Page 4 of 5

Re: Heptarchy: trial of Anglia in : 1 more volunteers wanted

PostPosted: 28 Aug 2012, 11:14
by Girion
By the way, just realized;
My fleet move last Spring; Ipswish->NSS, against what did it bounce? Shouldn't that move had succeded?

Re: Heptarchy: trial of Anglia in : 1 more volunteers wanted

PostPosted: 28 Aug 2012, 18:49
by Pedros
No idea! But any problems if we go as we are? (In a regular game my House Rules would say it was too late anyway.)

Re: Heptarchy: trial of Anglia in : 1 more volunteers wanted

PostPosted: 29 Aug 2012, 13:44
by Girion
Well since we are done after this season I guess it doesn't really matter anyway.

Fall 652

PostPosted: 29 Aug 2012, 16:26
by Pedros
One set of orders missing, but it's the end of the test so I figured it doesn't matter too much; processing anyway. (But would Northumbria have made Scotland pay for my carelessness in Dumfries?! Thanks everybody. And don't forget to post your thoughts about how this went - even if you haven't played Heptarchy before your views about the basic questions will be extremely important. Post them initially in this thread - I'll split it and move it all to somewhere more permanent later, but there'll be a link here in the Test Bed.

Anglia (Girion)
Army Oxford support Army Northampton moves Warwick : X
Army The Downs moves Southhampton : REsolved 2-1
Fleet Portsmouth support Army The Downs moves Southhampton : REsolved
Fleet Strait Of Dover moves English Channel : Bounced
Fleet North Sea South moves Calais : X

Cornubia (stalin813)
A Southhampton-portsmouth : Dislodged 1-2 : Retreat (Exeter)
F English channel support Southhampton-portsmouth : Cut from Straits of Dover
A Cotswold - thedowns : REsolved
A Bristol HOLD : REsolved

Ireland (Pedros)
A Dublin - Cumbria: Bounced
F Irish Sea convoy A Dublin - Cumbria : Failed
F Morecambe Bay convoy A Dublin - Cumbria : Failed
F Scillies hold : REsolved

Mercia (Yhanthlei)
A Sheffield -> Nottingham : REsolved
A Stafford support Manchester -> Chester : X
A Birmingham support Stafford hold : REsolved
A Northampton support Oxford hold : REsolved
F Gloucester hold : Dislodged 1-2: Retreat (Gwent)
F Norwich hold : REsolved

Northumbria (bluestreaksoccer)

Scotland (Pedros)
F Norwegian Sea- North Sea North : REsolved
A Dumfries - North Pennines : REsolved
A Northumberland support A Dumfries - North Pennines : REsolved
A Stranraer hold : REsolved
A Southern Uplands support A Dumfries - North Pennines : REsolved

Wales (Dar Krum)
Fleet Bristol Channel : ??
Fleet Severn SUPPORT Warwick TO Gloucester (what was I thinking...) : REsolved
Army Warwick TO Gloucester : REsolved
Army Shrewsbury SUPPORT Chester to HOLD : REsolved
Army Chester HOLD : REsolved

The final SC count is remarkably even, apart from Cornubia who suffered from the unusual Anglia-Mercia alliance.

SC count
Anglia: 7 SCs
Cornubia: 3 SCs
Ireland: 5 SCs
Mercia: 6 SCs
Northumbria: 5 SCs
Scotland: 6 SCs
Wales: 6 SCs

Reactions to the test bed trial

PostPosted: 29 Aug 2012, 16:42
by Pedros
So - trial over. It certainly took a different turn from normal, with a strong Anglia-Mercia alliance dominating things. My questions -

1. How easy was it for Anglia to persuade Mercia to ally with him (and vv - wasn't Mercia worried about the impact of that fleet so early?)
2. How did negotiations with Cornubia go? What did Anglia have to offer in that setup?
3. What impact did it have on Northumbria and Wales? Northumbria usually comes under pressure from Mercia, but Wales typically does well.

Re: Heptarchy: trial of Anglia in Flanders: Analysis

PostPosted: 29 Aug 2012, 17:24
by Pedros
And one explanatory note about my play as Ireland and Scotland. I've always felt that for both of them - but especially Scotland - they need each other. They usually squabble over hebrides while Northumbria takes over southern Scotland, so I wanted to explore what was possible together. Not marvellous for Ireland - but not much usually is early on! But much better for Scotland.

Re: Heptarchy: trial of Anglia in Flanders: Analysis

PostPosted: 29 Aug 2012, 18:50
by Yhanthlei
At the game's start I saw Anglia as my natural target and Cornubia as my natural ally. There were three main reasons for this. The first and most important was that it seemed easier to take and protect centers from Anglia in a war than it would be to take and protect centers from Cornubia. An attack on Anglia offered the possibilities of Ipswich, Oxford, and London. The easiest Cornubian center to take, Bristol, is comparatively in an awkward position, and the other Cornubian centers even more so. Second, and related to the first, is that it seemed like it would be easier to establish a DMZ with Cornubia over Cotswolds, The Downs, and Sussex (leaving Cornubia Dover and maybe Flanders if need be) than to make an effective DMZ with Anglia. A Cornubian alliance seemed like a safer prospect. Finally, Anglia seemed easier to stab. I planned on arranging the King's Lynn and North Sea South fleets to bounce in Norwich in the fall, allowing my fleet a center while denying Anglia's fleet a center. Not the most dramatic, but it would have been effective.

In initial negotiations I offered alliances to both Cornubia and Anglia, so that I could fall back on either alliance if the other stabbed and so that I could get information on enemy moves if neither stabbed. My initial moves were intended to be acceptable to both Anglia and Cornubia while putting myself in position for as many gains as possible. Cornubia acted against our agreed upon course of action by moving to Cotswolds, and I strongly suspected that the move was arranged with Wales so my alliance was set. An alliance was perfectly acceptable to me, and as it happened necessary due to other enemies, but it was certainly my second choice.

Just remembered two more factors encouraging me to pick a Cornubian alliance over an Anglian one: Cornubia is exposed to Ireland and Wales, and I figured that if my ally proved a problem I could ally with either of them against Cornubia, and Cornubia's position on the west coast made Cornubia somewhat less of a threat than Anglia.

I wish that I could offer more insight into the Mercian-Welsh-Northumbrian triangle. I made a DMZ agreement with Wales than Wales immediately broke. I made a division of territory agreement with Northumbria that Northumbria respected. In retrospect I should have communicated more with each, maybe discussing an alliance against the other. However, after the first move Northumbria wasn't very talkative, Wales was disinterested in peace, and my attention was focused on the south.

Re: Heptarchy: trial of Anglia in Flanders: Analysis

PostPosted: 30 Aug 2012, 05:58
by stalin813
The Wales-Cornubia attack on Mercia happened by accident and really colored the game. We both agreed to make different moves and then I entered wrong orders and i can't speak for Wales, but as they say, The die was cast. I tried to get Anglia to attack mercia and concede the south to me, but he wouldn't budge. I think merica and Anglia can survive with this setup.

Re: Heptarchy: trial of Anglia in Flanders: Analysis

PostPosted: 30 Aug 2012, 15:32
by Dar Krum
I too entered orders incorrectly in the beginning which didn't really move me in a direction different from what I had wanted. It just put strain on alliance talks with Cornubia (with whom I intended to ally) and Mercia.

As Wales, I felt like I was playing Austria. I suspect there are a number of powers who would feel similarly. Cornubia, Mercia, Ireland and Northumbria surround Wales. The feeling of vulnerability is palpable. Diplomacy is critical, as always, and it seems that many nations are, in my opinion, more vulnerable to the inevitable lies they are going to hear from their neighbours.

Re: Heptarchy: trial of Anglia in Flanders: Analysis

PostPosted: 30 Aug 2012, 20:49
by Pedros
Here is a comment from Giorion's Anglia, sent to me during the first phase, Spring 651:
Your right, it takes 3 seasons for Firth of Forth, it's just Norweigan I can reach in 2. Also, given the current state of negotiations I will most likely also want to keep things close in the first year, before I start to send things out.

Cornubia is in that case so much more interesting. The main threat to me is an Mercia/Cornubian Alliance, if I can get an ally against one of then them my position is already good, in addition to that I can't say that I like the demands Conrnubia is making of me, Southhampton and Portsmouth, both in the first year! My I ask what position he takes on Scillies?

And, also from Girion during the Fall 651 season (this may need to be read in the light of comments from others about misorders):-
So, we have had one first seasons to see the development, some observations;

i)Cornubia and Wlaes puts united pressure on Gloucester, I don't think Wales would have moved that way if he did not think Cornubia would back him up.
ii) Cornubia opens slightly diffrent, but never the less tries for both Portsmouth and Southhampton even though in an way not as dangerous as I expected.
iii) You are moving south, most notably taking Cardigan bay.

To me it fits well together;
i) means likely Mercia will have problems with Wales and Cornubia, and won't bother me, at the same time he should be an nice ally.
ii) means clasheds for me with Cornubia, I will have some problems patching theese realtions.
iii) means you have interests in the south, thoose that may very well work together nicely with mine, might that we ould do something together.

Northumbria seem to pressure Scottland some as well, and you opened nicely to him, hence there should be little need for you to worry there, you should be able to pressure full out south?