Four Seasons: AAR

[attitudes]

Like I said, your opening can be explained. At the time, it was a head-scratcher because I don't think that is the direction I personally would have taken. But, I was not part of the negotiations. Only you knew what you were discussing with the other nations. That's why your opening could work given a certain set of circumstances of which I was not privy to.

The rest of your post, kind of proves my point. Yes, England probably has the best starting position. But he ultimately soloed because the other 6 nations, as a group for whatever reason, failed to come together in time to stop him.

In this variant, I think the alliance that needs to form is R/A/T (my favorite alliance acronym by the way). I thought that alliance might be forming based on the Winter '00 builds but, alas, it never came to be.

But I disagree that England would win 50 games out of 100. It would not take long before players adjusted to the strengths and weaknesses of each power and the game balanced out. Not that I'm in any rush to play enough games of this variant to provide a correct statistical analysis.

[mr bump]

Agreed if this was started again right now everyone would gang up on England

[attitudes]

Agreed if this was started again right now everyone would gang up on England

And when that game ended with a Spring 1905 concession to Turkey, everybody would once again rethink their strategy. After enough play tests, it would become somewhat more balanced and the person who played the best game of Diplomacy would then have the best chance of winning and not the player that drew England.

I'm going to take a wild shot in the dark on this next statement because I had no clue what the game of Diplomacy was before my first game back in 1984. I'm willing to bet you $100 that the first two people who thought of the Juggernaut alliance swept the board and all the others wrote in their AAR, "Wow, didn't see that coming!". So players adjusted. Now, the Juggernaut is easy to stop and quite frankly I haven't seen a decent one executed in a long, long time. But players playing A/I/G always seem to remind us of its potential because nobody has forgotten that very first game when it happened.

[diplomat42]

I highly doubt that. Them going for Portugal makes about as much sense as Kenya declaring war on the US.

It's not that they will, it's that they could. The ability to do that and put no risk on your home centers is too great.

Guys.
England can get to Portugal.
France can get to Liverpool.
France can get to Vienna.
Turkey can get to Vienna.
Italy can get to Smyrna.
Russia can get to Burgundy.
Italy can get to Spain.
Germany can get to Serbia.
Austria can get to Tunis.
Your point is what, exactly? That you can get farther in 3 moves than 2?

[joelsdaman1]

Blarg, make all the arguments you want, you cannot say it was as balanced as regular diplomacy.

And my point is that England is basically impregnable. And can now reach places that normally only a middle country could.

[diplomat42]

Basically impregnable?
Germany can get to Edinburgh, France to Liverpool, and both of them to London IN 1901.
England can't get to 2 of Germany's centers and 1 of France's.
One game does not a balance test make. With Bre-Eng, England is limited significantly.
Russia has more options in the north (i.e. putting 3 units on Norway in fall).
So does Germany.
England's chances are slightly better. Not a ton. Every word you say to the contrary makes their chances lower and lower in future games.

[joelsdaman1]

Basically impregnable?
Germany can get to Edinburgh, France to Liverpool, and both of them to London IN 1901.
England can't get to 2 of Germany's centers and 1 of France's.
One game does not a balance test make. With Bre-Eng, England is limited significantly.
Russia has more options in the north (i.e. putting 3 units on Norway in fall).
So does Germany.
England's chances are slightly better. Not a ton. Every word you say to the contrary makes their chances lower and lower in future games.

Perhaps. But the victory was overwhelming - a win in 5 years is very very quick. Sure you can argue that "people will go after England", and I agree. With enough practice, people would get the hang of taking down a large England. However, it is not balanced.

[diplomat42]

A win in five years IS quick. But it would've taken 6-7 years for you to seal the deal.
Plus, it's 3 seasons per year. Based on number of seasons alone, it's about a 9 year game. That's normal at best.
You're comparing apples to oranges and saying oranges are too orange in color.

England, Italy and Turkey gain from this. Austria loses. Germany, France, and Russia can either gain or lose.