From Russia:

Responding to some comments made in EoG's.

Concerning the criticism of Germany. It is less than fully justified.
No one can fault Germany's play in the early game (01-02). He faced an
attack by three powers. He would have to be insane to alienate the only
friendly neighbor he had (myself). In fact, if it wasn't for some *strong*
backing he got from Russia (by pinning much of England's firepower, by
demolishing Austria, and by maintaining my border with him strictly DMZed),
he would have never made it to the midgame. As it was, he was holding his
own through those difficult years. Germany's midgame (03-05) was also
sensible. Helping the rest of the board contain me, and prevent me from
progressing from 11 or so centers to 17, was hardly in his interest. He
knew quite well that once I'm contained, he would be next - positioned as
he was with no protected flank. It was more his interest to see that I
reach 17 centers - even take the gamble that I *might* win in the process -
and only then - when no one can even think of knocking him out - help
stop me. Germany's late game (06-07) is somewhat harder for me to justify,
since I wouldn't have played in that way. Still it is not impossible. After
I stabbed him, it appeared that I can't be stopped (While not strictly
true, I certainly had some good probabilistic plays for victory even against
a unified opposition). In any event, it is hard to see how GERMANY
would survive a successful stop-Russia sequence. Seeing things that way,
the suggestion that he should try to survive as large as possible when
the game ends must have looked like the lesser of several evils.
Basically, blaming the guy who was ganged up upon when the game began for
the demise of those who attacked him is a bit tacky. Only through some solid
Diplomacy and tactics did Germany manage to survive at all.

Italy writes:
> Russia sounded in her last broadcast like Kasparov of Diplomacy.
>
I make no such claim, but I *did* win, so I do get to boast a little :)

> Maybe. But you should check things before claiming them. One
> example. The movements of Turkey in 1905 were fully coordinated
> with Italy. Look at the map and see that Turkey could not help
> Italy or survive.
>
I think you should say "leaked to," not "coordinated with".

1. If in F04, Turkey chose to disband the fleet and keep the army, my
   conquest of his peninsula would have been slowed.
2. If in S05 or F05, Turkey choose to do AEG-CON, my fleet deployment to
   the Med would have been slowed by a bounce.
3. If in F05, Turkey choose to do AEG-SMY, he would have survived for
   another year and I would have had one less unit for that year. I would
   have been slowed.

Since time was of the essence (before the Med would be bottled with coming
French fleets), any of those possibilities was a serious concern to me. The
fact that I was able to order Turkey's movements in those seasons - and thus
prevent him from doing anything that would slow me down - is what counts.
While I fully agree that the actual moves I asked him to do where mostly
of the "busy-work" nature, and I am not surprised he leaked them to Italy
(I half-assumed that), the fact is that he actually ordered those moves and
not the ones I was worried about.

> I hoped for the slightest chance that Russia
> will keep alive the single fleet Turkey had because of a
> joint attack of FGI.
>
So did Turkey. The fact that you believed the same argument that Turkey did
(that he has at least a small chance of survival if he does what I asked of
him as opposed to what I was worried about), does not negate my claim that
I had gained control over Turkish actions when he was down to one unit.
So what if he told you what he was doing?

From Italy:

I am sorry for my bold "Kasparov" remark. I wanted to say that
Russia deserved the win but I give part of the credit to Germany.
Assuming that Germany was waiting for Russia to have 17 SCs, then
why did she fight England so bitterly? If Germany wanted to finish
the game with many units why didn't she try to deceive England
or France in the last year? To me there is no doubt, Germany either
lost interest in the game or was driven by blind hate to England.
Russia is right in saying that Turkey could have slowed her in
the south. However Turkey could not have stopped Russia from taking
the Balkans. If Germany helped France and Italy. FGI could have
stopped Russia and maybe even defeat (!) her. Without German slowing
Turkey could have gained maybe 1 more year. Moreover, my hope was
that Russia was going to let Turkey be alive once she realized
that she had to fight EFGI. Then we (EFGI) could have used
Turkey against Russia in later stages. So the hope for keeping
Turkey alive relied not only on blind belief in Russia.

From Russia:

Italy writes:

> I am sorry for my bold "Kasparov" remark. I wanted to say that
> Russia deserved the win but I give part of the credit to Germany.
>
No offense taken.

I would "generously" give "credit" to all powers. Each one took a
voluntery opportunity to contribute (significantly) to my victory:

Turkey  - by allying with me early, and by "asking" for a stab.
France  - by diverting Italian (and German) attention while I was growing.
England - by releasing the Scandinavian bottleneck that was stopping me.
Italy   - by joining my stab of Turkey (I would have been in troubles had
          I been abandoned by Italy at that stage and was left fighting
          alone).
Austria - by making it so easy for the early juggernaut.

(I would add to that the actions of the puppeted Turkey and Austrian Pheonix
when both were down to one unit).

Go Back to the Diplomacy Academy

Read the next article (Cut-Throat Game Summary)