Prufrock wrote:To those who missed this, the
Face-Off Challenge was a tournament featuring the 2-player variant. After six games in the finals round, thewysecat bested me as both England/France/Russia (EFR) and Austria/Germany/Turkey (AGT) to claim the FOC title. thewysecat has already published his AARs in the FOC forum, but I have been slower. So slow, in fact, that my Premium membership has lapsed and I can no longer post my AARs in the FOC forum, so I am posting them here.
I encourage anybody who is interested to read thewysecat's FOC AARs as well, since they're well-constructed and provide insight into Diplomacy strategy / analysis in general, and the two player variant in particular. The first two game AARs to which both thewysecat and I contribute are located here:
Final Games AAR - Games F1 & F2.
thewysecat's AAR for games F3 and F4 are here:
Final Games AAR - Games F3 & F4.
What follows is my AAR for F3 -- I hope others find it interesting, and I look forward to reading any feedback you may have to offer.
42027. Face-off Challege Final Game F3 AARTo begin, it might be helpful to consider the necessary final board state for an EFR/AGT victory. For EFR to win, Tunis needs to be held (should be easy), Munich and Berlin need to be secured (really that's the crux of this variant), and that's about as deep as you need to think about it.
For AGT to win, you need all of Italy, Austria, the Balkans, Turkey, Russia minus St. Pete, Munich and Berlin. To ensure the last of these be held, you need to secure units in the following positions before EFR can punch his way in:
A Mos, A War, U Liv, U Pru, U Ber, A Mun, A Boh, A Sil, A Tyr.
Thus, the overall game plan is for EFR to rush to Munich, and for AGT to keep Munich safe and knock out Russia so you can get into the above position. Somewhere in here, you also must move on Italy, since if EFR can get F Tyr, U Tus, U Pie (with support) before AGT takes Naples, the best AGT can hope for is a 16-16 draw.
All openings (and play beyond the opening) must be analyzed through the lens of how well they address these goals. With that introduction, I now proceed:
Spring 1901: The main novelty of this opening for EFR is Mos – St.P, paving the way for St.P – Nor (giving Russia a likely build), allowing London to head south immediately. The downsides are that it's too slow (an army in Nor. isn't much help, and the army you build in Mos. is still a full year away from the action), and can be easily exploited if AGT knows this is your open (specifically, War is left vulnerable). In the overall balance, this is a weak opening not to be recommended. The biggest problem is that it's slow (to borrow chess terminology as Wyse seems fond of doing, this opening loses tempo). I knew this from playing it previously, but in a fit of forgetfulness I gave it a shot again, expecting that Wyse would play something like what he did after F1.
Fall 1901: This is essentially the only logical play after Spring 1901. AGT's Spr. 01 moves meant Hol was guaranteed to succeed. GoB – Bal is pretty typical, and as I've mentioned elsewhere can be played quite frequently, spiced up with the occasional move on Sweden to keep AGT honest. Of particular interest is AGT's play of Mun – Bur, which is an effective way to slow the assault on Mun. EFR has no response beyond waiting until 1902 to force it.
Winter 1901: The only question here is whether the build in Brest should be an army or a fleet – it takes one year to get Brest to Bel by land, which feels awfully slow. Another option is to convoy the army to N. Afr (which seems sort of pointless), or to just build a fleet to dominate the Med.
Spring 1902: Let's begin by considering what I expect AGT to do (which is a pretty good starting point each turn in these face-off games). Mun must choose whether it will move to Bur, Ruh, or Hol. Thus, Bel – Ruh or Par – Bur is guaranteed to succeed. The fact that AGT built F Ber leads me to expect it will be used in a supported attack on Bal, so I have every reason to believe two of Par-Bur, Bel-Ruh, and Hol-Kie will succeed. It's also possible the Berlin build is also intended to throw me off, while planning a move to Kie or Pru instead – Wyse is clever enough to recognize the importance of disguising one's play, and devious enough to use my expectations against me.
Vie – Boh and Tri – Tyr are all but assured, as are AGT's fleet movements. It gets more complicated with the remaining units. Some valid possibilities include:
-The moves played;
-Sil S Gal – War (or Gal S Sil – War), Sev – Mos, Rum – {Ukr or Gal};
-Ber – Pru, Sil S Gal – War, Sev – Mos, Rum – Ukr, Swe – Bal.
-It doesn't particularly matter where Ser moves.
Par – Bur, Bel – Ruh, and Hol – Kie are self-explanatory based on what I outlined above. Nor – Swe is a given, ensuring that the only way to lose the Baltic is if Wyse plays Ber S Swe – Bal. I doubt it will work, since Ber – Bal (which I mostly expect) gives AGT a 50/50 to hold onto Swe. Bal S Nor – Swe is basically a throwaway, since there's not much else for the fleet to do. I don't want to play Bal – Kie, since the "success" of that move just leaves me awkwardly uncoordinated – I want an army in Kie to threaten Mun, and keeping the fleet posted in Bal. as long as possible exerts a lot of pressure on Germany. EFR's fleet movements are nearly the only choice, with the possible exception of N. Sea – Hel (I think Den, Ska, or E. Ch are defensible plays there as well, though Hel is probably best for ensuring the loss of Kie, which is quite important to the ultimate goal of finishing Germany off). Mar – Pie is better than Mar S Par – Bur, since Pie can attack Tyr or provide support to Ven. As played, the Turkish unit in Tri. is nice for EFR, since AGT requires a steady supply of Austrian armies to survive.
Warsaw can only be lost to an attack + support (which I cannot stop), in which case I can bounce to Prussia – if Prussia has been covered by Ber – Prussia, then I'll have won Sweden, Ber will be empty, and I'll remain posted in the Baltic which is great compensation, and War can then retreat to Liv. If instead the play is to reshuffle, then War – Sil leaves Germany with an empty hole somewhere (or if Mun S Gal – Sil, I have Kie and Munich is mine in the fall). I toyed also with the idea of playing War – Gal instead of Sil, but realistically didn't expect either move to get anywhere, and in the off chance one of the moves did work, a Russian army in Sil. in 1902 is preferable to a Russian army in Gal (which is also rather nice). Bre – Pic isn't great, and really just betrays the fact that I built A Bre without knowing what I wanted to do with it. Still, that army will likely be useful in 1903.
As an exercise, after each season it's worthwhile to see what the
perfect play against your opponent's moves had you seen their orders (which is, of course, different than the
best play versus the range of moves you expect your opponent to make). In this case, I think War – Gal, Mos – War would have been the perfect play vs. the actual moves (but it's complicated), but the actual outcome was still quite good. Mos S War – Ukr would have also been a good alternative.
Spring 1902 Retreat: Swe – G of Bot or Ska also are worth considering for AGT, since they give me opportunities to make more mistakes in Fall.
Fall 1902: The trickiest part of this year is Russia. I need, at the very least, to keep an army in Livonia, since there is no way Warsaw will remain under Russian control. I expected AGT would do something like:
Boh S Tyr – Mun, Mun – Sil, Tri – Tyr, Ber S Den – Bal, Sev S Ukr- Mos (or vice versa), Gal S Pru – War (or vice versa).
Apparently I never fully appreciated how much emphasis thewysecat would place on tempo and having well-placed units, even it if leaves me with a few extra ones on the board. Based on that, War – Sil was intended to keep Sil free again, while hopefully disbanding the German unit in Munich. Mos – Liv was to secure Liv to give me a foothold to use to cut Prussian support in a future year, while leaving War free to bounce somewhere else after it was dislodged. Obviously I was completely wrong about AGT's action, but it turned out quite favorably for me (phew).
Regarding play with my western units in their attack on Germany, I had two choices, both of which were close to even in my mind. I chose the one I played (Ruh & Hel & Bal S Hol – Kie; Bur – Mun) because it had the biggest upside if things went as bad as possible. One could argue that AGT understood this and chose accordingly (so his choice to not defend Munich was a combination of logic and inspiration), but it still gave me a 1903 where he was still several more correct "guesses" away from winning, whereas I only need to get into Munich or Berlin once.
It should be noted that the alternate choice, which was my original plan, was Hol S Hel - Kie; Bal - Ber; Bur S Ruh- Mun; Bel – Ruh. Had this been played instead, EFR would have won. Another of many occasions where talking myself out of my instinctive plays cost me.
Winter 1902: AGT's disband of Ionian was a clever way to add another army to the mainland – I certainly hadn't expected it, though it makes a lot of sense. The downside is it opens the door for EFR to keep AGT from finishing off Italy (see the position at the end of Spr. 1904 – Naples and Rome will forever remain in civil disorder flying Italian flags). Regarding the fleet positioning in/around the Ionian in 1902, Wyse remarked:
thewysecat wrote:This is again an idea Prufrock utilises in F6. I’d be interested to hear his perspective but I wonder if it is an idea he borrows from me.
This is an idea I had used previously in the semi-finals game against Morg (41291. FOC Semi-Final Game SF1b again). I expect others used it earlier as well, since it takes good advantage of the ability to self-dislodge in order to keep a territory free of units while bouncing to wherever you choose afterward, and also aligns with AGT's desire to dominate the Mediterranean.
From the position at the end of 1902, the game is all but won for EFR. Since Livonia is securely held by Russia, AGT will have to repeatedly correctly choose how to defend Mun / Ber while EFR can vary attacks at random with near impunity, as long as I'm careful not to lose Livonia. In particular, I can attack Munich with everything
n times in a row, forcing Sil S Mun (or I gain Munich and win), then on turn
n+1 play Liv – Pru, Bal S Kie – Ber, Bur – Mun. It's
possible Wyse will time it just right, but we have until 1920 for the game to end, and if he jumps the gun at all EFR wins.
Beyond this point I'm not sure how much more need be said. I take Ber in Spring 1903 (I can only guess wrong so many times), and that seals it.
An afterthought, and why I sometimes choose to guess: Looking over these games, it looks like I have a pathological tendency not to attack Munich when I'm
sure it will be defended (and I'm
sure because it has to be – if it falls I win). thewysecat also has a tendency to leave Mun undefended far more often than I would have expected. Whether it's because he picked up on my tendency, or he's just thinking one step ahead of me but along the same lines I do not know.
When I'm planning my moves, there are often "attack A or B" decisions to make, where only one can be defended. I like to think to myself that I will out-think my opponent and make the "right" choice more often than not. If my opponent isn't thinking about my moves, this may be the case. But if s/he is, then it may well be the case that
I am the one being exploited and getting out-thought.
In the case of the current opponent, I don't know if I have an edge on thewysecat in these regards. I know he is a strong, capable, thinking player and after playing six games against him I'd say he probably has the edge on me – he will probably anticipate my moves correctly more frequently than I will his (though hopefully that frequency is just slightly greater than the opposite

). To protect myself from being exploited in these true 50/50 decisions, then, I will sometimes flip a coin and force him to be stuck without an edge for that move.
This is something of a game theoretic point, and it's not a position to strive to be in (one is better off being able to exploit one's opponent's tendencies), but in a situation where I am either uncertain or think I may be the one being exploited, I make some of the A or B choices
truly random, because it is impossible to outthink a coin.
In hindsight, I chose not to attack Munich much more frequently than I think is wise throughout this series, and that is something that could be/was exploited. Of course, now that I know that and have analyzed Wyse's play more, I can take those tendencies into consideration in the future (i.e.,moving beyond just "I think that he will do x" into "I think that he thinks that I will do y, so that means he will do z and therefore I should counter with …"). But along with such heavily layered reasoning, part of making myself harder to read in borderline/close decisions, may simply be to add a randomizing element to decide between two options that I believe are nearly equivalent in their ability to achieve my strategic goals.