Spring 1903: The Thin Red Line

[Zvi Mowshowitz]

England: England got France to go south and east, but may soon wish he'd trusted France with the English Channel as that could have secured Belgium, while London is covered anyway. Clearly England/France has formed from the moves, but it's not clear whether they can win against Germany without help; in fact if they have to coordinate and Germany's flank were permanently secure Germany would eventually win this fight more often than not. The good news is that eventually is a long time, the tactics are not clear cut and eventually whoever wins the south is going to come looking for a fight and Germany is a lot easier to attack than England/France. This turn, the North Sea or potentially English Channel are vulnerable but not any supply centers, with only Belgium looking like a realistic gain. Trying to convoy onto the continent is very risky since the fleet can be dislodged by Sweden-Norway and Belgium-North Sea with Denmark's support, and there's nowhere for it to go since Sweden should go to Norway. This really is a position with no good answers. It might well be best to try to go the Ska, but that looks pretty dumb if Germany doesn't make that play. He can also go Norway to Sweden, and should do so to block obscure German moves.

France: In the south there's a wine-in-front-of-me situation as Italy has to choose whether to block Tunis. If Italy blocks, going into Tyrrenian Sea instead is a big win, but getting Tunis is a much bigger win, and if Italy goes down to two centers (Venice can't be held if France/Austria want it to fall) he is probably forced to disband his only fleet and let France keep Tunis. Italy thus must cover most of the time in order to make France indifferent, and thus most Italian players cover but an argument can be made that going for Tunis is right anyway. The real question is what France wants out of the south. It's possible all he wants is a center so he can have two fleets and cripple Italy, it's possible he wants to flank into Tyrolia, it's possible he wants something more. It's also an interesting dynamic that he's helping a country that is in deep, deep trouble against a triple alliance that would be very helpful once Austria has collapsed. The danger of intervention is he may transform a 5-on-2 effective situation into a 4-on-3 against Germany and the triple, with the good outcome being that either Turkey switches sides to Austria or Turkey/Russia join him against Italy/Germany after Austria falls. The reason I dislike the play is that I think the value of the fleet in the English Channel would have been very high; even if Belgium is won this turn the result could be German fleets in English Channel and North Sea.

Germany: France sent a fleet south but if he gets Tunis it might regenerate in Brest. It also might not. In the meantime, the game becomes tactical. Germany has no allies, but he also has seven centers, Russia pointed elsewhere despite Sweden and disorganized opponents. There's actually a 'right' answer: Sweden to Norway, Demark to Ska, Kiel to Denmark, Holland and Ruhr support Belgium. Unless England explicitly blocks it, this causes Norway and the North Sea to fall in 1904. England can block it if he knows it is coming, so one possibility is Sweden-Finland, Denmark-Sweden, Kiel-Denmark, but England can and should block into Sweden either way. In an advanced game progress here is slow. However, it's also inevitable. France is messing around in the south, which might result in builds or flanking, or it might piss the survivors off. Either way, the base assumption is that Russia will eventually come looking for revenge, so securing the position quickly is important.

Austria: The board says he's facing a triple alliance of Italy/Russia/Turkey, and Austria flat out can't beat that in the early game. The question is how coordinated and trusting the allies are. If they work together and stay united, Austria has no hope even with tactical brilliance and France's intervention. Italy is weak, but Russia has already got Bohemia and Galicia and an army into Romania. Austria's choice to let go of Venice was interesting and potentially makes Greece defendable unless Italy is willing to not cover Tunis and also not cover Tyrrenian Sea, but requires France to follow through and two units on top of that to reclaim the territory, which in turn means he can't save Vienna. Meanwhile Greece might be doomed and potential attacks exist against Budapest and Serbia on top of the Vienna/Venice dilemma. Austria hopes to come out of this with five or in theory six centers but realistically is looking at four. France can't bring another unit to bear until at least Fall 1904, so even holding five leaves him outnumbered and if he's down to four the end is near. As was the case last turn, Austria's only way to survive is to break (as opposed to prevent the formation of) the alliance. Russia could switch sides, but there isn't much in it for him. Italy could switch sides, but Venice is the minimum price of peace, plus France is unlikely to go home on his own and would then be welcomed by Russia/Turkey so that doesn't actually change things much. That leaves Turkey. I won't say more here because I am playing Turkey, other than to say that a deal still works tactically if the players trust each other but would have been better last turn.

Italy: Austria let him back into Venice, which wasn't expected, but brought in France which wasn't expected either. The other good news is that Turkey seems to be on board, although not supporting the attack on Greece will delay things quite a bit given Austria's unit would have been destroyed, giving the alliance even more of the numbers. Italy now has to decide whether to guard Tunis, guard Tyrrenian Sea or attack Greece while his other units hang on for dear life. As noted above, the most common play is to guard but obviously any equilibrium where Italy always or almost always guards is unstable. One wacky option is to move Venice to Tyrolia on the theory that it could cut a support and secure Vienna for Russia, and Austria will either attack with at least two supports or none, and if Russia moves Romania to Budapest it's impossible for Tyrolia to be open. Players aren't usually that wacky, but it could happen.

Russia: Germany didn't attack, Turkey seems to now be on the same side after and the anti-Austria plan is working well. Being in Vienna would be awesome, but being in Bohemia and Romania isn't bad. There are a number of possible moves from here to try and cut Austria as deep, as quickly and as reliably as possible but I can't talk about them given who I am and what I know without giving things away beyond what I said for Austria.

Turkey: Turkey's attack on Greece failed, so although there's no danger in the short term (Bulgaria could in theory fall if Russia switched sides, but that seems unlikely) no progress has been made. Austria's stab of Italy saved Turkey from an early demise, but if Turkey doesn't grow then the game will pass him by. He can try to grow with the alliance or could still switch to Austria's side, but the same question comes up that came up with Austria: If the deal didn't happen before, why should it happen now? Tactically I don't feel I can comment in a way that is fair to all parties, so I won't do so here. I'll discuss it in retrospect once it's no longer relevant.

Overall, it looks like England/France against Germany in an essentially fair fight, France/Austria in the south against Italy and Italy/Russia/Turkey against Austria, with Austria's tactical situation looking ugly, but as usual all things are fluid, although in the north no one's in a good position to change sides in the short term so England/France is all but certain to last another turn.