnia in 1908 set it all up as a powder keg to explode. And it did.

Moral of the story: Too many alliances can be a tactical advantage, or a tactical nightmare. In a practical sense it's likely to be a combination of both. With the winner being the one making the best alliances and having an optimal ability to withstand attrition.

Judge, can you explain topography?

And I know that WW1 was with Austria/Germany and Serbia/Russia. How did Britain get into it? We just read about that, but I have no idea how Germany drug Britain into it.
 
Judge, can you explain topography?

And I know that WW1 was with Austria/Germany and Serbia/Russia. How did Britain get into it? We just read about that, but I have no idea how Germany drug Britain into it.

Topography in the case of the game involves two things. The physical positioning of each country relative to others, and more importantly, the actual topography found on the map.

In terms of the physical positioning of countries, those nations on the periphery of the map have a sort of tactical advantage. Examples: Russia needs only to move west or south. Turkey, west or north. Britain to the southeast. France to the northeast and southeast. The rest (Germany, Austria-Hungary and Italy must defend themselves in all four directions. A tactical disadvantage.

With the actual topography relative to the game, Britain must use fleets to convoy any army to the European continent. France, Italy, Germany and Austria-Hungary all have a common barrier to negotiate around- neutral Switzerland. It slows down moves and complicated logistical matters like trying to support other armies.

As for the topography relative to the real history of European warfare, there are many issues to factor in the success and failure of strategy and tactics. Britain obviously must rely heavily on sea power, which ultimately gives them an enormous advantage of mobility over a broad area. Russia's reality is that it has few natural barriers (such as the Caucasus Mountains) to keep out invaders. Small wonder they are perpetually paranoid about who sits on their borders. Italy's participation in WWI was quite restricted as their campaign against Austria-Hungary was bogged down in the mountainous Alps. Austria-Hungary had numerous natural barriers (mountain ranges) around most of its borders.

While the game doesn't show it, Turkey was able to successfully defend the Dardanelles (Galllipoli) effectively keeping the British army and navy from attacking Turkey through Greece. And conversely the Caucausus Mountains effectively served as a barrier for Turkey against Russia as well.

Another feature the game doesn't articulate on is the Ardennes which spans both parts of France, Belgium and Luxembourg. Heavily forested, it served as a sort of barrier between France and Germany. Or so the French thought. (Germany surprised French forces attacking through the Ardennes in both World Wars.) And Germany had the Rhine River, always considered a natural topographical barrier to retreat behind if necessary.

Russia mobilized troops against Austria-Hungary's going to war against Serbia. And Germany mobilized troops because Russia did. And Germany declared war on France, and ally of Russia. Britain? It declared war on Germany because Germany violated Belgian neutrality (guaranteed by treaty) in an invasion of France. Italy remained neutral at the outset, joining the Allies in 1915. The major Imperialist powers had basically carved up most of the planet and ran out of territory to claim. By 1914 the only territories left to take were the Imperialist nations themselves. Greed and aggression gone mad.

Basically millions of people lost their lives over a political and military chain-reaction that happened from an assassin's bullet and one too many mutual defense pacts between greater and lesser nations. As far as a basic synopsis of what lead Europe to World War One, see this simple timeline. It shows events, dates and alliances and how it all came to a disastrous head:

Timeline of World War I - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


A somber dramatization of an entire nation committing suicide without knowing it:

 
Last edited:
Topography in the case of the game involves two things. The physical positioning of each country relative to others, and more importantly, the actual topography found on the map.

In terms of the physical positioning of countries, those nations on the periphery of the map have a sort of tactical advantage. Examples: Russia needs only to move west or south. Turkey, west or north. Britain to the southeast. France to the northeast and southeast. The rest (Germany, Austria-Hungary and Italy must defend themselves in all four directions. A tactical disadvantage.

With the actual topography relative to the game, Britain must use fleets to convoy any army to the European continent. France, Italy, Germany and Austria-Hungary all have a common barrier to negotiate around- neutral Switzerland. It slows down moves and complicated logistical matters like trying to support other armies.

As for the topography relative to the real history of European warfare, there are many issues to factor in the success and failure of strategy and tactics. Britain obviously must rely heavily on sea power, which ultimately gives them an enormous advantage of mobility over a broad area. Russia's reality is that it has few natural barriers (such as the Caucasus Mountains) to keep out invaders. Small wonder they are perpetually paranoid about who sits on their borders. Italy's participation in WWI was quite restricted as their campaign against Austria-Hungary was bogged down in the mountainous Alps. Austria-Hungary had numerous natural barriers (mountain ranges) around most of its borders.

While the game doesn't show it, Turkey was able to successfully defend the Dardanelles (Galllipoli) effectively keeping the British army and navy from attacking Turkey through Greece. And conversely the Caucausus Mountains effectively served as a barrier for Turkey against Russia as well.

Another feature the game doesn't articulate on is the Ardennes which spans both parts of France, Belgium and Luxembourg. Heavily forested, it served as a sort of barrier between France and Germany. Or so the French thought. (Germany surprised French forces attacking through the Ardennes in both World Wars.) And Germany had the Rhine River, always considered a natural topographical barrier to retreat behind if necessary.

Russia mobilized troops against Austria-Hungary's going to war against Serbia. And Germany mobilized troops because Russia did. And Germany declared war on France, and ally of Russia. Britain? It declared war on Germany because Germany violated Belgian neutrality (guaranteed by treaty) in an invasion of France. Italy remained neutral at the outset, joining the Allies in 1915. The major Imperialist powers had basically carved up most of the planet and ran out of territory to claim. By 1914 the only territories left to take were the Imperialist nations themselves. Greed and aggression gone mad.

Basically millions of people lost their lives over a political and military chain-reaction that happened from an assassin's bullet and one too many mutual defense pacts between greater and lesser nations. As far as a basic synopsis of what lead Europe to World War One, see this simple timeline. It shows events, dates and alliances and how it all came to a disastrous head:

Timeline of World War I - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


A somber dramatization of an entire nation committing suicide without knowing it:


All that's really going to help me Judge, thanks. Can you give an example of micro analysis in the game?
 
Topography in the case of the game involves two things. The physical positioning of each country relative to others, and more importantly, the actual topography found on the map.

In terms of the physical positioning of countries, those nations on the periphery of the map have a sort of tactical advantage. Examples: Russia needs only to move west or south. Turkey, west or north. Britain to the southeast. France to the northeast and southeast. The rest (Germany, Austria-Hungary and Italy must defend themselves in all four directions. A tactical disadvantage.

With the actual topography relative to the game, Britain must use fleets to convoy any army to the European continent. France, Italy, Germany and Austria-Hungary all have a common barrier to negotiate around- neutral Switzerland. It slows down moves and complicated logistical matters like trying to support other armies.

As for the topography relative to the real history of European warfare, there are many issues to factor in the success and failure of strategy and tactics. Britain obviously must rely heavily on sea power, which ultimately gives them an enormous advantage of mobility over a broad area. Russia's reality is that it has few natural barriers (such as the Caucasus Mountains) to keep out invaders. Small wonder they are perpetually paranoid about who sits on their borders. Italy's participation in WWI was quite restricted as their campaign against Austria-Hungary was bogged down in the mountainous Alps. Austria-Hungary had numerous natural barriers (mountain ranges) around most of its borders.

While the game doesn't show it, Turkey was able to successfully defend the Dardanelles (Galllipoli) effectively keeping the British army and navy from attacking Turkey through Greece. And conversely the Caucausus Mountains effectively served as a barrier for Turkey against Russia as well.

Another feature the game doesn't articulate on is the Ardennes which spans both parts of France, Belgium and Luxembourg. Heavily forested, it served as a sort of barrier between France and Germany. Or so the French thought. (Germany surprised French forces attacking through the Ardennes in both World Wars.) And Germany had the Rhine River, always considered a natural topographical barrier to retreat behind if necessary.

Russia mobilized troops against Austria-Hungary's going to war against Serbia. And Germany mobilized troops because Russia did. And Germany declared war on France, and ally of Russia. Britain? It declared war on Germany because Germany violated Belgian neutrality (guaranteed by treaty) in an invasion of France. Italy remained neutral at the outset, joining the Allies in 1915. The major Imperialist powers had basically carved up most of the planet and ran out of territory to claim. By 1914 the only territories left to take were the Imperialist nations themselves. Greed and aggression gone mad.

Basically millions of people lost their lives over a political and military chain-reaction that happened from an assassin's bullet and one too many mutual defense pacts between greater and lesser nations. As far as a basic synopsis of what lead Europe to World War One, see this simple timeline. It shows events, dates and alliances and how it all came to a disastrous head:

Timeline of World War I - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


A somber dramatization of an entire nation committing suicide without knowing it:


And something else, Judge. Can you look at the last picture of everyone's pieces? Should they have picked armies instead of fleets or vice versa?
 

New Threads

Top Bottom