From: "Eric G. Scharf" Subject: PBJ-6: End of Game Statement - Italy PBJ-6: ITALY End of Game Statement --------------------- PBJ-6 was my first PBEM Pax Britannica game. I had played two other FTF games of Pax, both with newbies like myself (but otherwise experienced gamers). I decided to try to play Italy, because I thought it wouldn't be as challenging as the larger powers and I wouldn't be too disappointed if I showed poorly. My view of Italy as an undesirable power was supported by the fact that I was given Italy even though I was the last player to sign on. 1880 As is often the case, Random Events were significant in shaping the course of the game. On the first turn, Germany received Colonial Agitation *and* Navy League Agitation, quadrupling his already maximum Colonial Office funds. For those powers that start without any established Control Markers, I was a big believer in placing only Interests/Influences on the first turn, so as to keep that $30 Colonial Office. This policy, of course, is not absolute, and if passing on Control Markers in 1880 will shut one out of key Areas, then the Control Marker should be placed. Italy, however, rarely aspires to Controlling Areas with an EV higher than 5, and Italy has the Merchant Fleets to reach those nooks and crannies of Africa that Britain, France, and Germany pass over. Unfortunately, Germany was stinking rich in 1880, and many of those mid-level Areas got snatched up. My goal was to secure from Britain, France, and Germany the right to place a Control Marker in Tunis *without having to place it in 1880*. I could then drop cost-efficient Interest Markers in the Med, get my $30 in 1884 and *then* place in Tunis. At first, I received only pleasantries from those powers who did communicate with me, but nothing tangible. My first treaty was a secret offensive treaty against the Ottomans, signed by Russia. It was written with the loosest possible terms, so as to prevent me from being dragged into war, but also giving both Russia and I the option of not extending the CB to the other. At the time, I fully expected not to ever want to extend a CB to Russia, as I had been hoping to become Britain's little brother. The treaty against the Ottomans was just keeping options open. Eventually, I heard from France, who wanted me to keep out of Marocco in return for him keeping out of Tunis. This was fine with me, and we signed a treaty. I tried a similar tact with Britain, promising not to interfere with his Egyptian ambitions in return for his recognition of my rights to Tunis. Britain curtly refused to consider this. Finally, I got hold of Germany, who had been busy writing conditional orders for all his money. Tunis was one of his backup Areas, in case he couldn't get into someplace else. He agreed that if his conditional orders "forced" him to put a Control Marker in Tunis, he'd agree to CoD with me. I haggled for and received the $15 needed to upgrade the Interest to a Protectorate (I didn't tell Germany that I wasn't planning on placing a Control Marker if he didn't place one either). It was at this time that Germany told me that he had "learned not to let Italy get away with too much." This was the first of many signs I was to receive that my perception of Italy as a harmless, marginal power was not shared by other players. Germany also offered (and I accepted) a mutual defense treaty, which always gives a warm and fuzzy feeling (I was sure to exclude Austria-Hungary). The results came out, and there were no conflicts. NONE. Germany spent $80 on Status Markers and didn't conflict with *anyone*. I smelled a conspiracy. Luckily, Germany didn't "have" to go to Tunis, so it remained open for me in 1884. Japan and Russia announced a treaty which declared their future intention to make a CoD out of Korea, but neither placed a Control Marker in 1880. Britain dropped a Protectorate and made a Dominion out of Australia and moved all available Naval Units to his forward base. Ominously, France did about the same as I; placed Influences and brought his excess military home. 1884 A bit of luck for me: Italian Irredentists doubled my $30 Colonial Office funds. The Boer War also gave Britain a chance to expand without conflicting with France or Germany. I was relatively rich this turn, and my "new" Merchant Fleet in the Indian Ocean opened up some opportunities, or rather it should have were it not for the Germans having beaten me to the east coast of Africa. Since Britain hadn't given me any reason to hope for an alliance, I thought that France might be amenable. I thought we might divide the Horn with me getting Eritrea and Berbera and France getting Somalia and Kenya. Unfortunately, in proposing such a treaty to France, I told him exactly where I was planning to expand. He rejected it, ominously informing me that he had "other assurances" regarding his claim to Kenya. I bought some Army Units for my planned Protectorates and 1F3 as the beginning of what I hoped would be a significant navy. I placed Protectorates in Tunis, Eritrea, and Berbera. The results were bit startling. France deliberately provoked me by placing Influences in Eritrea and Berbera. Germany and the US conflicted in the Bismarck Archipelago. Britain, not satisfied with reaping the harvest of an uncontested Boer War, dropped a Protectorate in Korea, which conflicted with Russia. Finally, France and Britian announced the Treaty of Wales, which in public amounted to a mutual defense treaty (the secret articles would come out later). I called France on the provocation; he replied that "many Powers are alarmed at Italy's success." This floored me. I assumed it was some sort of rhetorical stiff-arm; France and Britain openly ally, and people are supposed to be worried about *Italy?* I ran crying to Germany and Russia, but neither had the time of day for me; Germany was busy working out his deal with the US, and Russia was gearing up for a showdown with Britain over Korea. Since Spain had a CB with France over Marocco, France threatened to wed the Marocco issue with the Eritrea/Berbera issue in any CoE vote. Since our Marocco/Tunis treaty specified that I would vote with France on any CoE vote dealing with Marocco, France asserted that I would have to vote with him or break the treaty (this is amusing in light of France's future fidelity to *his* treaties). Because I was desperate to make friends with *anybody*, and since France was at least talking to me (even if I didn't like what he was saying at the moment), I decided to agree to France's terms: France got my Berbera Protectorate and I got to pay him $10 for the honor. To be honest, I would have settled for even worse terms. Germany and the US also settled their differences (on more equitable terms), and everyone turned to watch the Korean affair between Britain and Russia. Since I blamed part of the Berbera shame on the recklessness that the Treaty of Wales seemed to encourage in both Britain and France, I took it upon myself to do what I could to destroy the Treaty of Wales. When I asked him about it, France seemed mildly unsupportive of British actions in Korea. The Treaty of Vladivostok declared the intention for the Russo- Japanese CoD in Korea. No one (except Russia and Japan, of course) knew whether it contained a secret mutual defense article. Britain's Army Units were on the veldt, just having defeated the Boers. France had Army Units in his recent conquest of Indochina. Were Britain and Russia to go to war, Russia would be able to defend Korea with ease. If France joined Britain, however, things would not go as well for Russia. Since I was aware that a high ETI favored those powers with established empires, I suspected they might not mind an inconclusive but harmless war. What I needed was the threat of Japanese intervention. In light of France's and Japan's post-game comments, this was probably in vain, but I tried to convince France that Japan would enter the war on Russia's side. The CoE was held in Austria, and a narrow vote called for Britain to give his Protectorate to Japan. Britain defied the Congress. Russia declared war on Britain. In order for the Treaty of Wales to be broken, Britain had to ask for France to declare war, and France had to refuse to honor the treaty. I goaded Britain to ask for French help ("If he's never going to help you, it's better to find out now."). France had placed a treaty on the table, giving the British Protectorate to Japan but having Japan and Russia each pay Britain $5. The War started, and immediately ended with Russia, Japan, and Britain all agreeing to France's treaty. I had been working on Russia to refuse the Treaty, but he gave in (up till this point, Russia had been wonderfully stubborn). Britain issued a broadcast about unreasonable expectations (!), and the Treaty of Wales remained intact. 1888 The Random Events were provocative, but not as much as the orders turned out to be. Serbian defied Austria, the French were agitated with the Germans, and there was Unrest in Indochina and Soudan. The latter Unrest seems quaint in retrospect. My Colonial Office rolled a 1, and with my large overseas contingent combined with my "reparations" to France, I was hurting for cash. Conceitedly, I thought France might try to trip me up again this turn. I wanted one more Protectorate, after which I would have to wait for either an Ottoman War or treaty wrangling for further expansion. Of the Areas within reach of my Merchant Fleets, there were three unclaimed with an EV of 4 (higher EVs were long gone): Somalia, Ashantee, and Togoland. Somalia was obviously attractive, as it was on the Indian Ocean (as opposed to the more precarious South Atlantic) and it bordered Berbera, object of my revanchist dreams. For almost the same reasons, I expected France to expand there. So I wrote conditional orders to place a protectorate in one of the three Areas, aborting in the event of Control/ Influence Markers being placed by any other Power. Somalia was first preference, then Ashantee, then Togoland. If all three Areas were contested, I would build 2F3 (that would teach 'em!). The results were long delayed, and I dreaded that France would issue the conditional order: "If Italy attempts to establish a Control Marker in an Area within reach of my Merchant Fleets, place an Influence in that Area." Germany took three more Protectorates, including Ashantee, and helped Austria supress the Serbs (Russia helpfully waived his CB, for what price (if any), I don't know). The US built his canal in Panama. Japan added to his already large navy, pulled his Merchant Fleet out of the North China Sea (cutting Comm Link to his Korea *and* Formosa Protectorates), put an Influence in New Guinea, and moved the bulk of his army and Navy to Formosa. Russia put a Protectorate in Turcomania and sat on the rest of his money ($38). Britain must have resolved never to be caught short again; he spent most of his money constructing 45 pts of Naval Units and sent them to Australia, along with most of his available Army Units. And France...left me alone. He had to build up his military (which he did; 24 pts of Naval Units, 6 pts Army Units), and he promoted Kenya and Nigeria to Protectorates. Both Britain and France put Protectorates in Soudan; apparently a secret part of the Treaty of Wales gave Britain to claim an unspecified Area with an EV no greater than 3, and Britain had done so in Soudan. At the time of this revelation, it was unclear whether Britain's claim to Soudan was after the fact (implying British provocation) or before the fact (implying French provocation). In light of France's post-game comments, it seems that France deliberately broke the treaty. While France and Britain went through public recriminations, I expanded upon my the rapport I had built with Japan during the Korean crisis. The severity of the Japanese orders hadn't yet been apparent to me: by dropping his Comm Link to his two big Protectorates, Japan had forfeited most of his Income for the next turn. By stationing most of his Military Units in Formosa, Japan incurred a huge cost for 1892, which he would be unable to pay. Fixated as I was on France, I didn't grasp this, but when I did, I asked Japan what he was thinking when he did this. He replied that he had written conditional orders to place an Influence in Hawaii if the US tried to place a Protectorate; had the US cooperated with this plan, Japan would declare War on the US and take the US Areas in Papua and Bismarck Archipelago (hence the New Guinea Influence, for coaling rights in Oceania). Since the US decided to build the canal instead, Japan was SOL and would lose most of his military units. To this day, I find such a stupendous gamble boggling. During these discussions, Japan observed that Britain would likely take all of France's empire in the ensuing war over Soudan. While France would have surely deserved such a defeat, it wasn't clear to me that Britain deserved such a victory. If Japan and I joined on France's side, we would gain the Japanese fleet (in its strategically forward position) and no other European Power (read: Germany) could ally with Britain without igniting the Great War. I stated my minimum conditions for this enterprise: a Franco-Italian CoD in Egypt and the return of Berbera (huzzah!). At the time, I was expecting a limited war, wherein we would defeat (*not* eliminate) the Royal Navy and then take a few Areas (perhaps nothing more than Egypt). As I saw it, France would gain by not being stripped of his entire empire, Japan would gain by reducing the Royal Navy threat and being able to bring his costly military units home. Balanced against these, Berbera and an Egyptian CoD were neither too exorbitant nor too timid demands. The utter defeat of the British Empire was unthinkable, but not so the assimilation of the French Empire. Given the likely outcomes at the time, throwing in with France and Japan seemed the wiser course. Germany temporarily lost internet access about this time, and it was important that he know that I was planning to enter the war; simultaneous Declarations of War are scary. It turns out that even when I, and then Japan entered the War, neither Germany nor Russia thought the war would last very long; we're talking about *Britain* here, with some 80 pts of Naval Units. Eventually, Germany came back to us, and we avoided the Great War. THE SOUDAN WAR Britain's one military disadvantage was that his fleet was divided; the majority was in Australia, but the Home Fleet (3F10) was still at home. Our goal was to seize Egypt and the Suez Canal, preventing Britain from uniting his fleets. Britain moved his whole Australia garrison (Navy and Army) into the Indian Ocean to reinforce Egypt; Japan didn't declare war until after the British movement. Britain also didn't sortie his Home Fleet, so my Army Units could cross the Med uncontested. When Japan declared War and moved his fleet into the South China Sea and sent his Army Units unescorted into the North Pacific, Britain convinced the US to join in, and the US promptly captured the Japanese Army. Britain returned his Army Units to Australia and sent his Navy to attack the Japanese Navy in the S. China Sea. Here we got our first big break; Britain outnumbered Japan, and we would have been happy to achieve an Exchange, but we got a Defender Retreat, allowing the Japanese navy to "retreat" into the Indian Ocean. On the following round I took Egypt and the Japanese navy broke off F1s to blockade the Indian ports. We won the next initiative and half the Franco-Italian fleet was able to join the Japanese Navy in the Indian Ocean. Now we got our second big break. Britain diluted his SCS force by breaking off the small units to attack Franco-Japanese Areas, and he helpfully brought his Home Fleet within range of our Med fleet by sortieing into the North Atlantic. Our Med fleet and Indian fleet were each slightly larger than their British counterparts in the North Atlantic and SCS. Even if we achieved a full Exchange, we'd consider it a victory, since our goal was not taking British Areas but removing British war-making capacity. We attacked both British fleets and in both cases achieved the best possible result: 1/2 Exchange. The Royal Navy was reduced to 10pts of units in Areas adjacent to the South China Sea. This was when I expected Britain to start negotiating. After all, there *were* three of us, and fear of getting the short end of any territorial division could have effectively stopped our alliance. Due to our blockades of India and Cape Horn, we could (and did) isolate and capture *huge* numbers of British Army Units. Treaty offers were sent to Britain, both publically and privately, and were met with no response. Britain and the US had decided to prolong the war until the ETI hit 100 and kicked off the Great War. The remainder of the war consisted of Franco-Japanese units capturing India, recovering their South China Sea Areas, and hunting the US "fleet" (1F10, 1F3). My 1F3 interdicted the North Atlantic and my 2A3 held Egypt. When we decided not to take Fiji and New Zealand, the three-round count for a stalemate started. We screwed up and let a British 1A1 land in Guiana and interrupt the count, but when we caught the US Fleet in Oceania again (and Exchanged with it), the Anglo-Americans lost their last Naval Unit and the count proceeded uninterrupted, ending the war with an ETI of 98. In dividing the British Areas under our control, I wanted to arrive at a distribution that would put the three allies' Victory Points as close as possible assuming the game ended immediately after the conclusion of the war (which it did). France and Japan seemed oddly uninspired in contributing to this endeavor (the revelation of Japan's agreement to "entrust" France with his spoils (somewhat) clarifies this). In particular, Japan seemed opposed to "taking the past into account;" I had been calculating Total Victory Points, which necessarily included territory acquired on previous turns and (in France's case) original starting Areas. I found this objection of Japan's odd, because since he had so little territory compared to France and Italy, he would necessarily have done better by any spoils division that took this disparity into account. It was at this point that I finally realized (with the benefit of hindsight (and some ghastly British strategy)) that I probably shouldn't have joined the war; Tunis rebelled when I removed its garrison for the Egyptian attack, and even without Tunis I had more VP than either France or Japan at the start of the war. I had no reason to believe that the war would result in either the complete dissolution of the British Empire or the ETI being so close to 100 (and, barring totally pathological play, I have no reason to expect it again (see general comments below)). After five tries, I came up with a proposal which would put the Total VP at France 138, Italy 136, Japan 133. All allies signed. Japan gave his Indian Ocean spoils to France; the precise details of the treaty weren't made public. 1892 Random Events came up with three Unrests and Serbia Defies Austria, which pushed the ETI over 100 and ended the game (if "French Anti-German Agitation" came up, France would have taken the War Guilt, which would have been delicious). Finishing Positions (everyone took -60 Great War Penalty): 1. France 111 2. Italy 76 3. Russia 43 4. Germany 41 5. USA 4 6. Japan -58 7. Britain -67 I would like to thank all players; as an old PBEM Diplomacy hand, it's nice to see players respecting deadlines for a change. I also want to give many thanks to Jeff Janoska, whose job as GM was both taxing and (apparently) academically perilous. Jeff answered all my questions, even the ones that were spelled out in the Rules, the House Rules, or the Errata. GENERAL COMMENTS ON PBEM PAX BRITANNICA In his post-game comments, France made the following statments: > All the credit for France's victory belongs to [Japan]. This isn't just > a magnaminous statement on my part. The entire concept of a global war > against Britain was [Japan]'s idea - an idea based on Jeff compiled > statistics that demonstrated that France and Japan have almost no chance > of winning. To which Japan added: > I think France, Japan and Germany have next to no chance of winning > barring some major event. I don't wish to sound harsh, but I find these comments appalling. I've looked at these compiled statistics, and there's simply not enough games on record to draw such drastic conclusions. Of course, if one convinces oneself that "I can't win this game without a major screwup," one probably won't be disappointed. If there's a lesson in PBJ-6 (and probably in many other Pax games), it's that personalities matter a great deal. The balances are, as they were historically, finely tuned and easily upset. If all players aren't using foresight and keeping each other in check, someone can get loose and win, EVEN FRANCE, GERMANY, OR JAPAN. I don't want to say the statistics are totally useless. The fact that the average game ends in 1893 and the longest game ended in 1904 should tell us something. That something is that we probably don't know how to play this game. Mike Hayman recently wrote: > What better way to educate the newbies and keep the hobby from denigrating > to a motley illiterate bunch of DOOM players sucking on silicon teats than > showing the potential players how DAMN EXCITING this game really can be on > this forum. Mike's hyperbole is clearly excessive, but I *do* think there is a dimension to Pax Britannica that is unaddressed by the play that I've seen, and that is patience. The game can go to 1916, and it is in no way impossible for each power to have a chance to win in such a game. Deliberately starting the Great War is reasonable in 1908, but in 1888? This is comparable to a soccer game where the players engage in flagrant fouling after 15 minutes of play. As might be apparent, I heartily endorse the variant Great War rules which make the Great War a variable event, less susceptible to crass manipulation. I think Pax Britannica is a great game, but it is exceedingly complex and no light undertaking. I concur with Mr. Hayman that we all could benefit from some education into the subtleties of the game, and I hope that this End of Game Statement is a step in that direction. -- Eric G. Scharf escharf@seattleu.edu http://www.seattleu.edu/~escharf/ "Give me where to sit, and I'll watch." -- friend of Archimedes