GM : Ally Bain
Starting date : 10th February 2009
End date : 21st May 2010
Result : Italian solo

AUSTRIA	Rohan Nijhawan	Eliminated
ENGLAND	Meru Bhanot	Survived
FRANCE	Ian Pringle	Survived
GERMANY	Jack Noutch	Anarchy
ITALY	Don Griffin	Won
RUSSIA	Martin Gladders	Survived
TURKEY	Derek Pardes	Anarchy

GM : Ally Bain
I think all know a single Anarchy is a pain-in-the-bum but two!!!

All said & done, a game isn't over until something happens & well done Don for winning. Together with that, thanks for the players that continued to play.

See you on the boards.

Ally

ITALY : Don Griffin
First, I would like to thank Ally for running the game and Ian, Meru, Martin, and Rohan for sticking with the game. Lyretail Killie suffered two anarchies, which really took the fun out of the game. Hence, I do not have a lot to write in this EGS.

This was the second game in a row that I played Italy, and I tried not to open as I did in Pendulum, but for me, Italy has only one realistic course of action to open the game. So, my strategic goals for the start ended up being the same as in Pendulum. I wanted to gain control of the Ionian and stop Turkey from moving fleets westward, and I wanted to try to maintain a balance of power in the Balkans. However, very early, it was apparent that Rohan (A) and Derek (T) had caught Martin (R) off-guard. With an early demise of Russia a distinct possibility that I could not afford, I did the one thing that I think Italy should never do at the beginning of the game. I attacked Austria. I only hoped to draw pressure off Martin (R) in order to give him time to re-establish a defensible position. I knew that this would bring both Austria and Turkey back at me, but I thought it was worth it to give Martin (R) a chance to recover and maintain a two-front pressure on Rohan (A) and Derek (T).

I was on the ropes, with A/T pushing a fleet into the Ionian when in answer to my desperate pleas, Jack (G) descended on Rohan (A) from the north, and Derek (T) went into anarchy. Even though this anarchy was a tremendous help to me, I think it diminished the quality of the game a great deal. With Turkey gone, I was free to push back at the now isolated Rohan (A), and in conjunction with Jack (G), we dismantled Austria and sent Rohan (A) packing.

During this time, Jack (G) had opportunistically exploited situations in the south, north, and west to worry the rest of us that he would win the game. I needed him, though, to help against Rohan (A), and so I helped him to gain supply centers, while I planned with Martin (R) to pare Jack (G) down when the moment was right. That moment came just when Jack (G) unexpectedly went into anarchy. The second anarchy completely ruined the game in my mind. I have not written yet about Meru (E) and Ian (F), but due to the diminished role of Ian (F) in the game, Jack’s (G) anarchy left just three powers to race to take German supply centers. Because I was so put out by Jack’s (G) anarchy, I was ready and willing to move with Martin (R) for a two-way draw. But then Martin (R) missed a turn, and it became clear to me at that point that I was in a position that I could not be stopped from taking 18 supply centers, and so I dropped the idea of playing for a two-way draw and went on to win the game solo.

I have not written about Meru (E) and Ian (F), because my attention was focused for most of the game to the east. Additionally, I found it very hard to figure Meru (E) out. I do not think this was necessarily a problem with Meru (E), but it was more a problem that we analyzed the game in different ways. Anyway, Meru (E) and Jack (G) had Ian (F) on the ropes early (I was in on this too, by taking Marseilles). It was at this point that Ian essentially ceded control of his two units to me. He stayed in the game all the way to the end, but he allowed me to dictate our combined strategy to contain Meru (E) and force our way into Germany.

In summation, this game started out in a very interesting way for me, and I would have had a difficult (but not impossible) time maintaining any position in the game. Even though I would not have liked being eliminated or neutered, it would have been the first time that I would have a difficult start in a game. Derek’s (T) anarchy, while beneficial to me, changed the whole flavor of the game. Jack’s (G) anarchy eliminated any interest I had in the game. I do not mean anything against Jack (G) and Derek (T) personally, because I understand that Dip2000 is just a game and real-life priorities must take precedence. It is just that a Diplomacy game with one anarchy reduces the complexity and balance of the game. A second anarchy turns the game into a race to 18 rather than a hard fought battle. I won this game, and will add a solo to my record, but I cannot take any pride in the victory.

RUSSIA : Martin Gladders
If Diplomacy rewards communication, then this game went to form….

I received not one single word from Turkey and the grand total of two words from Austria. Why were they playing? Anyway, this wall of silence coupled with some poor tactical play by me (I still can't believe I handed over the Black Sea!) meant that after only a couple of years my game was headed for a very dull failure.

Germany (Jack) saved the day - both by a wave of upbeat communication and tactically by attacking (rather than joining - which was a rumoured fear) the AT Alliance. Although he took Warsaw from me, this was as far as he went and this gave me the chance to regroup my meagre forces as well as engage in some actual diplomacy!

Turkey's anarchy took the pressure off completely in the South and gave me some easy SCs for the first time. Jack expanded as he communicated, but then exploded into an unexplained anarchy!

Austria was too weak to stand alone (still no word in my direction!) and was eventually taken out. This left the four end game survivors. France (Ian) had sent a start game intro, but nothing more - true we had very little proximity on the board. Presumably he talked well enough to the others to survive through to the end.

England (Mehru) remains a mystery. We started off exchanging ideas and suggestions and then nothing. I heard a rumour that I had done or said something wrong, but despite my attempts at various points throughout to reconcile, there was nothing coming back. It was both this and at a crucial time his failure twice to distinguish between Liverpool and the Irish Sea in his orders that suggested his heart and mind were elsewhere and I concluded I would have had to fight against the Italian solo alone.

Then there was me. Not my best ever game - either tactically or in terms of communication - the game contained my first ever NMR! Perhaps at another time I would have liked to have fought on and try to disprove Don's claim of an "inevitable" Italian solo, but there were some extenuating circumstances in real life (I accept others may have had some too!). Despite this I am reasonably content with my efforts.

And so to Italy (Don) - the worthy winner. He played steadily and communicated well (at least with me). Thank you, Don, without you (and Jack's brief appearance!) the game would have been a complete dead loss! Till we meet again…..

Finally thanks to Ally. Wonderfully efficient despite some tricky real life times - hope things are going okay now! At least, if it appears in a quiz question, I'll know what a Lyretail Killie is!