From: farrell@unicorn.cis.ohio-state.edu (christopher k farrell)
Subject: Re: EiA: Problems
Organization: The Ohio State University Dept. of Computer and Info. Science
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 20:11:14 GMT

In article <1992Nov18.074902.18934@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> jchunko@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Jeffrey Chunko) writes:
>In article <1992Nov17.225522.27988@cis.ohio-state.edu> farrell@second.cis.ohio-state.edu (christopher k farrell) writes:
>
>I really can't comment on this, since I wasn't privy to any discussions
>the between Jean and Richard.  I was _quite_ bloodied from the war in 
>Prussia. But still stronger than Austria I would think.  

	The fact that this was in question speaks volumes.  I'll leave it at
that.

>But I think Russia had to look to the long term.  Once Austria and France
>realized how two great tastes taste great together,  it was inevitable
>they would ally.  IF he had helped Jean, he'd have a nice debt to milk
>for the rest of the game.  But that's not really Richards style I guess.

	I certainly wouldn't commit my army to the Austrian war for some
vague long-term gratitude!  If I am going to risk the future of my country,
I want to see concrete results.  If France crashes and burns, Austria and
Prussia benefit *TREMENDOUSLY*.  And what does Russia get?  Squat.  From what
I recall, Jean really felt it was Russia's moral obligation to intervene, and
was not prepared to offer anything.  Or at least did not make the offer; 
afterwards I recall him saying somthing about german minors, but certainly
none of that was in the negotiations before the Franco-Russian war.

>>case.  After all, when viewed in conventional terms, if you are Austria and
>>you have all of Italy (including the Kingdom of Italy), with no real
>>threat of loosing it, and by far the strongest nation backing you and keeping
>>you relatively safe, how can you possibly be doing worse than if you 
>>surrendered?  But if France is streaking to a win even faster, you most
>>certainly are!
>
>But what were his alternatives, Chris.  Right now, he's probly in second
>place.  If he'd have fought me alone he'd be last.  I think he's done a
>fine job.  The rest of you needed to make it worth his while to fight me.


	Ummm... sorry, but right now he's last, because he got so badly 
hammered in the UMP department.  And he isn't going to pass up your lead by
being your minor ally.  As much as it pains me to say it, I'm probably in
second now.  The three of us in the middle are pretty even, and only I am
not facing the liklihood of having to surrender anytime soon.

	It's not we who had to make it worth his while to fight you.  He had
to make it worth our while to fight you.  He has no choice; he cannot win
while you are strong.  Period.  For most of us - Prussia, Spain, and 
Britain - it's worth our while and we do what we can (which, in the case of
Britain in 1805, isn't much more than making sure France's fleets don't leave
port), but Russia is another matter entirely.  The failure of Russia to enter
the war was a failure of Austrian, not Russian, diplomacy.  It does get a lot
more difficult, I think, if Prussia is a UMP.  Austria and Prussia together
can appease the Russians and get him what he wants - usually Poland, maybe
Denmark and Hannover or somthing more bizzare, or even Naples and a few other
Italian minors - at which point if Russia intervenes in force you can start
carving Napoleon's gravestone.  Austria alone, though, presents more of a
problem as they don't have that much to give by themselves (like primarily
Polish territory).

	BTW, ask Jean if he (as Russia) intervened when Alex (as Austria) was
invaded.  I don't mean to imply anything sleazy by this, but when he was 
faced with the same decision in another game he didn't fight.

	But that's not the point.  The alternative was to fight.  Had he fought
you he could have almost guarenteed comparable casualties and a devestated 
France, as well as possession of more minors than Austria usually has when 
they first surrender.  He could have rocked your "cycle" by surrendering so
close to Prussia, and gotten plenty of support for his next war.  The only
reason that I wasn't willing to give money in the first 3 months was that the
naval situation was still possibly quite precarious.  By now all the money 
going to Turkey and Russia would quite probably be going to him.  And don't
forget he can usually make up his PP losses by hammering Turkey in the off-
season.

	Austria was historically beaten (quite badly) twice before finally 
defeating Napoleon.  To play this game you have to think in those terms.  To
have gotten out of the first war with only a conditional surrender, minors
relatively intact, and a not-too-badly damaged army would have been a
considerable victory, and would not have strengthened the nation that is his
worst enemy.  Austria should be even more anti-French (typically) than even
England, because thay *cannot* win while France is strong (wheras Britain can -
it's just not real likely).  Now if you aren't playing to win, that's another
matter.

	Now, I am a biased observer.  I could see an Austrian-French alliance
*after* France has been defeated once.  But not while France is still so 
strong.  It just doesn't make sense to me.  I think maybe he feels honour-bound
to abide by his agreement with you, but I think maybe he misses the fact that
France can (and will) break the agreement if it becomes inconvenient.  France
has to keep pounding people, and if Austria is the only one left .. c'est la 
vie!

						Chris


-- 
"Storms have come ... rains wash the Earth away,
     Dark skies fall now ... into another day." - Enya, Storms in Africa
"If every man says all he can, if every man is true
     Do I believe the sky above, is Caribbean Blue ..." - Enya, Carribean Blue
Lines: 21