Page 1 of 3

AAR 1933

PostPosted: 01 Jul 2012, 17:52
by asudevil
Game over. 2way draw between France and Germany

So, here is our AAR from 1933.


Interesting variant. I will edit in (or post later), my AAR from a GM standpoint.

But love to hear your thoughts.

Two questions if you can address.

First, Germany, why did you not go for the solo, you controlled all the mP's, and France missed his builds last season.
----Part 2 of this...France, why did you keep bidding IPs for Germany.

Second, how much misdirection was in the control of mP's...or did everyone pretty much always know who controlled what.

Re: AAR 1933

PostPosted: 01 Jul 2012, 19:23
by thelastChris
I have to say I wouldn't consider Germany as strong as you suggest: I think had Germany turned England would have been very difficult to defend and as long as Russia was still in the game he would have just been stuck in the middle. Had I made my builds I would have immediate pressure on his homeland after one move...

Regarding bidding for Germany I always felt that I had the option of taking Germany from the inside as he was pushing east leaving huge open spaces, so it was better for me to have Germnay in control of the MPs rather than me. We started bidding on the MP that the other wanted to control so that a stab would be a lot more difficult (as the stab-ee would have control of the MP that would be most damaging to the stab-er). However as it transpired it was better for us to kill of Poland/Hungary and the plan was for me to then take Spain. It was then a case of germany having more IPs in Turkey than me, so to get T out of Russia's control it would be sensible to give it to Germany. However there was enough of a buffer between me and turkey that should I wish i could stab germany and pick up enough IPs to wrestle Turkey of germany before he could do any damage on me: and once I had Turkey it would be game over...

But who knows x) I think I would have had the better chance of winning if it was down to one nation, but i guess we won't find out and it was better not to risk it :P

WP Germany, we had a very strong alliance from the start from the start and did well :)

Re: AAR 1933

PostPosted: 01 Jul 2012, 19:26
by thelastChris
Oh and the not building was a complete mistake, I had it in my head that as I didn't need to build for Hungary I didn't need to build at all. But it worked out nicely in that it wasn't aggressive towards germany: three armies could have put doubt in his mind and started an arms race!

Re: AAR 1933

PostPosted: 01 Jul 2012, 23:47
by asudevil
thelastChris wrote:Oh and the not building was a complete mistake, I had it in my head that as I didn't need to build for Hungary I didn't need to build at all. But it worked out nicely in that it wasn't aggressive towards germany: three armies could have put doubt in his mind and started an arms race!


That was my point...you missed your build, he could have marched right into you, made you believe you still should support him in England in Spring, while he ran into your mainland during spring.

In fall, it would have been hard for you to knock England out, while he could have knocked more of your crap off.

If I was Germany with all the mP's I would have run for the solo, knowing if I failed, you would still offer the 2man if I failed.

Re: AAR 1933

PostPosted: 02 Jul 2012, 07:56
by Pharaoh of nerds
Thank you all for trying this out, I hope you had as much fun as I did.
Any thoughts/suggestions about the map and/or rules?
Also, I was wondering, did you ally against me because you expected me to be good at this? Or was I just generally acting too bold?

Re: AAR 1933

PostPosted: 02 Jul 2012, 12:08
by BoomstickS
Well, good game all. First time I 'win' (not really, but oh well) something in a forum game! :)

Anyways, I didn't go for the solo, because of a few reasons:

Even if I took Paris/Marseilles in fall France still would have built 2 armies to take it back soon.
I'd have to leave my eastern front open, so Russia could just come in and take my SC's.
Even if I had a successfull season where I gained a lot of SC's I still wouldn't have soloed because I needed ~26 SC's to solo, and I had 14, so I needed another 12 SC's.

The last point was the biggest reason for me btw. And eventually I didn't really feel like playing anymore, so I rather had the game end sooner.

Anyways, if I get to writing an AAR I'll do so. Just not now. :P

Re: AAR 1933

PostPosted: 02 Jul 2012, 15:06
by asudevil
BoomstickS wrote: And eventually I didn't really feel like playing anymore, so I rather had the game end sooner.


That was the biggest reason I figured...Unfortunately this game I think had a lot of that.

BTW, no one has answered my second question about knowing who has what mP's. That is the biggest difference in this game, is the ability to change mP's....and keep it interesting, but if no one does that, then this game is just like any other game.

Re: AAR 1933

PostPosted: 02 Jul 2012, 16:31
by thelastChris
Can someone fill me in as to what exactly an AAR is? :oops:

Pharaoh it was nothing personal, rather once I realised Germany would be compliant it made sense to try and kill someone off quickly, and you were the easiest target! I could then focus on one person at a time...

Regarding the MPs from my perspective there was little lack of knowledge, and more importantly any lack of knowledge didn't matter. I knew who had Spain and Poland (Germany/Me) and then had little interaction with the others. It was confusing at the start as to who had Turkey, but if you have an ally then you can generally work it out as you have 2/5 of the MP and the board!

Re: AAR 1933

PostPosted: 02 Jul 2012, 16:33
by asudevil
At the start it was actually 2/7's

AAR means after action report...its just a place to tell your side of what happened.

Re: AAR 1933

PostPosted: 02 Jul 2012, 18:23
by Pharaoh of nerds
If you didn't figure this out already, I had a coalition control of Turkey with Russia for the first year