AAR 1933

[BlueBorjigin]

Okay, well unlike Italy I always knew who controlled which mP (when one was controlled by F/G it didn't matter to me which nation ultimately controlled it, as they acted as one), with the exception of Hungary and Romania. However, I hardly cared about those, and never once bid for them. I also figured out with 80% certainty within about the first year that France had Poland and therefore Germany had Spain. France controlled Poland's messaging, and he has a very distinctive way of writing. Nobody else uses exclamation marks like he does. It was clearly in allied hands, so either France controlled it or Germany was mimicking France's writing patterns.

This has been my first shorthanded game, so I'm not sure whether the following complaints are specific to this game or any 5-player variant. I found that there was nothing the other players could do against a strong alliance, even if that alliance was only two nations. It was ridiculous. I couldn't get over to help Italy, and I couldn't really help England either. I suppose that I could have worked my builds better to help England if he had been comfortable with northern fleets, but it would have probably only held off his demise by 2 or 3 seasons. I'm not sure whether this was because F/G were physically very close on the map and so best-suited to an alliance, or because it's impossible to quickly enough get one's units in position to defend someone else, but yeah, there was pretty well nothing that I could do besides convincing France to ally with me against Germany (a R/G alliance against France isn't practical in the least). Despite the Poland/Spain issue, I gave this my all, sending the best possible message that I could to France in late 1935. France never responded to me. What am I supposed to do with that? That message was a masterpiece given my circumstances, 700+ words long. I could actually not do better. So I'll admit, I gave up in trying to work things out with France at that point, and I really didn't have any points to use to convince Germany to ally, so I didn't really work that angle. My point is that after F/G allied, given the strength of their alliance, from spring 1934 onwards there was nothing that the rest of us could do, period. Anyone have any ideas on why this was true?

England, why on earth did you build all armies?????? That went against ANY English strategy ever written! Aside from that and your slipping reliability at the end of the game (when you were already all but destroyed) you were good to work with, and I very much valued your honesty and the information you shared with me.

Italy was the most useless ally ever. Our discussion and planning were great, but he failed me and himself on the orders again and again. Turkey in 1933 was a coalition between us, of course, and we agreed on everything up to the builds. At that point he ordered the opposite of what we had agreed upon, placing the both the fleet AND the army in the wrong SC, resulting in an overall Turkish NMR. This frightened me: I concluded that the only rational explanation for such behavior was that he planned to waltz into a Turkey which could not protect itself, so I relied upon the

If a player takes a home supply center from a Minor Power he or she controls, he or she loses control of said Minor Power and may never bid for control of it again.

clause, and, aiming to keep Turkey in Italian hands while maintaining enough of an IP presence that I could scoop the mP up after Italy smartened up at the end of 1934 and used his builds, I bid mostly on Poland. But alas again Turkey went through 1934 ordering everything normally until the build - a second NMR. It was really just not cool. By that time, Italy was devastated to the point where I, holding a 2-unit Turkey, could not help him in any significant way. Perhaps if Turkey held a more powerful force, I could have kept a weakened Italy in the game for a while.

Finally, hats off to F/G. I think the greatest feat that your alliance pulled off was trusting each other in that very first bidding season. I would likely have become nervous at the prospect of not gaining the SC I was promised while being surrounded by an enemy power and an mP controlled by the same power, and either not agreed to the deal or tried some trickery either with my bids or with another power. With that setup, the planning between you two, and the commitment to the alliance showed, you guys were literally unbeatable. I'm quite impressed.

France: when I sent you that message, did you not relpy because of loyalty to Germany, or fear of your own destruction by German hands? Or the fact that I was offering a 2-way, much as Germany was, so you wouldn't necessarily have gained anything and traded a reliable ally for an uncertain one?

[BlueBorjigin]

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's one way to look at it, I suppose. I read that as preparation for a stab at the most convenient opportunity.

Speaking of which, how much do you think it adds to the game to not reveal who has what minor powers? It looks like you mostly were able to figure it out anyway.

The doubt was essential at certain points in the game. And keeping the bidding results unknown allows for alliances to remain hidden. Also, finding out who owned which mP was most of the early-game fun. Hidden is definitely the way to go

[Pharaoh of nerds]

Sorry about Turkey. The first year I thought you were going to poach it from me (you had more SCs than me) so I didn't want it to have enough units to be effectively used against me. The second year was actually a complete mistake; I just forgot to turn in orders for Turkey.

[BoomstickS]

So, I guess I'll start writing my AAR, then.

Well, with bidding, I really couldn't care less who I played, so I put in 'No Preference'.

When early communication started, the only person really talking to me was France. Italy did also talk a bit, but it was quite veague (if I remember right).
France eventually told me Italy wanted to take me out early, that worried me a lot, so France and I started to plan out an attack on Italy.

France came up with a really good plan, taking Venice whilst leaving Austria open. From here it only went downhill for Italy.

In the north England was really keen on taking me out asap. I was willing to talk to him, maybe even make a alliance if it was beneficial, but no, sadly England decided to bounce me out of both Holland and Denmark. Gladly with France's help I got Holland.

At that time, though, the southern front was going well, and France basically runned the place. Without any real Turkish presence we had no opposition at all.
I was besieged in the Baltic, though. If E/R could have kept that up for a bit longer I'm pretty sure that if England shipped his armies to my mainland I'd be doomed.

Well, for the mid-game I guess it was just a stalemate.. Untill Spain changed hands, and Finland, too. With Finland I could take the initiative in the Baltics, which was really good. I wonder why you gave up Finland, though. Spain wasn't really a asset to help you (E/R).

Anyways, both me and France were busy IRL, so we barely talked. And with Spain in enemy hands, it was worse. Although I did work out a detailed plan, which we both followed by the letter without any further ado. I'm glad we worked together as well as we did.

Spain lost a lot of its posessions, England made a NMR, lost Ireland, England was dead at this point. Turkey managed to take over the Balkans though, but this wasn't a big concern for us anymore.

We bid all out on Turkey for me. Russia tried to convince me to fight France, together with him. I replied, but only to try and decieve him. I'm not sure if this worked, though. But it seems it might have. Anyways, it didn't matter. The 2-way-draw was aknowledged, F/G won.

I'm happy with the result. I don't think I would have pulled of a solo anyways, but I could have tried.

Either way, good game. I enjoyed it.

[thelastChris]

I had completely forgotten about the army builds for England: I'm not sure if you were relying on the support that I was deliberately vague about, keeping my options open (although I was always erring on the side of Germany) but that was the death knell for you as the failure to build in Turkey was for Italy (although I can see why you wouldn't want to!).

Italy was a little more aggressive from the off, which made it easier to set him up and knock him down, and would have mean a less trusting relationship from my point of view.

Sorry Russia re. the long message. I know it is incredibly frustrating when someone doesn't reply, but I figured at that point that it would be easier for me to stab Germany (if I was ever going to) when you were weaker! I felt that you were on a downhill slope after your allies had fallen, so would be happy to help me out if I ever wanted it. The ambiguous-ness of not replying would have been better for me than (a) just telling you that I was against you for the foreseeable future, or (b) lying!

But that is not to take away from Germany who I really didn't want to stab as he was a brilliant ally. Especially towards the end we would talk once a round with one suggesting what to do and the other accepting. No disrespect to the other three of you, but generally when you have an alliance like that there isn't much you can do about it unless you have your own!