1905: AAR

VaeVictus' 1905 map without USA, designed by VaeVictus himself. 7-player game, GM: Stanislaw. 7-player DIAS.

1905: AAR

Postby Stanislaw » 10 Oct 2014, 16:09

While this was a short game I'm hoping everyone will share their thoughts on the changes 1905: Europe has to offer from 1900, which will help with future development for the variant.
When you play the game of thrones you win, or you die, there is no middle ground.

Platinum member of the Classicists
User avatar
Stanislaw
 
Posts: 385
Joined: 16 Feb 2012, 02:55
Location: CT, USA
Class: Ambassador
Standard rating: (1434)
All-game rating: (1484)
Timezone: GMT-5

Re: 1905: AAR

Postby Justini12 » 10 Oct 2014, 16:33

I found that as the Ottoman Empire (Turkey), the game played very similar to 1900 (which isn't a bad thing). It is unfortunate that the game was cut short, (stupid real life) but I would be interested in playing another game of this if it is ever made.
User avatar
Justini12
 
Posts: 58
Joined: 24 Jan 2013, 02:36
Class: Diplomat
Standard rating: (932)
All-game rating: (859)
Timezone: GMT-6

Re: 1905: AAR

Postby Alman » 10 Oct 2014, 18:08

I don't know how much of this was a product of the map and how much the flavors of the diplomatic and player arrangement, but I have never felt stronger as Austria. I felt that, like 1900, it was much easier to not worry about Italy (and we arranged peace). It was much easier to hold Turkey back and should things have continued, I think Turkey would have had a hard time turtling against me. With Turkey being more naval oriented and me having so little ocean exposure, I felt that it gave me an advantage to go after him.
Russia seemed more vulnerable with the ability of England to open a wider front against him. I never feared Russia due to his problems in the north and actually reached out to England to slow his assault on Russia so that he would not collapse too quickly (before I could get in there to collect SC's for myself.

The real shock was once I got Munich and realized how open that territory is! It would be interesting to game more around the middle there as Munich has such a massive border. I've never before played or seen Austria be able to invade Germany while still having an active Russia and Turkey to the rear, so that made this very different. Again, I can't say for sure how much of that is map and how much was the diplomacy.

On the diplomatic front, I enjoyed playing with all. I probably was a little more aggressive than I normally play but the opportunities seemed ripe. Turkey is a man of few words so I had a hard time getting a read on him. It made me feel a little freer to stab him (coupled with the feeling of limited vulnerability from Turkey). Russia and I got off to a good start and were able to work well together. I had planned to stab him but the Turkey campaign took priority and I needed Russia to help keep pressure on Germany. As I already mentioned, as things progressed I became worried that Russia was going to collapse to the benefit of Turkey and England with me getting almost nothing. This would have really ruined my day as Turkey would have been invigorated and could have begun to control the Black Sea and open a wider front against me. Germany would not have the pressure I needed, and England would get to the strength where there would be no stopping him.
Fortunately, Britain gave Russia the space he needed to guard against Turkey and I was able to get a further (rather surprising) advance on Germany.
Then the lights came on, the director took the stage and the game was over.

I want to thank Italy for the good alliance that we were able to hold together as I invaded Germany. That made a big difference in me holding Munich. Italy was the first to call my attention to Munich's particular vulnerabilities.

I feel bad for Mambam. I really messed up his thing when I invaded and I know he was really ticked at me. I don't blame him and want him to know it was nothing personal. He was good with his diplomacy and he was merely a target of opportunity as I looked to take the initiative. Again, it may speak to the changes in the map that Turkey and Germany seemed like very accessible targets, moreso than Italy.

Anyway, I really enjoyed all the diplomacy and I enjoyed the game. I would be interested in playing it again if it was restarted.

Thanks to all and thanks to Stanislaw for the work. I know you had map problems and real life intervened. Thanks for GMing amidst all that.
Bronze Member: The Classicists & Oldies
War in the Americas 7 PbF

"The avalanche has already started. It is too late for the pebbles to vote" -Kosh
"Nothing has to be true, but everything has to sound like it was." -Salvor Hardin
User avatar
Alman
 
Posts: 1954
Joined: 04 Feb 2014, 22:04
Location: Beautiful Maine, USA
Class: Diplomat
Standard rating: (1466)
All-game rating: (1586)
Timezone: GMT-5

Re: 1905: AAR

Postby simblanco » 10 Oct 2014, 18:25

AlmanMEin wrote:I want to thank Italy for the good alliance that we were able to hold together as I invaded Germany. That made a big difference in me holding Munich. Italy was the first to call my attention to Munich's particular vulnerabilities.


Thanks, it was a nice and smooth alliance. I'd have stabbed you eventually and get the solo, but whatever ;)

Regarding Mun, I checked later and even in 1900 is surrounded by 8 territory. In the standard only 7 because of Switzerland. I don't know, maybe the map graphics confused me and Mun appeared much more vulnerable.

Regarding Italy. My point in joining the game was to check if the new British Empire and Tzarist Russia were overpowered in this variant. Then I tried to recruit everyone against them. Russia was in real troubles when the game is over, so maybe is not overpowered, and I felt that (supposing that Turkey was going down soon, and no stab from Austria) I could have won against England in the Med. But the war between us was just starting so who knows? Overall I think Italy did well as generally can do in 1900. Maybe France was the real victim of the variant, steamrolled to easily against the powerful British Empire with the help of Germany?

Anyway, it was fun to play with all of you! It was a nice group of players. Thank Stan to organize this, no worries about the delays.
Silver member of the Classicist
User avatar
simblanco
 
Posts: 651
Joined: 21 Jul 2013, 10:08
Location: Beyond the Wall
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: (1256)
All-game rating: (1353)
Timezone: GMT

Re: 1905: AAR

Postby Alman » 10 Oct 2014, 18:36

simblanco wrote:Thanks, it was a nice and smooth alliance. I'd have stabbed you eventually and get the solo, but whatever ;)


I knew you would wake up one morning and decide to stab me. My hope was that I would time it right so that you wouldn't wake up that morning. 8-)

Regarding Mun, I checked later and even in 1900 is surrounded by 8 territory. In the standard only 7 because of Switzerland. I don't know, maybe the map graphics confused me and Mun appeared much more vulnerable.


Your're right, but boy it seemed worse. Some of it might be just the different graphic. But even that one extra territory is huge when you have three powers gathered round. I think I was going to have a hard time advance north much more.
Bronze Member: The Classicists & Oldies
War in the Americas 7 PbF

"The avalanche has already started. It is too late for the pebbles to vote" -Kosh
"Nothing has to be true, but everything has to sound like it was." -Salvor Hardin
User avatar
Alman
 
Posts: 1954
Joined: 04 Feb 2014, 22:04
Location: Beautiful Maine, USA
Class: Diplomat
Standard rating: (1466)
All-game rating: (1586)
Timezone: GMT-5

Re: 1905: AAR

Postby simblanco » 10 Oct 2014, 18:48

AlmanMEin wrote:Your're right, but boy it seemed worse. Some of it might be just the different graphic. But even that one extra territory is huge when you have three powers gathered round. I think I was going to have a hard time advance north much more.


Maybe is it indeed the amount of powers involved. In the standard map, due to Switzerland and other dynamics you don't end up with both France and Italy close to it.
Silver member of the Classicist
User avatar
simblanco
 
Posts: 651
Joined: 21 Jul 2013, 10:08
Location: Beyond the Wall
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: (1256)
All-game rating: (1353)
Timezone: GMT

Re: 1905: AAR

Postby glacier777 » 10 Oct 2014, 18:49

In a 1900 game I once played, I was Italy and me and Austria invaded Germany. We had the same problem with Munich!
Back on PlayDip after a 3 year hiatus

Silver member of the Classicists
User avatar
glacier777
 
Posts: 557
Joined: 06 Jan 2013, 19:40
Location: Manchester, United Kingdom
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: (1264)
All-game rating: (1278)
Timezone: GMT+1

Re: 1905: AAR

Postby VaeVictis » 11 Oct 2014, 00:41

Munich actually does border 1 more territory (Frankfurt) that is not present in 1900 and borders a total of 9 provinces.

I wonder if Naples (Nap) should be caused to border Adriatic (Adr) to increase the tension between Italy and Austria-Hungary? There would still be a non-SC between Naples and Venetia (Ven) to prevent an Austro-Hungarian move from Trieste (Tri) to Venetia bordering all three Italian home SCs.

I also think that Tyrrhenian (Tyn) should no longer border Algieria (Alg) since that is basically a free center for Italy in the second or third year.

Additionally, perhaps Dalmatia should be created out of Trieste (Tri) and should border Slavonia (Sla)? That way Austria would not border a single neutral at the start, would have the threat of Turkey bouncing either a move to Bosnia or Serbia in Fall 1905 (assuming a move to Macedonia in Spring 1905), and still have the possibility of gaining two neutrals without outside aggressive action by her neighbors.

I have opened up a development thread here: http://www.playdiplomacy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=413&t=46669
VaeVictis
 
Posts: 1602
Joined: 30 Dec 2012, 01:57
Class: Ambassador
Standard rating: (1248)
All-game rating: (1251)
Timezone: GMT-6


Return to 1905 Europe [1 Game]

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest