|
TANAKA KHAN END-GAME STATEMENTS
GM:
Andy Scott [EGS]
Started: 3rd June, 2003
Finished: 6th January, 2004 (Spring 1908)
Result: 3 way draw (A/E/T)
| Country | Player | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | Result | | Austria | Mark Porter | 4 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 7 | 7 | 8 | drew | | England | Michael Jonson | 4 | 6 | 6 | 5 | 6 | 8 | 8 | drew | | France | Conrad Mcdonald | 5 | 4 | 5 | 5 | 3 | 1 | 1 | survived | | Germany | Keith Frank | 5 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 8 | 8 | survived | | Italy | Mark Oppenheimer | 4 | 5 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 0 | Eliminated (S08) | | Russia | Momchil Mitov | 4 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Eliminated (A04) | | Turkey | Peter Evans | 4 | 6 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 8 | 9 | drew |
ENGLAND (Michael Jonson) Foremost I would like to thank Andy Scott for a game well managed.
I would also like to thank the other players for an enjoyable game; and special thanks to His Majesty the Sultan of Turkey for his abundant and always enjoyable diplomacy - Peter you made this game fun. I hope you didn't mind my role playing.
In regard to the Kaiser I can only write he was a loyal ally and I was very surprised he mysteriously disappeared at a most inopportune time. I hope all is well.
Kind regards to one and all, until we meet at the negotiating table once again
… farewell.
INITIAL BRITISH FOREIGN POLICY
GERMANY: Initial British foreign policy sought a strong long term alliance with Germany in an attempt to contain the two powers I assessed were the greatest threat to Great Britain - France and Russia. Accordingly I immediately forwarded a detailed and equitable proposal of alliance to Berlin (The Anglo-Prussian Dual Alliance - S1901) and began the game determined to support Germany against French or Russian aggression. My long term plan was to remain allied with Germany and select a third partner in the south when we entered the second phase of the game (preferably Austria).
AUSTRIA: Fearing the collapse of Austria would lead to the collapse my key ally Germany and believing Austria would play the key role in containing Russia and Italy; British foreign policy was solidly pro-Austrian. I sought a strong long term diplomatic relationship with Vienna and initially pursued a mutual defense pact with Austria against Russia. However when Vienna was unresponsive to my mutual defense pact proposal I contented myself by working diplomatically to influence the alliance structure in the south to the benefit of Austria. My desire was to see either an Austro-Turk or an Austro-Italian alliance develop.
RUSSIA: Fear of Russian intervention of the side of France in the coming conflict in the West was a major concern. Initially I sought an understanding in regard to the dismemberment of the Scandinavian countries in hope that it would focus Russia's attention in the south. However based on the assertiveness of the Tsar's communications I became convinced early on that a two front war against both France and Russia was inevitable.
TURKEY: Besides the usual diplomatic introduction, I respectfully informed Istanbul from the start that Great Britain would oppose the Russo-Turk Juggernaut should it develop. I wanted to preempt the dreaded juggernaut before it had a chance to commence and I wanted to influence Turkish foreign policy in the interest of Austria and Great Britain at the expense of Russia.
ITALY: Besides initial diplomatic courtesies, I informed Rome of fears of the potential development of the infamous Russo-Turk Juggernaut. I informed Rome it was my position to oppose the Russo-Turk Juggernaut should it develop and I inquired of the Italian position. I wanted the Russo-Turk Juggernaut issue on the table early.
FRANCE: I assessed France as Great Britain's natural enemy and I knew from studying a prior End-Game-Statement that the player directing France would likely be hostile toward Great Britain. We exchanged courtesies but clandestinely worked against each others interests.
THE ANGLO-PRUSSIAN DUAL ALLIANCE
Early in spring 1901 the Kaiser accepted the British proposal of alliance and officially signed the Anglo-Prussian Dual Alliance.
The proposal was an offensive alliance against France which clearly outlined territorial objectives and armaments limitations. It also included a Mutual Defense Clause against Russia. Believing Russian intervention on the side of France would be of great concern to Berlin I wanted to assure the Kaiser that Great Britain was committed fully to Germany even in the event of a two front war against both France and Russia.
The agreement further included a clause that made it null and void in the event of German aggression against Austria. This was a British escape clause. I desired German-Austrian cooperation, not conflict.
THE FRANCO-PRUSSIAN WAR
Anglo-German hostilities against France began immediately in spring 1901. The tactical plan was to put constant pressure on France and minimize French builds as much as possible. Unfortunately the French Emperor was not deceived and was well prepared for the Anglo-German assault. Neither Burgundy nor the English Channel was taken until autumn 1901.
THE PORTE
The close working long-term relationship I originally envisioned with Vienna never fully developed. Instead I found myself in strong collaboration with the Sultan of Turkey. This relationship quickly developed into a mutually beneficial partnership in which we coordinated our diplomatic efforts. Even though we were on opposite ends of the board we held similar concerns in regard Russian and Italian expansion.
Beyond a doubt most of my correspondence throughout the game was with Istanbul. We provided each other with information, reassurance, game analysis and council. Most importantly we solicited each others influence in Berlin and Vienna.
In my opinion this was the key relationship in the loose A-E-G-T alliance that would soon form.
THE WAR AGAINST RUSSIA
As previously stated, early on I became very concerned of Russian aggression against Germany and the impact it would have on our plans against France. Consequently British diplomats had been working in Vienna and Istanbul to the detriment of Russian interests since spring of 1901. As diplomacy progressed I began to realize that an Austro-Turk alliance against Russia was a distinct possibility. The Sultan was interested in the prospect and the Archduke had not ruled it out. Accordingly I began to discreetly nudge Vienna toward Istanbul.
I do not know if British diplomacy was ultimately a factor or not, but by late spring 1901 Austria and Turkey were in partnership and preparing plans for war with Imperial Russia.
Autumn 1901 revealed that the Sultan's forces had taken the Tsar by complete surprise.
Great Britain, Germany and Russia had an unofficial understanding that the Scandinavian countries would be evenly divided. However with the Austro-Turk armies poised to drive into the Russian heartland, I immediately recommended and the Kaiser agreed to deny the Tsar Sweden and thus hinder the Russian war machine.
Despite facing an all-out Austro-Turk invasion in the south, the Tsar inexplicably began an offensive against Germany in autumn 1901.
WAR WITH FRANCE
Even though I had been preparing for war against France since the start, I officially declared war on France in autumn 1902.
The most important event to note in the Anglo-German struggle against France was the failure of the German High Command to properly order a retreat in spring 1902. Such an oversight can easily be made by the best of tacticians Nevertheless this mistake would not only ensure a slow war of attrition with France, it would shift the balance of power to the Austro-Turk alliance in the southern theatre.
IMPERIAL RUSSIA COLLAPSES
By spring of 1902 the British 1st Army was in the Russian capitol of St. Petersburg, the Turkish 2nd Army had captured Sevastopol and was at the gates of Moscow and two Austrian Armies were laying siege to Warsaw.
Shortly thereafter, by spring 1903, the Imperial Government of Russia had collapsed, the Sultan's banner flew over the Kremlin and the former territories of the once mighty Russian Empire were completely occupied.
I was amazed and Europe was stunned at the swiftness of the Russian collapse The rapid pace of the Austro-Turk advance was breathtaking. The advance moved so quickly I joked with the Sultan that I feared his Armies would outrun their supply lines.
THE SILESIAN CRISIS
The rapid collapse of Russia would further tilt the balance of power to the advantage of the Austro-Turk alliance in the southern theatre. This led to what I consider to be the key event in the game.
In spring of 1904, without warning, Austrian forces occupied German Silesia. This led to a flurry of diplomatic activity abroad.
VIENNA: I informed the Archduke that an Austrian attack on Germany would be detrimental to British interests and that if such an attack took place Great Britain would be forced to reassess her foreign policy.
ISTANBUL: I requested the Sultan diplomatically intervene in Vienna to avert an Austro-Prussian War. Further I began to pressure Istanbul to commit to intervening militarily on the side of Germany if war were to erupt. The Sultan seemed genuinely displeased with the Austrian seizure of Silesia, however he remained noncommittal. I am unsure to this day of what his course of action would have been had Austria launched an attack.
PARIS: I immediately communicated a willingness to negotiate peace with France. My only nonnegotiable term being that any peace must include Germany. This attempt at rapprochement with Paris was genuine. I would send three separate communiqué's to L'Emperuer, all of which went unanswered. I was convinced of Austria's hostile intent against Germany. Had L'Emperuer answered and opened negotiations, the game may have ended differently.
ROME: When I did not receive a reply from Paris I requested the Italian Premier intercede on my behalf with the French in an attempt to get negotiations moving. The Italians were more than willing to work with me in an attempt to form a new coalition; the Premier was under pressure from the Austro-Turk alliance and was in much need of assistance.
BERLIN: Strangely the Kaiser only communicated once this turn and did not comment in detail on the dire situation.
THE CONGRESS OF WARSAW
When diplomatic efforts at rapprochement with France failed I desperately attempted to reunite the loose Anglo-German/Austro-Turk coalition (against France and Italy). I proposed what I termed "The Congress of Warsaw." It was simply a proposed list of recognized territorial objectives for each of the members of the coalition. Within it I proposed Austria be granted Venice, Rome & Marseilles. Even though it would put the Austro-Turk Alliance beyond a key stalemate line I thought Marseilles would be incentive for the Archduke to accept the proposal. I also thought the French campaign was proceeding slower than anticipated and wanted added pressure on the French via Austria opening another front in northern Italy. I wanted to hasten the collapse of France and secure the Atlantic.
Fortunately all parties agreed to the proposal and the crisis was averted. From this point forward the game would proceed smoothly until the spring of 1906 when an emboldened Germany would challenge Austria's claim to Marseilles.
THE CASABLANCA SUMMIT
With a minor crisis brewing over Marseilles I opened discussions ("The Casablanca Summit') with the Sultan in autumn of 1906 to explore the possibility of reducing the four member coalition to three. I suggested that objectively Austria would be the most likely candidate for dismemberment. However the Sultan proved loyal to Vienna and countered that the Kaiser's lack of communication made him the obvious choice.
I could not reasonable disagree with his assessment. My German ally had consistently communicated only once or twice a turn and to my knowledge had seldom communicated with any other power. This had been a constant source of frustration for me throughout the game, yet the Kaiser had communicated tactics at least once a turn and always came through with his moves.
Discussions continued into spring of 1907 when the Austrian Archduke began as an attendee at the summit. The three of us discussed the potential dismemberment of the German Empire and reached preliminary agreement on the territorial objectives. All that remained was my final approval.
In the final analysis and after much contemplation I decided against betrayal. The years I spent with the Kaiser in the trenches of France proved too difficult to overcome. Even though the knife had been drawn from its sheath and the deed would have been easily accomplished, I was unable to strike the blow.
Modestly I informed Vienna and Istanbul of my decision and ordered the Royal Navy in support of the German occupation of Marseilles (a decision I would reverse after the Kaiser's NMR).
Ironically the Kaiser followed this by failing to issue orders and then by descending into anarchy.
SUMMARY
England begins the game situated between two powerful neighbors - France and Russia. Her natural ally is Germany; the one power who shares her predicament. Unfortunately even a solid Anglo-German alliance is still at a considerable disadvantage relative to France and Russia assuming the natural Franco-Italian Nonaggression Pact. It could even be argued that the Anglo-German Alliance is the weakest theatre alliance on the board.
Therefore it is my opinion that in order for the Anglo-German Alliance to be successful it must coordinate tactically at a very high level and must avoid ANY tactical mistakes. Further the alliance must work diplomatically to influence the alliance structure in the south to its advantage. There are powers in the south that can benefit from an Anglo-German Alliance in the north.
Finally, I was very pleased that we (Austria/Britain/Germany/Turkey) were able to accomplish the orderly, swift and unusual multi-power dismemberment of the Diplomacy board powerhouse - Russia.
Return to Top
TURKEY (Peter Evans) Well, what looked like an oncoming disaster in Spring 01, turned into a very pleasing finish - for me at least!
I was hoping at the start to play an AT vs R, followed by an IT vs A. And was only toooo delighted when Mark/Italy, without any prompting, came to me with that exact suggestion. However, it also came with a warning that he would oppose an RT vs A. Alas, Mark/Austria at this point, while being friendly, temporised and remained non-committal. With some concern for my safety, I decided to enter an alliance with Momchil/Russia. Further problems developed, in that it became apparent that Keith/Germany would probably hold Russia out of Sweden in the autumn, and Michael/England appeared to harbour definite designs on Russia. In other words, the likely scenario was I would be able to go nowhere against AI, while having to watch my ally gradually collapse from the North.
I worked double time on Mark/Austria, and, saints be praised, he agreed to an anti-Russian alliance at the last moment. So the game started off with my stabbing an ally (Sorry Momchil!), and with AEG joining in, unsurprisingly Momchil/Russia was unable to withstand the blows for any length of time.
During this Russia attack period, I found it extremely easy to work with and communicate with Mark/Austria. I was very impressed with his friendly communications & nuances in the play that he picked up on but I missed. I also found that I could work and communicate well with Michael/England (who appears to have an encyclopaedic knowledge of 19th century military matters). He also played his part to the hilt, and I must confess my abysmal ignorance here in that I thought he was British until 1907 when he disclosed his treaty with Germany and used a tell tale “defenSe” and I realised that the time of his emails put him most probably in the US! Comes from living in Australia I guess, geographically placed, as one of our illustrious ex-Prime Ministers once put it, “at the arse end of the world”.
These 2 relationships really sealed the game from this point onwards. During the Russian attack, Mark/Italy didn’t respond to me for 2 seasons. While this probably wasn’t a deliberate slight, it made me very uneasy. Also, looking at past games, I realised that Mark/Austria was much less prone to engaging in stabs. After a little bit of dithering, as AT is an awkward looking alliance, I decided that running with Mark/Austria was clearly the preferable option. Hence, I led Mark/Italy up the garden path and stabbed him (sorry!) while keeping a steady flow of emails to Mark/Austria expressing concerns about what Italy was up to, to prevent AI from getting anything together.
Saints again be praised, and Mark/Austria again came my way. The next period of the AT vs I was marked by my overly cautious play against Italy – though all due credit to Mark/Italy for fighting hard to the bitter end. On several occasions, I vetoed Mark/Austria’s suggestions that had risks attached to them, but would have worked out well in practice.
This slowness was a critical blow to my chances of forging ahead post Italy, and also wasn’t helped by an NMR from France. I knew when I sided with Austria vs Italy that I would probably reach the uncomfortable situation that to progress, I’d have to hit either England or Austria, both of whom I had been getting on with well. Frankly, I kept my options open during this time of whom I would side with at the end. However, I found it difficult to communicate with Keith/Germany, and was very probably going to stick to Mark/Austria, particularly if AT were in a position to jump EG.
In the final wash up though, AT arrived late from the Italian fight, and if EG had been minded and coordinating well, they definitely could have pushed me back and got an advantage. However, unbeknownst to me, Keith/Germany hadn’t been speaking to Michael/England for 2 turns and capped it off with an NMR. Hence, AET agreed to clobber G and that’s where we finished. It also let me off the hook as to deciding between E and A, and I’m not unhappy about this! I strongly suspect though that Michael/England, being a very honest individual, would not have taken advantage of AT’s late arrival and attacked me.
The final position gives no one any serious chance of a solo:
(1) England has Turkey stalemated at the Atlantic turn and StP,
(2) Turkey is uncomfortably sitting over 3 Austrian sources, and
(3) Austria and Turkey have a clear stalemate on England over 17 sources.
Thank you to everyone and GM Andy for making the game so pleasant and enjoyable, and particularly to Mark/Austria and Michael/England with whom I greatly enjoyed working.
Return to Top
GM (Andy Scott) Well here I am finally writing my EGS for Game Tanka Khan, and to be honest I thought it was quite enjoyable if over a little quickly.
Don't get me wrong I think the EGP is fair given the situation but I got the distinct impression some people weren't trying and I'm afraid that showed towards the end. Unfortunatly I think it's also reflected by the fact that there are only two EGS submitted and that none of the remaining five could even be bothered to tell me they wouldn't be sending an EGS!
But I will resist the temptaion to lambast those of you who did not write EGS but instead I will simply say well done to Mark,, Michael and Peter for their three way draw. And also a particular thank you to Michael and Peter for some entertaining press and writing an EGS!
If you now decide you do want to write one then send it to me and I'll put it up here alongside the others.
AndyReturn to Top
|