... teach me how to send press using just email, no web interface?

More Wagster!

Well, dear reader, your correspondent had mixed success in predicting the outcomes of this contest's first year. Let us take a moment to consider.

What I Got Right

• Austria: The Archduke looks, to my eyes, to be in as good a position as I'd expected him to be. He secured two builds, and faces no obvious threats in the coming year. The challenge facing him is future growth: whence will it come? Turkey and Germany will both be tough nuts to crack; will he consider leveling the first real stab of the game, and move on Italy or Russia? Your correspondent wouldn't rule it out.
• Britain: Well, to be precise, I got my revised prediction right. Indeed, if anything, that revision didn't do justice to how good of a year Britain had. Not only did he take the outright lead in supply centers, but he can look forward to at least one, maybe two, easy pick-ups for next year, and there is no obvious challenger to his dominance. Normally, these would be excellent conditions for the formation of "early leader syndrome" - but even if it were to befall him, Britain's remove from the Continent should work to his benefit. I think, dear reader, we have our early favorite.
• France: Well, France fared a little worse than I'd thought, but my (again, revised) prediction was more or less right. So what went wrong? Not being privy to the details of the discussions (France's or his neighbors') that took place, one can see that a fleet in Marseilles was a major defensive liability; that leaving Iberia unminded is to the unalloyed advantage of Britain; and that - true in any case - France is especially vulnerable to coordinated attack in the early going. France, too, is an early favorite - to be the first eliminated, I'm afraid.
• Italy: Again, my revised prediction turned out correct; my initial prediction, less so. This is entirely a function of a successful alliance against France, and the neutralization of France's Mediterranean-heavy strategy. Italy has the potential, in my humble-but-considered opinion, to become a real force in Europe by means of dominance in the Mediterranean - but there are real obstacles to be faced before that can happen. Will he face trouble from the east (whether in the shape of a center-hungry Austria or a resurgent Turkey)? Will Britain lay claim to the western Mediterranean before he can? Worth watching, in any case.

What I Got Wrong

• Germany: Perhaps too leery of perceptions of his power, the Kaiser imprudently gave Sweden away - without gaining a secure eastern front thereby. This is not to suggest that one should count the Second Reich out: Russia's hold on Sweden is tenuous, and his incursion into German territory is hardly sure to lead to German losses. I failed to foresee the shape that the first year would take for Germany, but I do not (yet) disavow the belief that the Kaiser will be a force to be reckoned with.
• Russia: Two builds! Congratulations to the Tsar on that success - though one can't help but point out that an unsupported move into Rumania, along with a covering move from the Ukraine, would've achieved the same effect, without letting that rogue Turkish army into Sevastopol. Now it will be very difficult to extricate that army without creating a cure worse than the disease. So Russia is by no means out of the woods - Sweden is vulnerable and Sevastopol might become a lingering problem - but there's reason for a cautious optimism in Petrograd.
• Turkey: One build! Even if gained surreptitiously, that single build might make a world of difference to the Sultan's efforts. Already blessed with perhaps the strongest defensive profile of the great powers, a single unit in Ankara could help cement the Turkish lines against an Austro-Russian assault (long enough, at least, for one or the other to tire of the effort and look to other, easier targets); a unit in Damascus, on the other hand, would be able to traipse into Egypt unopposed. With Greece already assured, a second build would be a real boon to the Sick Man's convalescence.

I'll be out of forvmiv in no time! :^)

The ultimate result of shielding man from the effects of folly is to people the world with fools. -Herbert Spencer

buncha gamers going back in time to fight or whatever ze hell you people are doin.

I bring you the fifth Forvm game, named 'forums_crossed' (in anticipatory honor of players joining from over at our frienemesis site, Swords Crossed). The privacy password is 'KNIFE', so your sign-up email (sent to dpjudge[at]floc[dot]net) should look like so:

JOIN forums_crossed [yourpassword] knife
SIGNOFF

...where [yourpassword] is, of course, replaced with a password of your choosing.
(Also, I've enabled power choice, so if you want to play a particular power, your sign-up email should look like:

JOIN [powername]@forums_crossed [yourpassword] knife
SIGNOFF

... where [powername] is replaced by one of the 7 powers. N.B. that on the 1900 map, it is Britain, not England.)

If you have trouble signing on, making sure everything in the 'JOIN' line is on the same line of text; that 'SIGNOFF' is on a separate line of text; and that, if you are specifying the power you wish to play, that your email program does not convert that part of the text into hypertext.

I doubt this will be a problem, but for those already playing in vinteuil's 'forvmiv' game, please hold off a day or two before joining, so that those who missed out on that game are sure to be able to sign up. Also, since this game will have at least a couple first-timers playing, I'd encourage anyone who has experience playing the game, but who doesn't want to play in this one, to join as an observer.

I'll explain the (few) optional rules I've added once the game gets underway.

Brevis esse laboro, obscurus fio.

I imagine not much interest is going to be generated with the offer languishing deep downthread, so I thought I'd be a little more outgoing about it: since at least one interested party missed out joining the current Diplomacy game, and there are two other interested parties besides, I'm thinking about starting a new Diplomacy game. I'd be inclined to run it on the 1900 map, but I'm open to alternatives if someone wants to try something different.

Also, for anyone interested, would you prefer a more-or-less straightforward set of rules, with nothing too fancy? Or - as one option - would people be interested in playing a blind game (powers can only 'see' units that are next to their own units or home centers) with touch press (powers can only communicate with powers whose units are next to their own units)?

Brevis esse laboro, obscurus fio.

I already feel like I have to go back on my word to *somebody* and I can't decide who, and even though I realize that's part of the game I'd much rather accommodate everyone.

Oh well. Prepare to be stabbed!

(Tiger is starting to look sharp after [yet another] horrible start -- he's getting predictably cutthroat as the finish line approaches. I'll try to think of diplomacy as like golf -- everyone else has to lose so that one person can be champion.)

Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson

Now that I've discovered that, though absent from the map, there are indeed fleets in Algeria and Egypt, I thought I might amplify the train of thought that was begun by a consideration of the effects of the 'BLANK_BOARD' rule.

Of the seven Great Powers, four - Austria, Britain, Italy and Russia - chose the 'standard' compliment of units to begin the game. I shall begin, though, by attending to those that have opted for a novel set-up.

France
La III^e République makes a bid for Mediterranean domination with fleets, rather than armies, in Marseilles and Algeria. Make no mistake about it: this is a risky maneuver. France has abdicated its ability to make a claim on (or at least to have its say in the eventual disposition of) Switzerland, and Britain and Italy both may look with shared anxiety at the prospect of an altogether French-dominated western Mediterranean. But that prospect, if it were to materialize, would give France a solid and relatively secure source of supply centers, which centers would equip her well to advance claims to her east. France has acted boldly, and we should expect stunning success or abject defeat.

Germany
What an interesting choice from the Kaiser! One can imagine quite a bit of head-scratching in the various continental capitals - in London, though, one must imagine nothing but relief. An army in Kiel, if it sends any signal clearly, sends one of ... no, friendship is too strong, but perhaps respect for, even deference to, British naval preeminence in the North Sea and the better part of its littoral. Mind now, Germany has by no means forsworn the four center first year gain your correspondent had mentioned earlier; mark the following (and I use the esteemed Bill White's suggested notation):

Kie-Den
Ber-Bal
Col-Bel
Mun-Als/Col

To be followed by:

Bal-Swe + Den
Als/Col-Net + Bel

Now if the Reich adopts a more humble policy of growth, or is more magnanimous to its neighbors, do not, dear reader, mistake the nature of the thing. Alms have naught in common with danegeld but the coin.

Turkey
The Sublime Porte's second fleet is an unalloyed advantage. Whether it moves into the Black Sea in force, or makes sail to the Aegean, it remains your correspondent's firm opinion that the Turk is no one's sick man. This is not to say that the Sultan can look forward to clear skies, with his armies moving from strength to strength, but one should keep an eye on his progress. (Should the Sultan have built a third fleet in Damascus - triple-down, so to speak, on a naval approach? By no means. That army is in a position to compensate for potential weaknesses in defense by moves to Armenia or Konya, without losing its ability to freeze the British fleet in place in Egypt.)

Britain
With respect to Britain, the blank board offers little real incentive to adopt a different complement of forces; perhaps an army in London or Edinburgh, but certainly not in Egypt. As I have mentioned, the Prime Minister should be relieved at the German builds - a relief tempered, perhaps, by distress at the Mediterranean situation. He can also take some relief at the Tsar's decision to take a fleet on the southern coast of St. Petersburg, rather than an army (to say nothing of a northern coast fleet!).

Russia
And speaking of the Tsar - one can imagine, come the end of the first year's spring, a sense of optimism dawning in St. Petersburg: the Sultan has set sail for the Aegean from his capital's port, and is dead-set on retaking oft-held, oft-lost Egypt; Germany has decided to place a lock on the lowlands, moving into Belgium & the Netherlands both directly, while that sole fleet ambles toward Denmark; Austria opts not to press claims to Romania, content with Serbia, maybe intending to contest with Turkey for Bulgaria and Greece. One can also imagine a bleaker picture: Germany staking a claim, incontestable for the time being, to Sweden; Austria aiming for Galicia and Romania; a Turkish fleet perching menacingly atop the Black Sea. Which will greet our Tsar? Better: which does the Tsar anticipate? On the basis of which shall he make his plans?

Austria
One can hardly blame the Archduke for taking an army in Trieste. While a fleet would give him a say in the Mediterranean - and an Archduke who wishes to stand astride Europe will have to have that say eventually - more immediate concerns press themselves. Like his Russian counterpart, he likely grapples with questions for which he does not have sufficient answers: does the second Turkish fleet presage conflict between the Sultan and Tsar, which conflict brings a rise in the value of Austrian friendship? Does a powerful Germany carry secret ambitions for an Anschluß avant la lettre? If the answers to these questions are not to Austria's liking, that third army will look less like a wise choice, and more like a necessity.

Italy
One suspects poor Italy wishes he could have that decision back; a Roman fleet would give him parity with the French, instead of facing the prospect of almost immediate encirclement. The sole benefit of France's fleet-heavy stratagem is that Italy need only bow and scrape in a single foreign court to gain access to Switzerland, rather than two. Whether this increase in dignity translates to material advantage - well, your correspondent has his doubts. The choice of an army does, however, confer a certain flexibility of options: he can likely secure Switzerland for himself with moves to Venetia or Piedmont (while setting up an attack on Austria or France while he's at it), or he can attempt to send the army across the Ionian to Africa. Having the sole land unit in the region would confer an advantage not to be overlooked.

Some Predictions
Austria will end the year +2, having his choice of allies in the east, and a secure position in the Balkans.
Britain will end the year +2, but will find himself irrelevant in the Mediterranean.
France will end the year +2, his Mediterranean gambit having paid off in the short run, but with ominous signs from his east.
Germany will end the year +3, having given up his chance at a fourth build in the hopes of avoiding "early leader syndrome," Germany will nevertheless appear - and be - the early leader.
Italy will end the year +1, appearing - and being - the smallest fish in the pond. Bigger fish will already be circling, hungrily.
Russia will end the year +1, facing neither the best or the worst case scenario - but it will be more bad news than good.
Turkey will end the year +2, looking like the betting man's "dark horse."

Just did a doubletake. Normally Neutral -- and off-limits -- Switzerland is a capturable SC in this variant?

The ALG/EGY 'blank board' problem's been solved.

Brevis esse laboro, obscurus fio.

Not my fault, Emirates. Next time!

One should expect that the ability to choose one's starting units will have some effect on the relative strengths of each power's starting position. After some consideration, I've decided to offer my own thoughts on the matter.

EDIT It looks like Britain retains his fleet in Gibraltar given the blank board set-up, so a few changes are in order.

Stronger
Germany
Could the Behemoth of the continent get any stronger on the 1900 map? Well, why not? With the ability to build fleets in Kiel and Berlin, Germany's ability to have a +4 opening year - usually a rare feat, achieved only by the most skilled and daring Kaisers - is practically assured.

Turkey
The Black Sea is perhaps the most consequential space in the "Eastern Triangle." With the ability to put fleets in Ankara and Istanbul (what infidel has left it named Constantinople?!), that sea is Turkey's exclusive provenance. I suspect Turkey's diplomatic standing in the opening turns to rise significantly as a result.

Even
Austria
The Dual Monarchy's position is no worse - but no better, either.

France
I am tempted to place France in the 'weaker' category, due solely to the increased potency of Germany, but that increase only marginally increases the danger of encirclement France always faces in this variant.

Italy
With France's circumstances now clarified, there is no reason to downgrade Italy's position. It is now merely normally handicapped, instead of being especially so.

Weaker
Britain
While retaining his Gibraltar fleet means Britain remains a force to be reckoned with in the Mediterranean, the problem with his prospects for first year gains remains. With Russia's ability to build an army in St. Petersburg, and Germany's ability to take Sweden, Britain might have added trouble taking Norway in the first year, and a world of trouble in holding it.

Russia
Russia's case is perhaps the most complex. The Tsar benefits from increased flexibility in build options in Sevastopol and St. Petersburg, with the latter potentially giving fits to his rival in London. But with his two neighbors, Germany and Turkey, looking strong, I cannot but rate the Tsar's position weaker. Indeed, with Sweden all but assuredly closed off to him, and Romania (as always) an uncertain thing, can Russia have much hope of gaining a center in the first year? I think he cannot.

I look forward to hearing others' thoughts on the matter and seeing their corrections of my lapses in judgment.

....I wasn't online when the rest of you los...er...night-owls signed up, so I'm out. However, if we get the inevitable "I can't handle the pressure of having to pay attention to this!" drop-out, I'll be happy to take over.

EDIT: Nevermind, it appears I got in. The first rejection was a syntax glitch.

The ultimate result of shielding man from the effects of folly is to people the world with fools. -Herbert Spencer

Fence post turtles -- They don't get up there by themselves, some moron had to put 'em there.

Germany, Austria & Turkey are already taken.

That leaves England, France, Russia & Italy.

God help the while, a bad world I say.

Erp.

Does that mean we're going for solo victories?

I tried 'blank board' once with 1900; IIRC, there are some problems with Britain and France that are caused by using it. First, (again: IIRC) those powers' players will not get to choose whether they have armies or fleets in EGY & ALG*; they're 'locked in' as a fleet and army respectively. Second, Britain will not start with a unit in GIB; rather, his three builds will be available in LON, LVP & EDI (as they'd be in a standard game).

When I ran a blank board game, I had to do some pretty extensive manipulation of the status file in order to get the set-up to look right. This was when the GM's screen was just the status file, though, so I'm not sure how to do it now.

And 'no draw'? Why am I not surprised?

*Come to think of it, they may not start with units in those spaces at all.

Brevis esse laboro, obscurus fio.