RUSSIA

I picked Russia, although I had never played more than a few turns with it on email.
After the opening round of diplomacy, it looked apparent that Austria and Italy were
plotting together. I considered myself safe in the south, as Turkey would not make
me my enemy while he was under attack from Austria and Italy. I reckoned that it
would be hard to get any centers south, so I went with a northern approach. England
and Norway seemed a good target, as he was one of the better players and would likely 
be jumped by France and Germany. I knew Germany from round three, and I knew he was a 
typical alliance player. I figured I'd leave him alone, at least until I could get a 
killing stab. This of course, left Russia without an area of expansion.  At that time, 
I believed I'd just have to be patient and wait for Austria and Italys alliance to 
fall apart. Their advances were slow, due to high predictability (spring positioning, 
fall attacks) and good tactics by Turkey (and I like to think that I helped).

Meanwhile, Germany made a fatal move into Silesia. He was even given a chance to get 
out, but after that, Russia chose the side of England and went for Germany. The attack 
on Germany made good progress, and I felt confident that France would eventually join 
the attack. Germany was very weak, and a french stab would put an immediate end to him, 
probably giving France Munich and England, together with Holland and Belgium.

This period was the hight of Russian might. From this point, it went rather downhill. 
There were several causes, one of them was my tactical mistakes. After the first 
successful year of attacking Germany, I made the mistake of leaving Warzaw undefended. 
This allowed Turkey to slip in there. I was forced to look at that as a fait accompli, 
so the alliance persisted. I would not take the risk of having Turkey as Italys front-
runner, so I decided to halfway trust him. This was probably not a good decision either, 
as I should have either trusted him fully or made sure that he disappeared from the map. 
I got another center from Germany, so I did not disband. The next turn, Turkey 
disbanded in Warzaw, leaving it for me. In a huge tactical blunder, I failed to cover 
it and Austria was allowed to retreat there. Then in fall, I guessed wrong where I 
should have attacked Warzaw. Together with that, France supported Germany against 
Russia at the point where I was convinced that France would finally stab him. I was 
down two. A draw was suggested, and as I saw the empire falling apart I voted yes. 
I'm still not sure if that was a good call, after all, I was not totally out of it. 
I have not been in any such situation before, and had a feeling that voting against 
would make me highly unpopular. Seeing all the others vote for, I felt I had no choice. 
Had this option not been present, I might have recovered some, but I feared that the 
other powers would turn against me. I disapprove of the voting-rule.

My failure in this game was due to a misjudgement of the situation, I think. Not having 
ever played in such a situation, I was expecting everyone to try everything to win. 
I imagined a highly fluent game, where the leader at any time would be hunted down until 
there was a new leader. Too late I realized that it was not so. The game was almost 
completely static in its alliances, and some of the players did not have a desire to win.

Austria:
As the game developed, it became apparent that you would never stab Italy or Germany. 
At one point, I was prepared to offer you anything you suggested, as long as would 
attack Italy or Munich. You were told over and over that Italy would eventually stab, 
but it was to no use. Not even after the very apparent preparations for the stab 
(A Pie, F Apu and builds to come) did you see it. I attribute a third of Italys victory 
to Austria.

Turkey:
You're extremely difficult to say no to. Except for the move to Warzaw (I had hoped you 
would move to Gal and have shot at either Munich or Vienna) and some of my mistakes, 
your defense worked out well. You, as England, had very little space for diplomacy. 
I guess the only other option you had was stabbing Russia at some point, perhaps in 
coordination with Germany or even Austria, to provoce the Italian stab of Austria to 
come earlier.

Italy:
I think this game suited you very well. You are very convincing and someone I'd buy a 
used car from. Especially clever was having Austria move to Rumania. A very poor tactic 
for Austria, of course, but a good one for Italy as it antagonised Russia for a long 
time. If I were Austria I would have stabbed you as hard as possible once I saw the 
development, but when you got your very trusting ally, you pretty much had it made. 
You were good, but also lucky. I attribute a third of the victory to you.

Germany:
The move to Silesia was a mistake, and it lead to the downfall of us both. I'm not sure 
wether someone talked you into that (very well done, in that case) or if it was your own 
idea. If you were to attack me, you should have offered me some estates in Scotland and 
lured me out of Scandinavia. I was ready for cooperation. Instead of antagonizing me in 
Silesia, you could also have stabbed France with England or Austria and Italy with Russia 
and Turkey. I am pretty sure you were never even considering that.

England:
Besides from your great tactical play, you never had much space for diplomacy. In the end, 
the Franco-German alliance proved solid. Had I known that in the beginning, Germany would 
have been under pressure from me much earlier.

France:
As usual, a game well played. Still, and you know this, I disagree with your decision to 
end the game. By stabbing Germany at that last fall, he would have been brought down to 
two centers. England was prepared to join your cause. You would have broken both your 
western neighbours and stand ready for great expansion. By inserting a single army into 
Piedmont, you could have made Italys position hard to defend. Austria would happily have 
received your help. The last third of Italys victory I attribute to France.

All in all I am a little disappointed because the top-board of the diplomacy tournament 
did not see much diplomacy at all. The winner, Italy, spoke to me only once. Even though 
he struggled with Turkey, I was never offered a couple of centers to help out. Austria 
stuck together with Italy despite the evident fact that he could not win from it. France 
and Germany stuck together even though none of them could win by it. Russia and Turkey 
had to stick together by necessity. Not once did someone try to fool me or convince me 
to do something I should not have done. Having three players witout the desire to win 
unbalances the game. Still, I believe the best diplomat for this strange situation 
eventually won.

In the end I want to thank you all for a good tournament. If I sounded angry, it was not 
my intention, as I do not get angry at anyone for what they do in diplomacy. I can only 
disagree with their decisions and style of play. After all, I should have been the one 
making strong alliances with players who would let me win. When other players fail to do 
what serves both them and me best, I have failed diplomatically. Next time we meet, I'll 
be better.

I'll stab you all some other time,
Simen Fure Jørgensen


FRANCE

I wish I had the moves for the game to watch while writing this, but here 
goes:

First of all, I have to say that open voting was fine for earlier rounds, 
but in the final, I don't think it is a good idea. I'm not only saying 
this because I and Russia counted on each other for voting down the draw 
the last year, but I think it doesn't suit a final board dynamic.

It was a strange feeling. Pick order first. Do I go third and hope 
Germany remains, or do I go first to grab France? Immediately after 
knowing I had this opportunity, I decided France was the way to go. In 
the evening I re-thought thinking the last thing I wanted was to pick 
France immediately - I wouldn't know who'd sit where and couldn't judge 
what power to take from this information. But then in the morning I 
thought, France is the power I've played in every final so far (for some 
reason) and although only one of the finals have gone well, I felt I'd 
take advantage of my experience with it.

I was really hoping to see Rune in Germany and Frank in Italy, for 
predictability. Rune played France in the game I topped as Russia the day 
before, and I saw him as a very, very solid alliance player. No tactical 
mistakes, good strategical view of the board, and no stabs. I felt that 
with him in Germany, it would be a very solid FG alliance and one that 
could've gone very far.

Of course, Frank in Italy wasn't stretching any luck (he'd be picking 
7th), and I was really hoping to see him there because the alternative 
was Yann - nothing against Yann except I'd expect him to be more western 
inclined than Frank. So for the same reason I'd rather play Turkey to 
Yann's Italy than Frank's, I'd rather play France to Frank's Italy than 
Yann's. I also could hope for some goodwill from Frank since after all, I 
gave him the final board seat. Then again, there's no such thing as 
gratitude in Diplomacy.

The game started out very slow - I got a bounce with Germany in Burgundy 
(I think we were both too afraid not to), and decided to trust England 
not to open to the Channel. I arranged the huge DMZ I usually do with 
Italy (including spaces such as Tuscany, Tyrrhenian Sea and Spain south 
coast) which is also why normally there is no conflict between France and 
Italy in my games as F/I, at least not early. Stabs are visible miles 
away. The only thing that didn't go according to plan was Russia's 
complete unwillingness to enter F/R cooperation. It's usually a quick 
sign that Russia will sabotage alliances in the west to try to keep it 
from resolving, and side with the weaker party in conflicts. So I 
expected that E/G would be less of a worry in this scenario, and I was 
looking for a firm alliance. I had previously played with both Mikal and 
William - Mikal as France to my Austria the day before, where Mikal never 
through the entire game listened to anything I said, but stuck firmly 
with his ally in Germany. William on the other hand is an amazingly 
strong player, and not as inclined to keep firm alliances (but who can 
blame him, he doesn't need one :-) ). He was also the current Norwegian 
champion, and as far as I hear, we are supposed to give extra "attention" 
to the last year's winner. I had the offer of alliance from Germany, but 
not from England. Add to the fact that I don't think I've ever done well 
with France cooperating with England. It had to be Germany.

England of course saw it coming, and we bounced in the English Channel in 
spring 1902. I wasn't overly troubled by it, I knew full well when I 
wanted to make the breakthrough - when Russo-German hostilities were in 
the early phase without anyone there gaining an advantage. This would 
give me the choice of going against Germany, or move into the 
Mediterranean. So I was trying to play the attack on England slow and 
conservatively, with the priority to be certain I wouldn't get an English 
fleet into the Mid Atlantic. Germany preferred to make his own plans, so 
I didn't request him to support one of the bouncing English fleets, 
because quick progress wasn't important to me either. All English units 
were tied up in defense, and I got control of the timing. What more could 
I ask for?

At one point then, GR hostilities were clearly opening, and then it was 
time to break down England. We took position, and the turn after, we had 
London forced. Unfortunately, Germany misordered, and this meant I 
wouldn't get the chance to attack Italy before he attacked Austria. That 
was not too much of a problem, except it meant cooperation with Russia 
was harder (because if I helped Russia, he'd be able/inclined to help 
Italy against Austria once Italy stabbed). I also lost my strategic view 
of the big picture shortly after, with some acrobatics from Yann followed 
by William being able to convince me Yann was the one going to run away 
with the east, saying he'd surely have Rune onside the following year. 
Ironically, of course, I don't think this helped, but rather hindered 
William's own chances. If I had seen Frank as the larger threat, rather 
than the RT (which William convinced me to), I'd have pushed for a 
western triple at that point. Instead I actually put in a casual remark 
to A/I giving Frank some diplomatic leverage for forcing Smyrna and then 
consequently, all of Turkey. I suppose that was the biggest mistake 
through the game, from my side (especially if it actually did make any 
difference, Frank and Rune would have to comment on that).

Of course, in hindsight, at this point one can say I should've changed 
ally and gone with William against Germany. However, Russian growth meant 
more Italian growth (Austria and Turkey in a sandwich). William would've 
had two fleets to send against Russia, possibly able to capture one 
center before game ended, but probably not more. I could perhaps get into 
Munich, and if Russia was as annoyed with Germany as he said, he might 
not have given Germany Holland unless that was the difference between a 
French and a Russian win. I did stick with Germany for several reasons, 
among others that I had great fun being allied with Mikal, and also 
because I thought my only chance to get a top 2 finish would be to keep 
him around. At the time, I believed a weakened Germany would lead to 
Austrian collapse and +2 or +3 for both Italy and Russia, leaving me 
behind.

At the point the draw was raised, I was pretty sure Russia would vote it 
down. I had to attack Germany at some point if I was to hope to win, 
since I couldn't get anything off Italy. Italy would clearly keep 
attacking Austria, gaining a center or two during last two years, while 
much could fall to Russia. If I hadn't supported Germany to Kiel, I 
believe Russia had the best by far chances of winning, but even with the 
disbands I think nobody would attack him except possibly Germany or 
England (whoever I sided with), so he should have opportunities for quick 
growth. However getting one more than Italy would have required too much, 
I think, so I'd say Italy would've topped anyway. However, I think that 
his 4th place was guaranteed to improve, so I can admit I didn't see 
Russia voting for the draw. I was in a similar situation the previous 
draw vote, and obviously voted no - when the only direction your score 
can go is up, why stop? No hard feelings at all from me on the subject 
though! It's my own fault not voting the draw down myself, if indeed I 
wanted to play on.

I can fully admit that fall 1906 may have been a bad season by me. I was 
looking at either stabbing Germany totally (taking London, and not 
helping him against Russia), or not at all (taking Liverpool, and help 
him against Russia). I realize I got too lost in my playing style, 
because I didn't even consider the chance of helping Germany keep Kiel, 
at the same time as taking London from him. Clearly, Russia was the rival 
I needed to limit (in addition to Italy, of course), and not England. It 
wouldn't have been unreasonable, I think, to expect England to go with me 
against Russia, if Germany would keep the pressure up (if Germany did, 
then maybe 4 centers could give William a 3rd place). I don't really 
know, though, if after getting help to Kiel but being stabbed for London, 
Germany would be inclined to go at Russia. If he didn't, England had no 
position points to gain no matter what he did, and I'd expect him to 
prevent any chances I had of winning since I had been attacking him and 
Italy hadn't. Maybe it was all a case of the "seeing one's position as 
weaker than it really is"-syndrome. Also in the back of my head was 
certain comments about the German player - I don't like personal attacks, 
neither against myself nor against other players. I guess I felt it would 
be a poor choice of me to reward such behaviour by attacking Germany. I 
was also getting tired of the comments "you're not playing to win". There 
are many ways to win, and one of them is to consolidate a top 3, watch 
the entire board strategy-wise, and hope for an opening (that almost 
always comes). I'm pretty sure, had I played it any differently, my 
chances of winning would have been smaller, and my chances of a top 3 
would've gone from very good to rather slim.

Austria:
Little contact between us in the game. We didn't have a lot to talk 
about. I think development of this would have been completely different 
if I hadn't counted on the timing against England and then fudging it by 
losing a year - we could've ended up side by side fighting Italy. But 
that's woulda-coulda-shoulda anyway. The little we talked was still 
enjoyable, like our previous game with great FR cooperation.

Russia:
I suppose it's unfair from my side to complain about the lack of FR 
cooperation. I know that "common knowledge" suggests Russia should play 
balance of power in the EFG triangle. I strongly disagree with this 
myself, but I think I'm in the minority on the issue. We clearly had the 
chance of a fruitful FR with IA lining up against Turkey, and EG in 
conflict, but I mean, if you give me ten seconds in 1901, I know you're 
not with me. I have to say though, very well done, it was a solid Russia 
throughout the game and you had a least a third place finish coming in 
the game. Maybe you would have won, if I and Frank had tied up each 
others forces and Austria had thrown what he had against Frank. It's 
particularly amazing when I know you haven't played the game for very 
long. I expect to see great achievements from you in the coming years!

Germany:
Thanks for the alliance! It's almost always great fun when an alliance 
can get together like this and stick together for the duration of the 
game. As we discussed quite openly back in 1901 and 1902, we weren't 
likely to stick together in 1907 and 1908, and we were right - obviously 
the draw declaration was what kept the knife in the box. I was slightly 
surprised that when I said Russia would play fleet to Berlin, you moved 
out of Berlin and into Prussia, but it did put the FG balance clearly in 
my favour and thus harmed you, rather than me. All in all, I know very 
well I'd have done it all again. I enjoyed it!

England:
Your reasoning that you saw me and Mikal in France and Germany, and was 
afraid England would be too easy for Yann was perhaps a bit quick. Maybe 
you were right, we'll never know. However being England to my France is 
probably not very ideal, and you didn't make me an offer before 1903, so 
I guess you were more interested in waiting and seeing if you could get 
Germany on side (I normally open with a supported move to Burgundy 
ticking Germany off, but not so this game). I'm sorry for not taking up 
your offer in 1906 - in hindsight, it was probably a (slightly) better 
course of action than what I followed. You still have the ability to 
convince me of things that most people can't, and you have the tactical 
skill to back up your negotiation abilities. I could question your 
strategy, but I may disagree with it just because I don't understand it.

Turkey:
Yann in the other corner of the board... didn't have much to say, of 
course. Which was probably, for me, a good thing - I don't think I was 
able to convince Yann of anything at all last time we played together :-) 

and finally, last but not least, Italy:
Congratulations, Frank, for your fine win! Looking back at the game, I 
don't think I can recall anything that should've been done differently. 
Your win might not have been certain at the draw vote time, but you 
clearly had the best shot. I don't think I could get anything from you, 
and Austria was fragile. In short a great performance with Italy, which 
has to be one of the very hardest countries to win a final table with 
(otherwise, it wouldn't be left for #7!).

I have to include that although you played excellently and won the 
tournament very deservedly, you're an even better TD and organizer. The 
whole thing was better than any tournament I've been part of (and 
Diplomacy is far from the only game I play at tournament level).

Thanks for the game, everyone! My first face-to-face top board, a 
valuable experience if I ever make it to one again.

best wishes to all of you,
Erlend 'Joe' Janbu

TURKEY

The game already starts to fade away so it's time I write something before 
it get worst :-). I'll be short though since I've played 10 more games since 
that time (went to 3 more different tournaments + some blitz on internet). ;-).

I really like the system used for choosing the countries. Among many over 
qualities it has, one is that it "split" apart joint winners. It is well 
known that I am an apostle of the "always go for the victory" (which doesn't 
mean I can't be a good ally). The other characteristic of my playing style 
is "BOP" (Balance of Powers), trying to keep things even among the others 
and score some diplomatic points with everyone so that when the end comes 
I get the better chance of having the head advance just at the right time. 
A reason for that is that it brings dynamics alliance shifting and stop the 
leader thinking, everything that Alan Calhamer has always promoted especially 
when describing the early games configuration.

So for me, the "pick an ally, set the DMZ miles away and year in advance, and 
get the best of the alliance regardless of how well the other is doing" is the 
opposite of my philosophy, since it is a game killer in term of diplomacy and 
suspense. I understand some other can prefer this, feel it more comfortable 
and see the big scores coming out of it, and I appreciate it can be rewarded 
with great results, but personnaly I will generally not play like that "just" 
by principle not to risk making a game boring to a majority of its spectators. 
I prefer to dance on the string, always gives people opportunity to come back. 
Yes, it means I'm not the kind of ally you can trust blindly. But it also means 
I'm not the kind of ennemy who will never let you any breathing space and it's 
not even worth talking to. All in all I wouldn't say I'm less of a diplomat when 
you make the addition at the end of the day.

Back to our game why all this long introduction would you tell me ? Well for 
some private discussions we had during the course of the game and then after, 
I'm under the impression that some of you (I'm thinking especially of Erlend 
and Rune who told it explicitly) chose a strategy from the start and then refused 
to change and adapt it whatever happen in the game. After say 1903, the only 
negociation really worth trying was between germany, Russia and me seeing if we 
would stick against a common danger of fight and all fall. And I find it a bit 
of a shame for the interest of the game.

Don't loose me though ... I had great fun tactically in that game and I appreciate 
I met all the players. But diplomatically, some of the discussion I had were 
particulary frustrating.



About the event of the game themselves, they ahve already been well described by 
others and I won't come back to this. I would say simply that sitting in defense 
early in the game, I quickly chose a line of defense which was : "defend only 
against one of both, and at the same time demonstrate to that one that if he 
change side there are lots of possibilities to do things together". This is I thing 
a good defense, unfortunately I pick the wrong guy to do that to. Rune never 
received my messages, and he passively waited for the stab (this being also due 
to Frank excellent diplomacy that countered mine). I thought the message of the 
map would be enough, but maybe out of lack of experience, he never saw that until 
it was too late. If I was to change things, there would be 2 I would change :
* if sticking to the "stop Austria and try to switch him" strategy, I should 
defenitely have come at one point with Simon to have tripartite discussion with 
Rune. I think you were concerned if you switched side we would gang on you anyway. 
It was not true (at least for me). I would have pushed for a ARI. Rune and Simen 
cuold have done lots of things together in Germany, and me and Run in Turkey and 
Balkans.
* if sticking to the "stop one guy and try to switch him" strategy, pick Italy 
instead of Austria, because Frank might have proved more receiptive to that message.

OK. Still I want to congratulate you all. I realise some of you are not so 
experienced and it was their real first so competitive game, and I appreciate 
it takes time and experience to improve and everyone can make mistake. I think 
Rune, Simen and Mika are much better players than I was when I was as experienced 
as they are, and I'm sure they'll keep on improving and be some terrors in the 
future years. I was especially impressed by simen who in my opinion really played 
a great game given the circumstances, keeping is nerves and reacting not 
impulsively to the event. his strategy was great and without a couple of tactical 
mistakes he would have done much better in that game. Congratulation Simen it was 
really a nice game. Frank also as usual, but that we already knew ;-). If I were 
to rank players based on what they did of their game, I would say:
1) Frank
2) Simen
3) William
4) Mika
5) Erlend & Rune (sorry Joe but you really did absolutely nothing impressive in 
that game, especially not accepting the draw ;-)

Anyway thanks for the game, and hope to see you soon ... more experienced for 
some and more flexible for others.

Cheers,
Yann.

ITALY

I will first comment on my qualification games.  Coming into the final on
the last and 7th spot, every game was important and I will just highlight
some of the crucial points.

In round one I played Germany to Erlend Janbu's England.  Trond Botnen
was Russia.  I offered Janbu a Danish Gambit, where England gets NWY
and DEN the first year, while Germany takes HOL and BEL.  I've played
a couple of games with Erlend before and I know him quite well.  This
lead me to be too trusting of him and he stabbed quite well.  Jan Einar
Tamber, playing France, had played before, but was inexperienced at
tournament play.  Erlend was getting big and he was afraid of joining
me against him.  Also not realising that he was next on the "list".  In
this situation, I decided to go against my natural instinct and chose to
be an obedient puppet for England.  Standing up to Erlend at this point
would certainly have meant elimination.  I wasn't particularly respected
by the other players at that point, but I earned some valuable bonus points!
I only had to keep a close eye on Erlend's solo chances.  The last year
he could actually have made 17 SCs, but not 18.  Turkey was at 11,
while Russia, Austria and myself were going to end at 2.  I realised this
would mean a 3rd placing shared 3-ways.  I convinced Erlend that my
services deserved a reward of 1 SC as it was of little consequence for
him to end on 16 rather than 17.  Thus I ended the game with 2 units,
3 SCs and 11 C-diplo points!  In hindsight, these 5.5 points became
crucial (your worst qualification score was halved).

In the second round, I drew Turkey.  Not a bad country to play, but
difficult to expand with if you get experienced neighbours.  To my
chagrin, I saw Inge Kjøl in Russia and Andreas Ziethén playing Austria.
I had offers of alliance from both of them, but as Sultan it's always
difficult to resist an alliance with Austria.  I knew development might
be slow, but there is always time and room for late game expansion.
Unfortunately, Andreas turned out to be a bit too non-committing.
This was probably due to Inge giving a newbie Italy expert advice.
Andreas thought Italy's success was all to my credit, so the A/T
alliance went nowhere.   In the mean time, however, Inge was
struggling and all "commentators" predicted a Turkish victory.  My
position was solid at 6 SCs.  At this point I have to stop and give
Inge due recognition.  We all know that he is a dual European
Champion and a great player.  In this game I got to observe why
and how.  Inge was down to 3 SCs by 1905 - MOS/WAR/SWE.
I had taken SEV, while Frode Korslund as England had taken STP.
E followed by T, were clearly the front runners, while Austria still
had good chances.  Then France, played by Børge Lanes, stabs
England and Frode abandons his Northern position to rush home.
Inge turns the game around and wins with 8 SCs!!  It was truly
amazing to observe how it happened and how rapidly he grew at
the end.  At the beginning of the end game, France looked like
the likely winner.  Truth be told, neither Børge nor I played our very
best tactically.  I also think Frode gave up the North a little too quickly,
but this was certainly achieved by Inge.  I made one of my usual and
horrible tactical mistakes.  Andreas had taken Bulgaria and I was
planning to take it back moving from Greece:
A Gre-Bul
F Bla S A Gre-Bul
F Aeg S A Gre-Bul
With two supports I was certain of success.  Only to forget that Andreas
could retreat to Con!!  From being a front runner, I was suddenly in deep
trouble.  Luckily, my tactics improved and I saved the situation by
immediately ordering:
A Sev - Ank
A Bul - Smy
F Bla C A Sev - Ank
F Aeg C A Bul - Smy
This did of course contribute to Inge's victory as he could take SEV
by game's end.  However, it did save a shared 2nd rank with Børge.
Conclusion:  Guess who came in 8th in the qualification?  Inge Kjøl!!
I did of course need the points that I scored in this game.  However,
just as important was my opening attack on Inge and his trouble meant
that he did not get a big win out of this one. I qualified to the top board
just 2 points ahead of Inge.

To win a decent size Diplomacy tournament you actually do need to
be lucky.  You have to draw the right countries, the right opponents
and in the right constellation.  In at least a couple of qualifying games
and on the top board.  In my third game only a good 1st rank would
do.  I drew France and ended up on the "easier" side of the board
with Håvard Njå, Christian Ziethén and Niclas Pérez in A, R and T
respectively.  I started with an E/F alliance with Truls Stokka.  Truls
went against Russia while I went against Italy.  At first we didn't go
after Niklas Larsson very aggressively as this was his first game.
By mid-game I was stalled against Italy, expertly played by Trond
Haukvik.  I realised I would have to disengage and chose another
target if I was to expand.  When England hesitated giving up BEL
at the agreed time, the choice was easy.  Within 2-3 years I had
taken all his HCs.  However, Christian had played well as Russia.
He was all over the Balkans and my only chance of winning was
by attacking Niklas as Germany.  Unfortunately, I had to play a
bit hard and cynical at the end.  Hard by manipulating and then
stabbing him.  Cynical by insisting on the rules.  Niklas had not 
written his orders yet when the time was up for the very last deadline
in Fall 1908. I objected to him writing them as he had used his 30
second extension previously (or more accurately written during Austria's
time extension).  Russia and Germany disagreed, while Italy and
Austria shared my recollection.  His orders were not accepted.
Had he gotten his orders in on time it would have been an 11-11
shared win between Christian and myself.  By insisting on the rules,
I won 12-11.  Not the way you wish to win, but a win none the less...

At the top board Italy was left over for me after everyone else
had gotten a choice of some sorts.  At least I had the upper hand
in any tie-breaker having been the last to "choose".  I was pleased
just having made it to the top table and not at all troubled with
having to play Italy.  By the time I had started the central clock,
everyone was away negotiating.  I had a quiet spring 1901 and
spent half of it buying toast and something to drink.  Upon my
return, I was promptly offered a Key-lepanto by Rune and I was
glad to accept.  This locked in my strategy for the beginning of
the game and there was just no good reason to change.  I understand
we didn't get a "classic" C-diplo top board with two enduring
alliances on the board.  However, three of the players, although
very talented, had no prior tournament experience.  This probably
influenced the game.  I hope William and Yann did not experience
that there was an anti-French sentiment on the board.  A couple
of Swedish spectators commented to that effect.  I can honestly
say that I, personally, never heard or uttered that line of argument
during the entire game, or tournament, for that matter.  I think it
was just the way it developed with two excellent players being
the wicked witches, mirror powers as they are.  William did, after
all, qualify for the top board with two 1. rank results in round 1 and 2.
By playing "Puerto Rico" in the third round he probably gave up 4th
place in the tournament, possibly even 3rd.  After all, he made it
to the top board.  Had we played under the same system as last year
(no top board), he might even have successfully defended the title!

The Key-lepanto developed just fine, despite being anticipated by
Yann.  Russia's Northern opening, also gave us some extra time
and space.  The thought of an early stab, hardly crossed my mind
at all.  First of all, I perceived Yann as the greater threat in the long
term.  Second, it would have been ridiculous to become an early
leader and irreversibly antagonize my closest neighbour.  Although
the game became a little "boring" to the opposition, I was quite
pleased and confident.  It is also my strong opinion that it was
an equal alliance.  I was in no way "manipulating" or controlling
Rune.  The Key-lepanto originated with him.  He knew very well what
he wanted when negotiating.  Several of my tactical proposals were
outright rejected and replaced with "better" solutions.  I still don't
know if it was really his intention to play the alliance to the "end",
or if he would have stabbed at the right opportunity.  I think it is not
right to imply that Rune did not play to win, he might have waited
for the same chance as I got.  When transcribing all the order sheets,
I also discovered a misadjudication in Rune's disfavour!  With 7 - 7 SCs
between us in 1905 and two builds for both of us, I would probably
not have had the chance to stab the way I did.  Thus his strategy
might have been justified also in the longer term.

Yes, I agree fully, that the tactical play of the Frenchmen was excellent.
They lasted a lot longer than most players would have under similar
circumstances.  However, it is a guessing game and sooner or later
you will succumb to superior force.  It was also interesting to observe
how they both encouraged the quick elimination of the other, to break
the dynamics of the game.  If one major alliance had emerged
victorious before the other, it could have given one of them a role to
play or at least some respite from the onslaught.

The end-game, or should I say the end of the game, came a lot faster
than any of us anticipated.  I started making preparations for a stab
of Rune in spring 1906.  I was aided by having waived a build in 1905
by pure forgetfulness.  I hoped it went unnoticed so I would have
one build up my sleeve.  There was only one reason for making the
stab and that was the position of France.  I saw that Erlend was due
to gain several SCs in 1906 against weak opposition.  England was
crumbling and Germany looked weak, having lost a home centre.  So
I felt I had to make a move to race him for the victory.  An alternative
strategy, would have been to attack France.  However, he could
easily have defended after getting 2 builds in 1906.  Being locked up
against France would also have made me vulnerable for a stab by
Austria and thus he would have had a winning chance.  Especially
after starting to make progress against R/T.

To be able to sense these "strategic shifts" in Diplomacy, is crucial
to win games.  So, of course, Erlend made a move on me in the same
turn by F Mao - Wes.  What had looked like a good stab in spring 1906,
now looked a bit shaky.  Especially, as Rune also was able to retreat
to War after Spring 1906.  I would have to use forces to fend of Erlend
and would probably not make any gains against Austria in the short term.
In the longer term, it would depend on the choices of Russia.

Then, after fall 1906 retreats, William proposed a vote to end the game.
He had done the same the previous year and it had been voted down.
I fully expected this one to be voted down as well.
Yann and William immediately and understandably voted for.  They
were near elimination.  I voted for since I was in the lead.  Then Mikal
and Rune raised their hands.  (It will be interesting to know their
reasoning.  Rune, I guess, was demoralized by the stab and at
least wanted to keep on to the 3rd rank.)  Then to my great surprise
Erlend raised his hand.  Simen hesitated for a moment, but finally
his hand went up as well and I was the 2003 Norwegian Diplomacy
Champion.

I think most of us were surprised to see the vote pass.  There was
still a lot of play in the position and the game could very well have
had another winner.  Maybe people would have been more inclined
to turn the vote down if the voting had been secret.  The voting was
open (by show of hand) by deliberate choice as the tournament
directors were playing in the tournament and this would reduce
the "work load".  Erlend has been criticized for his decision as
most players felt he had the better position.  However, there were
other players that also could have improved their SC counts due
to the new situation after the Austro-Italian alliance broke up.
I think Germany, with one build due, had clear potential for growth.
He could have been a counter weight to the new positional leader
- France.  Although Russia just had to disband, he had now more
diplomatic choices.  Tactically, he could have taken Warsaw and
he could have made further gains in the Balkans or Asia minor by
game's end.

In the end, it came down to two factors:

1) Erlend might have thought that Simen (R) would vote the proposal 
down.  If this was the case, he took too great a risk.  Yes, Simen still 
was in position to gain by the end, but he had just been demoralized 
by having to disband two units.  Simen did take longer than anyone 
else to consider the proposal.  However, seeing 6 hands raised must 
have excerted some pressure.

2) Being determined not to stab Mikal, his German ally, there wasn't
much room for expansion in the short time remaining.  He could have
taken EDI for a total of 9 SCs.  He would not have been able to take
anything from me (Italy).  I could also have held my own on the 
Balkans, especially with the avowed support of Turkey.  And Turkey
had ordered the disband of F BLA.  (The vote happened inbetween 
F1906R and F1906B.  Everyone had their build orders in, except 
Russia, who was still pondering how to vote.)  I would of course
have won a 9-9 tie with Erlend, due to the selection order.

In hindsight, maybe I should have voted it down myself.  In a way,
this was Erlend's tournament.  Having topped the qualification with
two "Best Country" awards and gained a very good position on the
final board he deserved better.  I know Erlend well and he has nobler
instincts than most of us.  I guess he was satisfied with his achievement
and felt the outcome was not given.

I forgive him for "letting" me win  ;-)

Frank

GERMANY

Etter en ”urolig” natt for oss begge var vi omsider klar for finalen. I  NM-sammendraget 
lå jeg som nummer tre før finalespillet, mens Krogen lå som nummer fem. Det betydde at 
jeg kunne velge nasjon relativt tidlig, mens Krogen sannsynligvis ville velge som nummer fem.

Erlend Janbu lå som nummer 1 i sammendraget og alle visste at han ville velge nasjon først 
og trolig velge Frankrike. Det gjorde han også. Litt overraskende valgte nummer to i 
sammendraget, franske William Attia, å velge som nummer fire.

Jeg fikk velge som nummer to og valgte Tyskland. Simen Fure Jørgensen var tredjemann ut 
og valgte Russland. Attia valgte England. Krogen fikk velge som nummer fem og etter en 
ufattelig lang betenkningstid falt valget på Østerrike/Ungarn.

Yann Clouet valgte Tyrkia og Frank Johansen Italia.

For min det startet spillet bra. Jeg visste at jeg med stor sannsynlighet ville få Janbu 
med på en sealion og dette skjedde også. Jeg fikk også Russland til å gå mot Skandinavia 
med to styrker. Dette var viktig da vi ønsket å ta ut England raskest mulig. Jeg og 
Russland demilitariserte Bohemia, Prussia, Baltic Sea og Silesia noe som senere i spillet 
viste seg å være en liten tabbe. Jeg tok Holland og Danmark problemfritt og bouncet ikke 
Russland ut av Sverige.

Krogen startet friskt med Ø/U. Fikk Italia og Frank Johansen med på Orientekspressen 
samtidig som Italia kjørte i gang en Lepanto. Årets franske EM-mester Yann Clouet var 
mildt sagt på gyngende grunn. Krogen fikk Serbia og Hellas første året, mens Frank sto 
i Trieste.

I vest knirket sea-lion-åpningen litt i sammenføyningen. Attia tok Norge første året, 
fikk et bygg (flåte i London) og våket som en hauk over den engelske kanalen. De 
fransk-engelske duellantene klarte ikke å tilrive seg et avgjørende overtak i kampen om 
kanalen.. Samtidig kontrollerte Attia Nordsjøen og var fortsatt mektig nok til å kunne 
stå i mot det franske presset. I andre året tok Russland Norge og måtte rive armeen sin 
i Norge. Jeg forsøkte febrilsk å presse meg ut i Nordsjøen med min flåte i Helgoland 
uten å lykkes. Attia spilte selvfølgelig akkurat så godt som man kunne frykte og 
forsvarte seg tappert med sine tre gjenlevende styrker.

Nede på Balkan var det også tøffe tak...

Jeg hadde bestemt meg for å gjøre et dolkestøt mot Russland i samarbeid med Ø/U. 
Våren 1903 startet aksjonen med Russland etter at Krogen i Ø/U lenge hadde messet om at
 jeg måtte hjelpe han inn i Galicia. Det tyske korstoget med øst passet bra for Ø/U da 
han med min hjelp sikret seg Romania, men angrepet mot Russland var for tidlig for min 
egen del. Russeren følte seg med rette forrådt da jeg brøytet meg inn i demilitariserte 
Silesia og ble ekstra årvåken mot meg i Tyskland. I vest misforstod jeg og Janbu 
hverandre, noe som betydde at vi først klarte å redusere England ned til en styrke etter 
høsten 1905. Det fransk/engelske angrepet hadde kostet for mye for min egen del da 
Russland hadde tatt Danmark og Kiel fra meg, mens jeg kun hadde klart å erobre London. 
Jeg var nede i fire styrker og i alvorlig trøbbel. Jeg spilte imidlertid bra på 
defensiven og klarte å holde Berlin med støtte fra Ø/U, jeg klarte på et snedig vis å 
vinne Danmark tilbake og hive Russland ut av Kiel med støtte fra en fransk arme i Holland.

Nede på Balkan gikk Ø/I-alliansen på skinner. Romania var erobret fra Russland og Tyrkia 
var nede i ett senter. Frank Johansen hadde vist seg å være en god partner for Krogen, 
men så skjedde det som alltid skjer når Frank og Krogen samarbeider. Frank stabber godt 
og grundig. Frank tok  Hellas og Bulgaria, mens Clouet fikk parkere sin siste styrke i 
Romania. Dermed var Østerrike nede i 5 styrker med små muligheter for å overleve. Frank 
benyttet nøyaktig rett tidspunkt for å stabbe, mens Krogen overså sitt .

Etter høsten 1906 stemte alle finalistene for en draw. De franske spillerne syntes dette 
var helt greit da de fikk overleve med en styrke hver. Russland var på defensiven i Tyskland 
og stemte også for en draw. Krogen stemte for en draw da dette sikret han 3 plassen. Jeg 
stemte for en draw da jeg hadde små muligheter til å vokse. Jeg avsluttet på 5 senter og 
dette sikret meg delt 4 plass med Russland som antakeligvis ikke var spesielt fornøyd med 
situasjonen. For Simen Fure Jørgensen tror jeg ikke det var lett å bli klok på det som 
skjedde på brettet. I hvert fall må han ha vært forvirret over mitt spill da jeg brøt en 
avtale med ham i Silesia uten at jeg tilsynelatende kunne tjene noe på det.

Også Erlend Janbu stemte for en draw. Litt merkelig kanskje, men det hadde sine grunner. 
Erlend kunne antakeligvis lett ha vunnet med Frankrike om han hadde fortsatt spillet. Men 
for Erlend er ikke det viktigste i livet å bli norgesmester i Diplomacy. Han ønsket 
derimot i finalen å spille i en allianse som kunne vare spillet ut. Dette synes jeg er å 
vise et utrolig storsinn da dette tross alt handlet om NM-tittelen. For min egen del var 
Erlend Janbu den perfekte nabo og alliansepartner i dette spillet.

Krogen fikk den tyngre mellom Frank Johansen, Yann Clouet og Simen Fure Jørgensen.

-Skrubb [Red: Mikal Lanes]