Originally I have started writing a diary after each turn, but very soon my computer broke down and I lost access to my disk. The diary was discontinued and I have not started a new one. Therefore all what is included here is reconstructed from my memories, archived maps and my e-mail correspondence. I have tried to prevent hindsight bias as much as I could.

The other original intention which I am forced to give up was to publish all diplomatic correspondence. I have expected perhaps ten or fifteen letters exchanged with every player during the whole game, as this was my experience when playing on webdiplomacy.net. But when I am writing these lines (spring 1910) my LW Diplomacy folder includes about five hundred e-mails. Nobody would read that if published.

As I have written, I have already played few Diplomacy games on webdiplomacy.net, being inspired to that by reading some LessWrong post which mentioned the game. That was all my experience, I have never played a non-computerised version. In all my games I was either Italy or Austria, so I was a bit disappointed when it turned out that I will be Austria on LW too. But that was it.

In the beginning of the game I decided to be consistently honest and not stab my allies. It may look strange given the nature of Diplomacy, but I had several reasons for the decision. First, coming from the country which was sacrificed in the Munich agreement I can't oversee that historically, powers that decided to betray their allies often didn't profit that much. From purely domestic point of view, Chamberlain's decision in Munich was pretty poor, and this style of decisions is, we are told, the spirit of Diplomacy. Well, maybe the rules are set that way, but I wanted to test whether alternative approach is indeed so much worse. And there is a second prominent reason for my decision: I am infected by certain LessWrong memes. Defecting in the Prisoner's dilemma isn't rational. Lying is always dangerous, as it makes the person more likely to lie on other occasions, and even having strong excuse (like "this is Diplomacy") doesn't help perfectly, since people are good at making excuses. These are things which I believe (more or less) and so I precommitted to be trustworthy concerning explicit promises. Indirect deception was admissible, of course.

(Eventually I have, strictly speaking, broken one of my treaties and I am not much happy about it, even if I had "good" rationalisations. I will come to that later.)

The following text is divided into chronological sections corresponding to the particular turns. The convention I use is hopefully natural: the "Spring" sections refers to negotiations and planning before the spring moves, while in the "Fall" sections I describe my planning before the fall moves and the winter builds, if necessary.

Spring 1901 - Initial Preparations

It seemed to me in 1901 (and probably still seems to me today) that Austria has two realistic possibilities, which are: 1. join Russia against Turkey, 2. join Italy against Turkey. The latter usually procedes as the well-known Lepanto opening, with Italy taking Tunis by convoy and moving his fleets east with final invasion of Syria. The former is an ordinary two-against-one push where the most concern lies in securing the western borders. Starting from this assumption I tried to negotiate with Italy, Russia and Germany. The results weren't much encouraging.

Germany didn't make problems, as his answer on my offer begun with

A non-aggression pact sounds good: indeed, it seems to me that Italy and France have already agreed not to engage in hostilities...

I have sent a letter to Russia with explicit offer of alliance, but received no reply. This I interpreted as a sign of hostility and expected Russian attack. When I finally realised that the problem lied within my spam filter, it was already late to make alliance with Russia. (My spam filter is language sensitive and treats messages not written in Czech with suspicion. Some of the incoming messages end in the spam box, but others are deleted for good. When I am sending a message written in English, I have to enter captcha. Once I tried to send an e-mail written in French and I was not allowed to - after clicking on "send" the mail simply disappeared. I should have chosen a different mail address for the game, but I was not fully aware of the problem, since I don't receive many foreign language messages on this address, except few "enlarge your pen1s" and "invest in Nigeria" crap. Which partly explains the language sensitivity of the spam filter.)

The most mysterious player was Italy. His first offer was this:

How about a non-agression pact until Spring 1905? I'm going to open to the west so there's good reason to believe it is keepable.

Just to clarify in case of a misunderstanding, I'm planning to open against Munich.

1- A second public agreement in which we agree to safe Italian passage through Tyrolia in exchange for Italian support (given to Austria) into Greece, in addition to a non-agression pact until Spring 1904. This will telegraph my attack to Germany, but I have a contingency plan to cope with that. 2- A long-term agreement in which Greece is traded by Austria for support into Bulgaria, and after that Trieste for support into Constantinople. 3- An agreement for a full military alliance in the event of the infamous E-F-G Triple Alliance. (We'd have to ally with Russia if that happened as well, probably) 4- A DMZ in Venice and Trieste starting in either Spring or Fall this year.

As for France and England, nothing important happened. This letter was probably the only message I received from France during the whole game and well illustrates the reality of 1901:

We do not have a direct border, but may be helpful to each other against either Germany or Italy. At the moment, however, I'm interested mainly in opening communications.

When I have found myself squeezed between unintelligible Italy and seemingly non-responding Russia, I had to commit a strategical suicide: get allied with Turkey. The map is clear on that: if Russia is defeated, Turkey will have common borders only with Austria, and that pretty well determines his next actions. But with no other choice, being afraid of quick elimination (which, if the statistics don't lie, happens to Austria quite often), I did send the proposal to Turkey. Surprisingly, he agreed.

Turkey was, in a sense, the most interesting partner to communicate with. To illustrate that, I quote here the beginning of his first letter sent to me:

To His Imperial and Royal Apostolic Majesty, Prase, by the grace of God Emperor of Austria; Apostolic King of Hungary, King of Bohemia, Dalmatia, Croatia, Slavonia, Galicia, Lodomeria, Illyria; King of Jerusalem, etc.; Archduke of Austria; Grand Duke of Tuscany, Crakow; Duke of Lorraine, Salzburg, Styria, Carinthia, Carniola, the Bukovina; Grand Prince of Transylvania; Margrave of Moravia; Duke of the Upper & Lower Silesia, Modena, Parma, Piacenza, Guastalla, Oswiecin, Zator, Cieszyn, Friuli, Ragusa, Zara; Princely Count of Habsburg, Tyrol, Kyburg, Gorizia, Gradisca; Prince of Trent, Brixen; Margrave of the Upper & Lower Lusatia, in Istria; Count of Hohenems, Feldkirch, Bregenz, Sonnenberg, etc.; Lord of Triest, Kotor, the Wendish March; Grand Voivode of the Voivodship of Serbia etc. etc.. Greetings to you from the lowly Grand Vizier Ibrahim Vanaturk, servant to HIH Mehmed V! I hope this letter finds you in good health. Due to your great importance to HIH and the Turkish people, my first duty upon assuming office was to write to you. But not until I had my morning coffee, of course! I have taken the liberty of sending along with this letter some of the finest beans in all of the Ottoman Empire; I hope you enjoy them as much as I do.

Finally we agreed to form an alliance. I wanted to make the agreement as strong as possible. It had to have specified duration and be detailed to prevent misinterpretation. I also wanted to preserve balance and avoid clashes between allies over conquered provinces, which implied the ninth paragraph. The whole treaty is here:

Turkey and Austria will not take any action against each other during all of 1901, and both sides recognize that Serbia belongs to Austria and Bulgaria to Turkey. Turkey will not invade Greece and Austria will not invade Rumania, nor will they help any other country invade either Greece or Rumania.

Turkey and Austria sign, that

1. they will not invade a supply centre held by the other
2. they will not attack provinces held by each other's armies
3. they will not block the movements of the other party that they are informed of
4. they will not help any other country do any of the above acts
5. they will not provide unwanted supports to each other
6. they will share information and coordinate their military actions
7. they will not share the shared information with any other countries
8. or commit other acts which are hostile according to common sense.
9. In cases of expansion where both countries can take the same supply centre, the country which currently controls a lower number of centres has a priority. If, for tactical reasons, the stronger signatory has to take a centre, it gives another centre which it currently controls to the weaker partner, in order to maintain ballance, unless the only available centre is a home centre.
10. Any of the above obligations can be suspended only by mutual agreement of both signatories.
11. Both signatories precommit to take revenge if a single obligation is betrayed by the other party.
12. This treaty is valid up til and including the Fall of 1904.

My actions were practically determined, then. I ordered the army in Vienna to enter Galicia, where I was afraid of Russian invasion, and Galicia could be used to support Turkish attack on Rumania during the next turn. The second army in Budapest had to move south, and the fleet had no other choice than to remain in Trieste. Italy couldn't be trusted.

Fall 1901 - Serbian Gambit

The strategy for Fall 1901 was determined by three needs. First, to secure at least one neutral supply centre, second, to prevent Italian invasion, and third, to keep Russia from realising that Austria is allied with Turkey. Since I didn't want to lie explicitly, the last thing could be done by delaying the communication and sending only vague replies, in hope of everybody else doing the same. Fortunately there was no need to cooperate in this early phase of the game and so I could successfully (at least I hope) pretend that my allegiance is still not determined. The Russian policy was rather liberal, as he didn't want to constrain my movements at all:

But actually, my Fall moves are the same regardless of what you do. So if you want, just surprise me with your choice of moves. If you don't move toward, or support a move toward Rumania, we are friends. If not, we are probably enemies.

Here is the fun thing from my point of view. If you do move to Greece, there is a possibility that you might bounce with both Italy and Turkey. Which is not a bad thing for you, because you still hold Serbia. Of course, if Turkey suspects this, Turkey may well attack Serbia instead of Rumania. It is important to him to be able to move A Con -> Bul. So, if you really want to prevent Turkey from building more times than you do, maybe your best move is A Ser -> Bul. Of course, that is a declaration of war - something you might want to avoid. But then so would be a move to Greece after promising to support against Rumania. (excerpt from a contemporary Russian letter)

Quick occupation of the whole Balkans before winter didn't allow me to get both Greece and Serbia; one of these provinces must be left independent or ceded to Turkey. The plan we finally agreed upon was that Turkey would get Serbia, and return it back when Romania would have been conquered. I have demanded to prolong our treaty until 1905, since his possesion of Serbia, together with the expectation of the end of our cooperation coming soon can tempt Turkey to betray me, or at least that was what I thought. I didn't expect Italy moving to Greece either by fleet or by convoy; it was natural for him to secure Tunis first. Turkey had been afraid of Italian fleets heading for Aegean, nevertheless that could not be prevented.

On the northern front the situation was more complicated. On the one hand, already during the Spring phase, Russia had proposed an agreement between all concerned powers (that is, Russia, Germany, Austria and perhaps Italy) which would fix the borders for the whole year 1901. On the other hand, there was an unpredictable Italian army in Tyrolia. I wished to secure Vienna from possible Italian attack, and was afraid of possible Russo-Italian alliance (Turkey tried to convince me that this is what's going on). The initial Russian proposal which primarily tried to install peace between Austria, Russia and Germany then evolved into the Vienna agreement between Austria and Germany:

1. Both Austria and Germany declare that any third country attack onto either Vienna or Munich is considered an act of war against both signatories.
2. Such a war will be waged by both Austria and Germany together until the attacking armies leave the territories of these nations.
3. The treaty is valid indefinitely. Either Austria or Germany can withdraw from the contract, but they have to announce it one turn in advance.

The only reaction from Italy has been that he was going to invade Munich no matter what. I had little reason to believe that and suspected an attack towards Vienna. Since I had already gave up hopes for some sort of peaceful symbiosis with Italy, I decided for an aggressive counterplay: move back from Galicia to protect Vienna, meanwhile trying to capture Venice. The actual Italian moves were then much surprising.

Spring 1902 - Victory in the Balkans

The alliances were already set up and there wasn't much to decide about, except the tactics. Russia has proposed a triple alliance of him, me and Italy against Turkey, which I had to reject. Fortunately, Italy demanded cession of Greece (at least Russia has told me so), which was a good rationalisation for me to reject the proposal. (Altogether, I have not communicated with Italy directly, so any proposals came via St.Petersburg.)

My main worry was to persuade Turkey to help me against Italy in Albania. Italian presence in Albania and the Ionian sea constituted a grave danger for my army in Greece. But if we managed to dislodge it, it would have been destroyed and we would have free hands against Russia in the Fall. I also knew that Italy thinks that Turkey is ready to ally with him, and was a little bit afraid that continued Italian presence in the Balkans may lead Turkey to consider that possibility more seriously. Instead of repeating all the reasons I had for imminent destruction of the Italian army, I quote my note send to Constantinople:

To his Excellence the Grand Vizier,

I know that Russia wishes we fight each other, and knowledge of his plans can help us to cope with the present situation. I have already sent Russians an answer which goes along the lines of your suggestion. The question of credibility is indeed important to us. In fact, it is the only value I can offer to you, since from strategical point of view, you would be better off in alliance with either Italy or Russia. The only hope I have is that in alliance with Austria you would feel safer, but that brings some obligations, and consistently predictable behaviour is one of them.

I am not sure whether you fully understand the importance of keeping Italy out of Balkans. You concentrate too much attention to Rumania. In the present, Turkey has enough power to keep your portion of the Russian front stable. That is not true about Austria and the situation in Greece.

Anyway, Gre S Tri-Alb + Tri-Alb is not acceptable for me in any circumstances. If Italy plays Ion S Alb-Gre + Alb-Gre, my army in Greece is destroyed, Italy still has an army in the Balkans, and if he adds Tyr-Tri (and why wouldn't he?), I am two centres weaker, one army weaker, and probably lost.

So, I will play Gre-Alb, and possibly Tri S Gre-Alb. Now about your plans: the first one would wipe off the Russian fleet, but it leaves Greece open: if Italy plays Ion S Alb-Gre + Alb-Gre + Tyr-Tri, he cuts my support and invades Greece. As a result, you will have 6 centres and I will have three, and once more, one army is lost and Italy holds foot in the Balkans.

The second plan is basically the same when it comes to Greece and Albania. It is better for me in terms of ballance, but for the cost that now I have to keep the whole northern front.

I regret to say this, but I urge you, in the name of our friendship, to support me to Albania in the Spring. I see is as absolutely necessary, and here are my reasons and plans:

First, any naval invasion is repelled easily in the very beginning, when the invading army doesn't hold ground and has no place to maneuver, retreat, or deploy the forces. History teaches that whenever the defending army missed the opportunity to destroy the invasion when it was young, it had to pay dearly for that omission. You certainly know about the months of indecisive fightings in Normandy, and how quickly the defenders collapsed after the attacking army broke from the encirclement - although that information shouldn't be available in 1902, of course.

Second, even it does not literally follow from our treaty, I think we, as a weaker ally now shold have priority, in the spirit of section nine. I remind you we have vacated Serbia for you for purely tactical reasons, and we expect similar courtesy from you.

Third, I think we can get both Rumania and Greece in the autumn.

This is my plan.

South: Ser S Gre-Alb, Gre-Alb, Tri S Gre-Alb,

This almost certainly destroys the army in Albania. If the Tri support is cut, it preserves the current situation, but in the Autumn, Italy could not repeat the attack on Greece and get Tunisia in the same turn, and we would have a good negotiation ground. If Italy makes an attempt to Greece with his fleet instead, he will succeed, but with only one unit in the Balkans he could be pushed out easily.

North: Vie-Gal, Bud S Bul-Rum, Bla S Bul-Rum, Bul-Rum, (Con-Bla?)

It is not guaranteed to suceed, but if so, we will have a unit in Galicia, and can repeat the same thing with greater force. I would want to invade Rumania myself if Greece was lost, since else I would be forced to disband (here section 9 would clearly apply).

As you see, I do not insist on taking Serbia back this year, and I am willing to take the risk of Italian invasion to Vienna. I think this offer is still extremely advantageous for you, as I take the whole risk.

Fall 1902 - First Intermezzo

The success in Rumania already in the Spring move, together with destruction of the invading Italian army, was unexpected. Turkish government was certainly a bunch of skilled liars, and I were lucky not to become target of their desinformation. I was surprised later how many times Turkey succeeded to persuade his enemies about utter falsehoods and still I am not sure whether or why I was ever justified to trust Turkey. But history is written by the victors, and the Austro-Turkish collaboration was victorious at the time.

Summer 1902 was a joyous time when no immediate threats enabled me to entertain deranged ideas about natural alliance with England, as illustrated by this letter to Turkey:

There is one more thing to consider. As I am informed, both of us are engaged in intelligence exchange with England. Since this can be valuable in the long term, because England is an unlikely enemy for both of us, and seeking his trust and friendship may be priceless. Also, possible information that can be obtained this way can help us to beat Italy and Russia. If we coordinate the communication with England, we can be more trustworthy in his eyes, and we can mislead him in clever ways too. So, what should be reported to England this turn?

As everything comes with downsides, our spring victories had allarmed Germany from her temporary passivity in Mitteleuropa. I was not aware of German intentions and probably made a mistake by not contacting him. The first announcement of something going wrong was the German withdrawal from the Vienna treaty. The second signal, which couldn't be ignored, was German army occupying Bohemia in winter.

Spring 1903 - Squeezed Between Fronts

The easy times of late 1902 couldn't last for long, and in the beginning of 1903 Austria was again fully encircled by hostile troops. The Wehrmacht had entered Bohemia, Russians had conscripted new batallions in Poland, Italy had recovered from the losses in Balkans and was now stronger than ever before. Although I was returned Serbia, it was clear that Austrian and Turkish forces are not enough strong to break through the front anywhere. And being stuck increased the probability of Turkish stab in Austrian back.

Italy was now the natural target of my expansion and any treaty with Russia was incompatible with my alliance with Turkey. Therefore I had to find some agreement with Germany. Even if I initially planned taking Warsaw myself, I had to make some cessions and decided to offer it to Germany. This was my offer (in 1903, my treaty with Turkey was expected to expire in three years):

Of course I don't know whether I can convince you. But it may go like this: you take Warsaw, Russia falls, Turkey eats Moscow and I attack Italy with the help of southern Turkish fleet. I eat Rome, Venice and possibly Naples, leaving Tunis to the Turks. Then I have two possibilities: war against you together with Turkey, or war against Turkey together with you. This may happen around year 1907. Continued collaboration with Turkey would be difficult, but not impossible - he may convoy his armies to Spain and Portugal, or attack you in Warsaw. The alliance with you would be more natural, but on the other hand, I trust Turkey a little bit more than you now.

Anyway, having secured my home centres and guaranteed survival and limited growth until 1907 is far better option than being stuck in a trench warfare with all my home centres permanently endangered and an ally in my back whose only reason to not betray me would be his earlier promises.

Facing the possible invasion from the East, the leaders of the German Reich and Austrio-Hungarian Empire recognise that the sacred fates of the German nation, as well as the Hungarian nation and other nations of the Dual Monarchy, are at stake. To protect the rightful interests of both countries, this treaty of friendship and cooperation is signed:

1) Austria-Hungary and Germany will not attack each other, nor help other countries in offensive against either Austria-Hungary or Germany. The signatories are not prevented to give support to third country units in defensive operations of any kind.

2) Austria recognises that the territories of the Congress Poland, which under present Russian administration are officially called Privislinskiy Krai, and for the international diplomatic community may be better known as the province of Warsaw, belong to the German sphere of influence. Therefore, Austria will not invade the territory without German consent, and if Germany decides to take the province, Austria will provide all reasonable help.

3) This treaty is valid until fall 1907.

Fall 1903 - Tirol bleibt immer Deutsch

The latter part of the year saw no changes in the strategical situation. I was already planning an amphibious invasion to Italy, but that could not be done with Italian army in Tyrolia. Fortunately, Germany agreed to displace the Italian army, and since I didn't know all German intentions, I have expected that Germany will help me into Venice in the next turn.

Except Tyrolia there were few interesting events. Russia, having lost Sevastopol, retreated into a defensive position, and since I couldn't invade Warsaw due to the agreement with Germany, and Germans were not willing to take it themselves, Russians had secured their survival for at least few turns.

Spring 1904 - Operation Odoacer

Since early 1903 it was clear that the only direction of Austrian expansion is Italy. I have sacrificed Warsaw - at least for few years until 1907 - expecting German help, or at worst passivity, on the Italian front. But Germany has decided otherwise, and signed a pact with Italy, (which has now claimed the name of Holy Roman Empire):

From here on, Germany guarantees the Holy Roman Empire's safety, conditional on the Holy Roman Empire assisting the German/English alliance against France. Presuming that the Holy Roman Empire assists the GE Alliance in the taking of Marseilles, Germany will consider any hostile actions against the Holy Roman Empire as declarations of war against Germany and will retaliate accordingly. As a further repayment for their help, the Holy Roman Empire will also be allowed to claim Marseilles as its own.

These guarantees will last until France has been eradicated from the whole continent of Europe, after which further agreements may be negotiated.

Of course, I had the option to delay my invasion to Italy, which I have prepared under the cover name "Operation Odoacer", until France is dismembered. But even if Odoacer provoked Germany to wage total war against Austria, I doubt waiting would be better. Waiting would mean that Italy, Germany and England are let to grow - and England could deploy his fleets into the Mediterranean - while Austria and Turkey were stuck, and there were no reasons for Germany to help us in Italy later. In short, if Italy was to be conquered, we had to do that immediately.

However, the new German-Italian friendship brought in some advantages, too. Italy was already worried about Austrian presence in the Adriatic (see discussions here) and if he played carefully, he could defend his position without much difficulties. But the German guarantees now made Italy likely to feel secure and move his forces to the west, which meant that he would almost certainly not defend Apulia, and will find himself in vulnerable position later. Turkey would have an easy access to the Ionian, and hopefully we could occupy Italy sooner than England and Germany consolidate their newly conquered lands in south-western Europe.

Fall 1904 - Battles in the South

Successful landing of Austrian army in Apulia, together with Turkish fleet deployed in the Ionian, made our plans absolutely clear. Italy had only one army and one fleet able to defend his home territory. My main worry was Germany allying with Russia in fear of me and Turkey become too strong. Therefore I had composed a public declaration where I have made several concessions to Germany:

If German moves do not literally violate our treaty, Austria will still feel obliged to respect its terms, which includes not invading Warsaw. As a further concession, we do not consider German support to Italian attack as a violation of the treaty, if the attack does not aim to seize an Austrian home centre. We also do not object to direct German attack against Austrian units if the Austrian unit is stationed in Italian territory (Rom, Nap, Apu, Ven, Pie, Tus) or Tyrolia. We will even not revoke the treaty if Germany attacks Austrian units elsewhere, or helps Italy to attack Trieste or Vienna, if we are informed about the attack (and extent of its support) in advance, which means at least 2 hours before the official end of turn. This is as far as Austria can go. If German moves cross the described lines, Austria will feel entirely justified to renounce the peace treaty with Germany.

I remind all European leaders that I have been very clear about my intention to move against Italy when the treaty with Germany was made, and I got no warning from Germany that an agreement between Germany and Italy exists, or is being prepared. Therefore, I do not feel bound by any agreement between Germany and Italy, and if Germany attacks Austria, it should be interpreted as German betrayal. The concessions I have made in the paragraph above are meant as a gesture of good will, motivated by the fact that Austria does acknowledge that Germany may have interpreted the terms of our mutual agreement differently.

Austria has always observed all treaties we have signed, and never intended to sign two or more agreements whose terms are in conflict, and if this happened by accident, we would abandon all strategical gains that would follow from such situation, in order to minimise the damages to our reputation. We hope that German approach to truth and honour is the same.

This turn was also interesting from tactical point of view. There were several possible ways to carry out the second part of Operation Odoacer, and this was the only time in the game when I have tried to analyse the possibilities somewhat formally. Here is the table which compares the strategies with respect to number of conquered supply centres (strategies including attack on German troops in Tyrolia were considered forbidden and therefore were not included). I have decided to attack Venice from the sea and Rome from Apulia (the present version of the map incorrectly displays the Apulian army as holding; this made no difference, since Italian army in Venice disbanded and was rebuilt in Rome during the winter).

Spring 1905 - German Brinkmanship

To finish off Italy I needed to replace the fleet in Venice by an army. Turkey had a chance to either seize Tunis or sail into the Tyrrhenian sea, unfortunately, Italy has correctly predicted his decision. Our offensive was therefore halted.

The most interesting aspect of Spring 1905 are, in my opinion, the German plans. Germany has surprised me once more, fortunately the last time. Although he has informed me about his support to attempted Russian assault on Galicia, and although I have expected his move to Marseilles, German soldiers marching through the canals of Venice after this turn (if soldiers ever could march on water, it was on this occasion) were absolutely unexpected.

I could have, of course, moved to Venice from Trieste. But for reasons hard to determine, I considered it quite likely that Germany will attempt to invade Vienna or Trieste. It didn't occur to me that he can seize equally good position while doing nothing which I haven't previously agreed to. I am not sure about what secret agreements he might have had with Italy, but nevertheless, German moves in this turn were masterpiece of Diplomacy play.

Fall 1905 - In War Against Germany

English ships sailing into Western Mediterranean made it painfully obvious that even a quick fall of Italy doesn't make way for continued offensive to the west. And the situation in Italy was far from settled. In order to preserve realistic chances for survival, I had to expel German forces from Venice, by diplomacy or by force. And it was unlikely that diplomacy would do the job. Germany was willing to agree to some split of Italian territories, if only Venice and the rights to Warsaw remained in his hands. That was unacceptable: it would amount to having Vienna under pressure of two foreign armies, and any chances of further expansion effectively non-existing. After pointing that out Germany has offered me to join their alliance - I was even not sure whether that was intended seriously.

So the decision was made: put an end to our agreement and attack Germany. This is the text of my announcement, which was published approximately in the moment of official deadline for sending orders:

Germany has continued attacking Austria after French armies have been eliminated from the continent, and the German move to Marseille clearly shows that German motive for that was not protection of Italy in terms of the Italian-German pact. We thus observe that Germany has abused the treaty with us and our willingness to maintain peace to achieve goals which were not in accordance with the original spirit of our treaty. The subsequent negotiations with Germany showed that continued cooperation would need us to betray Turkey who proved to be a reliable ally. Therefore we do no more feel bound by any earlier commintments to Germany, and declare our Treaty, as given in the parent comment, null and void.

To further complicate things, Italy gave up. Germans, instead of helping Italian survival, took part in eating her territories, and Italians have lost all hopes. After having decided to attack Germany I have seriously entertained the idea to make an offer to Italy to join me and Turkey - there was no chance how I and Turkey could beat England and Germany without help of any other player - but Turkey didn't like the idea, and Italian surrender effectively put an end to such plans. (For some time we were afraid that the resignation is only a trick which shall confound our plans; fortunately it was not so.)

But because Italy was out of the game and we needed a third ally, I tried to find him in Russia. The Russian front was already stabilised for few turns and nobody was likely to break the stalemate, so continued hostilities were profitable to nobody. I have even persuaded Turkey to agree to give Sevastopol back to Russians. The letter which I have sent to Petersburg is worth including here, if only to show my poor calibration demonstrated by the probability estimate given in its last sentence.

Князу Кропоткину

England and Germany are becoming a threat for the rest of Europe. There is no reason to think that they are going to fight each other. English fleets can easily block any German attempt to seize Spain, Portugal or even the British isles, and German armies will not allow a sensible English offensive on the continent. Their cooperation is well founded, they have built mutual trust, and their position allows them to launch surprising attacks against other countries at any moment.

Germany has told me that he is ready to invade Sweden if I agree on partitioning of the Italian provinces. This would cause you to disband one unit and you will be unable to hold Warsaw or Moscow, and I don't think that I need to emphasise the consequences. I have declined, because that would in principle mean that I and Turkey will have 14 provinces together after three or four turns, while England and Germany will have 20, and our loss would be inevitable.

I am convinced that the triple alliance which I have proposed last turn is the only chance to prevent a joint victory of the two Saxon powers. I realise that your demand of Sevastopol was reasonable, and so I am now trying to persuade Turkey to agree on returning Sevastopol. I would even give him one of my provinces as compensation. The problem is, Turkey seems not to trust you. If you believe that my suggestion is reasonable in the present difficult situation, you could consider what assurances you can give to Turkey which would convince him that you are not going to betray us after we cede Sevastopol.

If you reject, well, then I have to agree with German proposals and pray to the Flying Spaghetti Monster that England will be struck by a sudden madness and launches a sneak attack on Germany at some later moment. 0.01 seems to me as a very optimistic probability estimate of that happening.

Franz Josef, Kaiser von Österreich

Spring 1906 - Russian Collapse

All actions during the Spring of 1906 were straightforward consequences of earlier plannings and considerations. In hindsight Turkish move to Naples may seem better, but we were not sure that Germany will not attack Apulia and cut the necessary support. German invasion of Sweden was a pleasant surprise. Now we needn't worry about our northern front.

I have still slightly prefered an alliance with Russia, but didn't care enough to try to change the Turkish treacherous intentions. Our present standing was, after all, far worse for such an alliance than the turn before. The most vital goal was to conquer the rest of Italy; that would give us a comfortable stalemate line and compensate for most disadvantages which followed from German and English numerical superiority.

Fall 1906 - Digging the Trenches

The latter half of 1906 was spent preparing the stalemate position that ensued and endured for whole year 1907. There is probably nothing to say about Italy, where we followed the only reasonable strategy. The attempted taking of Munich naturally failed, as Germany couldn't risk losing this vital province. Turkey has exploited his position perfectly and held two more centres than I. There were tactical reasons for the imbalance. We needed fleets in Italy to counter England in the Mediterranean and those fleets just happened to be Turkish. I could have demanded Warsaw, but I thought it would be better to maintain direct contact between Turkey and Germany, since neighbours are less likely to be friends.

Spring 1907 - Second Intermezzo

It is indeed difficult to say anything about this phase of the game. Except the clash in Livonia all armies on the front remained in defensive positions. We were waiting for a betrayal and everybody hoped not to become its victim. Austria and Germany were in greater danger, since we were weaker and couldn't reasonably attack our allies.

Fall 1907 - Holding the Line

What could be said about the Spring holds unchanged for the Fall. We managed to arrange a successful attack on Silesia, which was about as useful as German move to Livonia. All supply centres were still well defended and there was no realistic chance for a breakthrough. A four-way draw had become a serious possibility in my thoughts, although after each turn during this phase I feared seeing Turkish armies marching through formerly Austrian provinces.

Spring 1908 - New Hopes

During the whole year 1907 I have expected to be betrayed by Turkey and destroyed. I knew that Turkey and England are in contact, but could seemingly do nothing to improve my position. The best plan I was able to conceive was this letter sent to London:

The present situation is ripe for betrayal. I feel that our alliance with Turkey is strong, however I would like to inform you that eventual triple alliance of Britain, Germany and Turkey would imply that Austria will turn against Turkey with all her units, and fully assist Germany to conquer all Austrian and Turkish territory and possibly be the sole winner. Germany is not informed about that plan now, but we will inform them immediately after eventual Turkish betrayal. The revenge against traitors is already part of the Austro-Turkish treaty, and I find it useful to inform you about my precommitment in order to decrease your willingness to participate in any plot which includes conflict between Austria and Turkey.

Besides that the Austrian strategy for the future is not yet determined and I am looking forward to your suggestions.

I hope your precommittment doesn't preclude the possibility of and Austrian-English Alliance which Turkey then opposes. Perhaps this would be an alliance that included Germany. If Austria turns all it's territory over to Germany at the earliest sign of trouble from Turkey then it would be very difficult for Austria to cooperate with England against either Germany of Turkey.

I am very confident we will be cooperating in the immediate future- the particulars of this cooperation we will discuss following this turn. I am quite certain you will see cooperation as in your interest. For security reasons we'll wait until then.

Fall 1908 - All Against Britain

The English stab practically ensured German defeat. Because Germany was determined to take revenge on England, I could expect little resistance if I tried to seize Munich. Because the final outcome of the game suggests that dismantling of Germany was inevitable, I should probably explain the reasons that lead me to choose a decision which extended the game by three years.

First, my sympathies were with Germany. I knew that it was a result of pure chance that it was Germany, and not I, who was betrayed, and the triple alliance of 1908 was, from my point of view, an expression of previously uncoordinated cooperation between players who were likely to be betrayed. This reasoning would probably not impress game theorists (but neither do traditional game theorists impress me when they are stuck in a suboptimal Nash equilibrium in the Prisoner's dilemma), so here are the more serious considerations:

Germany was weak, and it was very improbable, even if our crusade against England succeeded, that he would fully recover. I wanted to try a two-way draw with Turkey, or even attempt a solo victory. Two-way draw was still much better than its three-way equivalent, and, say, 30% chance for a solo victory seemed even better. Such a chance wasn't possible without elimination of both England and Germany, and elimination of England was unthinkable without fleets in the north. On the other hand, after the hypothetical defeat of England, weakened Germany would not pose a serious threat.

The English position was quite strong thanks to his fleets in western Mediterranean, so our perspectives were dim. England has warned me that futile attacks against his well-formed defense lines will frustrate both him and Turkey, and make them more likely to concoct the second betrayal. Here is part of the English letter received in the Fall of 1908

You already have the territories Turkey needs to get to 18. That means, were you to take Munich and Berlin no nation could get to 18 without your help. That right there ensures a 3-way tie unless Turkey and I team up on you. The coordination involved in doing that without one of us getting 18 are difficult enough that we would likely settle for a 3-way tie- especially since you would always have the power to punish one of us by turning the game over to another.

The whole reason I attacked Germany in the first place was to create this 3-way opportunity. If you're going to strengthen Germany and prevent that 3-way tie I have a much greater incentive to try for that 2-way tie with Turkey, coordination issues be damned.

The truth of what you have written depends on your preferences. It is entirely possible that you prefer a three-way draw to risking Turkish victory, but it is also possible that you will rate the riskier variant higher than a three-way draw. If Germany is eliminated and Turkey betrays me, you can expect that I will help either you or Turkey with 0.5 probability. (My earlier precommitment to turn over my territory to Germany obviously does not apply if Germany is destroyed.) It will be practically impossible for the party without my help to win, and with say p=0.2 the game would end by a 17-17 split. So, would you choose p=1 three-way draw or p=0.4 victory, p=0.2 two-way draw and p=0.4 loss? Difficult question, but I would take the second option. Why should I believe that you will take the first one?

For me, alliance with Germany means p=0.2 that we will eliminate you together and later Germany, resulting in a 2-way draw (still I have not analysed the board to see if it's possible, but I expect all your stalemate lines need StP or Kie, which you are not guaranteed; tell me, if I am wrong in that); p=0.2 of 3-way draw together with Germany, p=0.2 that we'll get stuck in a stalemate, stab Germany later and replicate a 3-way draw with you, p=0.3 of the same, but Turkey stabs me and I lose, p=0.1 for any other outcome . Accepting your proposal means p=0.6 that after eliminating Germany you will stab me and p=0.4 of a 3-way draw. (All conditioned on the fact that Turkey does not betray me just now.) The first strategy seems strictly dominating, given my probabilities.

England didn't agree with my probabilities (and on reflection I have to admit that the 20% for the two-way draw with Turkey was too high), but that didn't change my decision. Turkey was willing to fight against England, and that seemed far safer than any sort of Anglo-Turkish alliance.

Spring 1909 - Shuffles in Italy

Turkish lies were again effective and English fleets retreated westwards. Turkey had thus occupied Tunis without fighting. This, to my delight, probably destroyed last remnants of trust between England and Turkey. Pushing England from Mediterranean became our priority, so the Turkish fleets were ordered to be deployed along the Italian western coast. A Turkish fleet had to pass through Rome, which made me suspicious: will Turkey indeed move out from Rome before winter? He could easily remain there by accident: it was enough to tell England to block the Fall move to Tuscany, and I would lose one province without knowing that I was betrayed. England's warning resonated in my ears: "Surely you don't think he (Turkey) will go through this game lying to everyone but you?". But succumbing to paranoia was hardly a good option.

Fall 1909 - Burgundian Adventures

By passing through Munich the Austrian army finally set foot in France. I hoped that the position in Burgundy will prove useful, but it was nearly worthless in the end.

I became more worried about Turkish intentions. His newly built armies moved to the west, and he wasn't much responsive to my reminders about section 9 of our treaty ("if, for tactical reasons, the stronger signatory has to take a centre, it gives another centre which it currently controls to the weaker partner, in order to maintain ballance, unless the only available centre is a home centre"). The imbalance couldn't be overlooked now, as Turkey had four more centres than me, but he didn't see anything wrong with it. As a desperate defensive measure I have at least ordered (with Turkish consent) one army to move to Budapest (the map has it wrong).

Spring 1910 - Waiting for Miracle

After Germany lost Holland, chances for English defeat were rapidly approaching zero. As a last measure I have suggested a crazy ruse: let's together tell England our orders in advance. My idea was that England will take it as weak evidence that we are going to to the opposite. Turkey liked the idea, but suggested that instead us all he will do it himself, exploiting his freshly gained untrustworthiness. Unfortunately, it didn't work, as England apparently believed him.

I have made a likely mistake by being fixed on conquering Marseilles in the fall and not moving to Gascony.

Fall 1910 - Towards New Europe

One of the results of the previous turn was England's ability to defend Marseilles. However, he couldn't defend both Marseilles and the Gulf of Lion. But Turkey didn't invade the Gulf, which would help taking Marseilles next year. Instead he seized Tunis and Munich, and especially the latter was disappointing. The only interpretation which I could think at the moment was that Turkey is trying to optimise his position at my expense. Knowing that the moderator was going to moderate the game only until 1914, and that we couldn't finish off England until then, and actually we couldn't finish off England at all because Germany would disband his fleet now and would probably never have a chance to rebuild it, my choice was almost trivial. I have agreed with the three-way draw, followed the England's suggestion to disband the dislodged army in Burgundia and informed Turkey about my decisions. Turkey certainly must have known that his moves will have this effect, so I was only uncertain why he didn't inform me about his acceptance of the draw beforehand.

The last two turns weren't much interesting. We had to clear the rest of Germany and somehow secure that nobody defects. All players were visibly tired of the long game, which started in November and ended in February, and attempts to seize victory by some unexpected deceptive maneuver were improbable. But still, we all tried to be sure and there were several clashes along the frontlines. I am not including the maps of both 1911 turns here.

I will probably append some more hindsight-biased summary after reading the diaries of all players.