Heroscapers

Heroscapers (https://www.heroscapers.com/community/index.php)
-   Other Games (https://www.heroscapers.com/community/forumdisplay.php?f=19)
-   -   Diplomacy (https://www.heroscapers.com/community/showthread.php?t=53767)

Dad_Scaper October 31st, 2017 09:20 PM

Re: Diplomacy
 
Well, I wrote about being a minor power. That would be, for instance, Italy: bounded on each side by major powers, he had lots of options. The key with EF, I think everyone would agree, would be prying Austria loose from the alliance. After all, Russia was *not* making money for his partner, and was positioning himself to solo, which he did.

Unfortunately, you couldn't do that.

Once things had gotten really ugly in that department, other options you had included trying to manipulate Russia into a stab of Austria, and hopefully you, France, and a then-weakened Austria could have held him off. Probably not, and Russia likely knew he had a bird in the hand with a blindly loyal Austria, but you were otherwise stuck running out the string. In some situations you can offer to be a "Janissary" for the larger power.

As far as I can tell from these EoG statements, you guys in EF were kind of stuck, diplomatically, because AI were both willing to put themselves in dangerously submissive positions in the East. That's why I hope people will keep open minds about working with each other, if we do this again.

It's a hard game. It's very challenging to play, but also incredibly rewarding. I think I've written earlier in this thread that, in my opinion, it is the only older board game that remains atop its niche. And that's saying something, because there are lots of great games that have come out since 1959.

Kinseth October 31st, 2017 09:54 PM

Re: Diplomacy
 
It is interesting that you suggest that as Russia, I wasn't making Austria any money.
  • The season before the stab - Austria 11 supply centers, Russia 13
  • 1904 - Gave Austria Con when could have kept it for myself
  • 1907 - Supported Austria into Ruh so he could get better gains into France
  • 1907 - Advised Austria to convoy into Tunis, having studied the french moves and figured France would go to TYS.
  • Kept supporting him at Munich while France/England were attacking it several seasons

I don't think it was clear cut, Russia had a complicit Austria. As I mentioned in my EGS, I was still guarded on Austria and thought a well timed build season when he took perhaps Mar/Spa coulda seen him go for the solo. I knew his timeline was farther away. But 13-11 is pretty close in Supply Centre counts.

Second, minor powers can come back to win.

I was a 2 unit Italy in a game, and fought back from death's door to grab the solo. I had only owned Apu and Tunis at that point.

Dad_Scaper October 31st, 2017 09:58 PM

Re: Diplomacy
 
I am only going by EoGs, Kinseth, and I was hoping you would respond. I'm not surprised that the game was more complicated than my reading of the EoG's.

But I hope you would agree with my larger point, the general answer to the question, that as a minor power the way to stay competitive is to make yourself useful to somebody.

Kinseth November 1st, 2017 09:56 AM

Re: Diplomacy
 
I agree, minor powers are huge, they need to understand what they can do to influence the board and how to maximize their situation and get back into the game.

I think it is important to understand that the game isn't just about X and O's. Diplomacy has alot to do with how you communicate with other partners. I get the sense from the rest of the board that they felt Austria was blindly following along. Russia didn't win the game, but Austria lost it for us kind of feeling. There are just too many situations that happened that influenced the direction of this game.

English-French alliance causing Italy & Germany to face them and Russia/Austria coming to their aid. Could the EF alliance had used Germany vs Russia sooner, then stabbed later? Once France realized he was doomed, perhaps he should have tried cutting a deal with Russia and Italy?

We haven't fully heard from Austria yet either, did he have a plan to try to go for the solo, and I(Russia) just happened to execute my plan first?

I would like to think that I won the game, and wasn't "Given" the game. Let's look at everything that went into that "Death Stroke."
  • Studied English moves to know he wouldn't make a play on EDI, and he wouldn't keep me honest at EDI to protect LON. Had he attacked EDI while I attacked LON, he would have secured it back.
  • Austria has to use ION to keep Tunis safe so I could get Gre safely.
  • Setup myself to strike in Munich while keeping all my supply dots safe. I fed Austria several moves that made it appear I would be supporting myself at Hol & Kie so that he wouldn't attempt to hit me.

Anyways, grabbing 5 supply centers in one strike is a large amount, and I don't think anyone saw it coming. I think Austria thought he had time to fend me off If I went for it.

Just a little food for thought.

kevindola November 1st, 2017 10:21 AM

Re: Diplomacy
 
Very fun game everyone. Really enjoyed this one. It had a different dynamic than our first game, and had a lot of big 'hold your breath' moments. Working with Russia and Italy most of the game were very different experiences and both had very rewarding and very surprising instances.


Here is the first part of EGS which was already written.

I opened the game deciding I didn’t want to be Austria from last game so wanted a long term alliance out of one of my 2 more powerful neighbors (Turkey + Russia). I decided this ally would be Turkey @scorpiusx for a number of reasons. Turkey was first to make contact, Turkey was quite chatty and eager to make plans, Russia was virtually silent the first season, and if I could lock in an alliance with one of them, it would prevent the Juggernaut.

Italy I figured would set up for a Lepanto and I could put off deciding how to work with them until a later date.


Spring 1901

Turkey and I have a plan set where I get Greece and Serbia and he gets Bulgaria and Romania. Turkey will then concentrate on fleets to subdue coastal Russia and head to Italy, while I will play the ground game. Russia is virtually silent to me except for us to agree to bounce in GAL. Italy plays nice and we agree to both move away from our border centers, which will allow me to take Greece.

Fall 1901
Russia is still silent with me and in fact does not respond to my repeated questions about movement this season. Turkey, however, out of the blue, seems suddenly suspicious of me. He has heard through Russia that I am plotting a joint attack against Turkey with Russia. This is concerning to me, as I now worry Russia (who isn’t talking to me) is laying it on thick to Turkey. Turkey is asking for me to let him have Greece, against our plan and I decline. I am very nervous that Turkey will actually stick to our agreed plan. But he does, I take Greece and he takes Romania and we both get to 5 builds.

Winter 1901
As per our agreement, I build 2 armies, and Turkey builds 2 fleets. As an added benefit, Italy no longer wishes to attack Turkey after the fleet builds, fleet move to CON, and biggest of all, France builds a fleet in MAR. Confirming what was suspected with the South Coast move to Spain, France will be invading Italy…..

Spring 1902
Alas, it is not to be for the Austria-Turkish alliance. Here was my issue. I received 7 messages from Turkey in the Spring……And then only 2 in the fall, 1 of which had a very aggressive tone. Then in the spring of 1902 I received Zero messages from Turkey. (I did receive one in the winter confirming 2 fleet builds). Conversely, suddenly my communication with Russia escalated dramatically. I received 9 messages from Russia in the winter01/spring02. I’m sure it matters little to those involved, but this was a harder decision for me to make than anything in my previous game. I felt that I could not comfortably progress in the game with Turkey being unreliable. I changed my orders to stab Turkey and ally with Russia literally 2 hours before the deadline after my last 3 messages to Turkey had gone unanswered. Here was the message I sent to Turkey after I violated our agreement and instead took Bulgaria and let Russia into Romania disbanding both Turkish land forces

Spoiler Alert!


Turkey does not respond, and does not again to any of my future messages to him which I send time to time.

Fall 1902

It is clear to all that England and France have allied against Germany. Russia and I agree this is the greatest threat to all on the board right now. So in discussions with Germany, I agree to send aid with my ground troops as does Russia who will also supply naval support. I would like to prop up Italy against France at least until Turkey is eliminated.
I decided to send my Greecian fleet to the Ionian Sea to try and outflank Turkey. It provides mixed results as Turkey recaptures Bulgaria at the expense of losing Ankara to the Russians. I am comfortable with the tradeoff however, as I am confident I will regain Bulgaria the following year, and it also means they lost a 2nd center to Russia.

Winter 1902
No builds for me
However a critical time in Germany’s 2 disbandment decisions. Russia, Germany, and I discuss at length during this time and decide that I will commit my troops to covering an empty Munich while Germany retains his fleets for maximum difficulty for England.

Spring 1903
A decision is made early with Russia on how to attack Turkey for both seasons and we are both happy with the moves. I do indeed reclaim Bulgaria in the spring.

Germany also agrees to support me into Munich to create a bounce which is correct. I give my input into how Germany should go about before we collectively decide to try for the North Sea which is a rousing success.

The vast majority of my efforts this season were spent negotiating with Italy. We spent 75% of the season discussing options for protecting against France before finally deciding that I will support Italy at TYS while he moves TUS-LYO. I think we are both good with this arrangement, until I wake up the morning of the deadline and see a message from Italy saying that France has agreed to convoy him to Spain from N. Africa if he moves there as long as he moves against Trieste and he wants to sneak into WES from TYS. I frantically send message after message saying to NOT do this or at least hold TYS. But Italy has no response for me that morning and the moves process to disastrous results. France takes TYS, wasting my fleet that I could have used to bounce Turkey at AEG and Italy now progresses on Trieste.
I am irate. From my perspective, we spent almost 72 hours discussing at length different options and agreed to it. I wake up the next morning to Italy making an on-the-spot decision without consulting me. One that cost us dearly with French positioning. Things went well in Italy and for my allies in the North, but I have severe complications. And I now feel no long term loyalty for Italy…..

Fall 1903
I am upset with Italy, however I still think working with them is the best chance to stop the French fleets from entering my waters. France and I exchange several messages, but can’t agree to turn on our allies (England/Russia) so were at a relative impasse negotiation wise. This means I must continue to work with Italy and I will give him 1 more chance. He is demanding to take Trieste so he can have some growth and I grudgingly accept this. If Italy is to stand against France he must have another fleet, and taking Trieste, bouncing at Tunisia, and bouncing at Rome will accomplish that. If only Italy had held at TYS we would be in such better shape.

Regarding Munich there is much and more talk between Germany and Russia and I, before ultimately deciding for me to support myself in there in hopes of a bounce while Berlin will advance into Kiel.

I hold my breath as the moves process and things work about about near perfect. Russia made a change to our agreed upon plans due to the late notice ironically. He did not think that Turkey would be attempting an all out take of ION based on the fact Turkey was late on his orders. So he changed his movement away from SMY. He would have wiped Turkey out if he kept his orders. Elsewhere the Italian gambit succeeds netting Italy a build and stopping any French advance again. I wind up taking Munich meaning another tough decision for Germany after he fails to gain a center.

Winter 1903
A lot of good discussion and Germany agrees to keep his fleet in the North. I make a predictable army build and I was very much sweating out an Italian build at Venice, but he sticks with our plan and gets a third fleet at Rome. France contacts me in earnest now wishing to discuss options to turning on Russia. He is very persuasive , but I wish to give Russia a chance to honor his word about relinquishing CON to me. France and Italy both are telling me Russia will not give me CON and is instead poised to turn on me.

Spring 1904
I exchange a lot with France along with my normal discussions with Italy, Germany, and Russia. I am exceedingly nervous about the Italian army in Trieste and consider multiple options to turn on Italy here. Russia also comes to me and says that Turkey wants my blood and is offering support Russia into BUL.

I take that as a good sign from Russia’s trust standpoint that he would share that with me. Italy convinces me he is still on board with me and moves process. Indeed Italy retreats from Trieste and Russia allows me into CON.

There is a LOT of discussion about what Germany’s ENG fleet should do. For us in the south fighting France, we would love a move to MAO, but I think the best play is actually to LON. Russia pushed for WAL early. Germany agrees to move to LON which he takes. As for hindsight, MAO would have guaranteed POR as it turns out, and even a move to BRE would have netted a gain.

Fall 1904
This should be Turkey’s last season, but France took Tunisia in the spring, so I have lots to figure out. First and foremost is how I want to proceed longterm. Russia’s easier expansion long term in the north vs. me in the south with a single fleet is definitely an issue for me, as it likely means he can outpace me in builds and I'd like to stay even or close to. I could probably hedge one more season, but Venice is tempting to me. However, I would really like to wait until I can pump out a fleet before moving to attack Italy. France continues to implore for an alliance, but I can't imagine he will really move his fleets away as he is promising. The promises he made to Italy earlier (convoy to Portugal) seem ludicrous. He makes compelling arguments though, but I see no reason to move against Russia this season when I am already taking CON from him amicably.

kevindola November 1st, 2017 11:47 AM

Re: Diplomacy
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Dad_Scaper (Post 2156877)
There were little things here and there that were, in fact, unusual. Repeated bounces in TRI were pretty rare, for instance.

I think you made this up about the occurrence frequency of bounces in TRI ;)

and btw, if we are doing another game I'm in. And I know @vegietarian18 expressed interest in participating as a first timer as well.

Kinseth November 1st, 2017 11:52 AM

Re: Diplomacy
 
I'd be up for playing again. I'd also step aside if we have enough, and also willing to "mentor" someone in a game that is new if needed.

I am pretty much up for anything :)

Dad_Scaper November 1st, 2017 12:02 PM

Re: Diplomacy
 
Did he? I think this would be *excellent* for vegie. A good challenge for him. Well, I'd be glad to run another one, and I don't really have a desire to play. Playing this game well exhausts me, and I have too many other things going on to do that.

I'll probably turn the eavesdropping feature back on, though, so I can follow along better.

wriggz November 1st, 2017 12:59 PM

Re: Diplomacy
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Dad_Scaper (Post 2167117)
Did he? I think this would be *excellent* for vegie. A good challenge for him. Well, I'd be glad to run another one, and I don't really have a desire to play. Playing this game well exhausts me, and I have too many other things going on to do that.

I'll probably turn the eavesdropping feature back on, though, so I can follow along better.

You are correct about the Exhausting part - it really took me by surprise. I would love to play again, but it would be dependent when the launch date was, as too soon might be too much.

Dad_Scaper November 1st, 2017 01:06 PM

Re: Diplomacy
 
I don't mind waiting a week or two for you to play again, Wriggz. I wouldn't want to leave you out, considering your interest in the game.

Ranior November 1st, 2017 01:44 PM

Re: Diplomacy
 
I'm up for playing again of course, ready to start whenever.

As for all the conversations I've missed, I'll just jump around with some thoughts:

--I probably should have played up a F-R a bit more as kinseth points out. I think, as I'll get to later, my biggest flaw this game was not disguising my intentions better early. I basically threw all my marbles into E/F emerging as a dominant runaway power before others could stop us, and frankly just barely did the other players band together in time to do so. The game really was on the edge for awhile and through some smart moves and good negotiation R/A rightly carried the day and I didn't/hadn't left myself open for much at that point.

--I too am surprised that Germany just handed Sweden over uncontested. I too almost never do, and certainly wouldn't guarantee it like they did--I at least like to have the option to bounce them in the Fall depending on what I see during Spring moves and what not.

--Turkey's early moves had confused me, but now his fleet builds make more sense given the allies he thought he had. While I still haven't got my end of game out proper, my reasoning for working with England over Germany was largely the same as Austria's--Germany never communicated well enough with me for me to feel I could trust him. England was much more the type of diplomacy player I'd like to work with and so that's what I did. Ultimately it worked out as England and I were able to make sure we continued to be able to trust each other through mutual self interest right up until the end when I couldn't fault England for taking a go at my centers.

--Italy, going for the spanish peninsula is a pretty big mistake. Especially if that was your plan in the opening--France has uncontested reign over that, such that they almost always capture it in 1901 and hold onto it throughout the game. France is actually one of those annoying nations where I suspect they rarely are the first to get eliminated since they have such a natural advantage for early growth.

--I so strongly agree with Dad Scaper's post where he links to the magazine article about Diplomacy. I never really "trust" anyone in a game of Diplomacy. But I do assume one thing--I assume each player has their best self interest at heart at all times and is doing their best to place as well as they can. From that assumption, there almost always are long term alliances that can be had where both parties feel they have a good shot. Frankly for England and myself this game it was going great, and we were going to try hard to put us in a position to draw or win. But I would have turned on England as soon as I thought I had a better way to advance, and would expect the same out of him. To do anything less is a disservice to the game in my opinion and cheats the experience for other players. I think I've made my stance clear already through some posts, and I don't want to be too hard on the noobs, but I'll restate it one last time: What frustrated me the most about this game is that once it was clear to me that England and I were not going to be winning, I turned to the other powers on the board seeking options. Russia has long offered to turn on England, but that plan didn't appease me much as I just felt Russia would grow into an even more likely winner than I saw him at the time. So I looked towards Italy and Austria to work things out. And what annoyed me so was that it seemed neither of you were actually playing to win. Italy's movements I could not understand towards the end--Austria had done literally nothing all game for you besides let you lease TRI for a round, and then you promptly vacated it and turned your forces against me once more....yet there was literally no way your fleets/forces could break through mine. So you were slamming your head against a brick wall that wouldn't fall over. it stunned me because I just didn't get how you thought your moves were actually doing anything to assist yourself, and instead it seemed you were an obedient lap dog for Austria for most of the game serving as a buffer for him from French aggression.

Austria also annoyed me. They did not share my belief that Russia was in a dominant position to win, nor did they seem to believe Russia was the sort of fellow who might betray him for a win. But what confused me the most of all that is in all of his talks it was pretty clear Austria was never envisioning an actual win for himself--he was absolutely playing for a draw with Russia. That's incredibly annoying to hear, especially when it seems pretty obvious to me that Russia is unlikely to share that attitude. So from my perspective Austria never had a real path to 18 centers. He absolutely did not and would not get the naval power to pass my fleets in the south for many many turns. In the meantime Russia was poised with his fleets to win the battles in the northern seas and scoop up tons of centers. Finally Russia was the one in position to actually snatch a few Austrian centers and open up war on Austria's backside while Austria certainly couldn't do the same. So I was flummoxed....how am I supposed to negotiate with a player who doesn't seem to be seeking a win for himself and instead is playing for a Russia/Austria joint win? If that's the case, then I just have to wait for that draw to occur or Russia to win, but apparently Austira won't be betraying his current ally.

So hopefully it's clear why I basically quit towards the end. I felt Italy was just Austria's lap dog waiting to be betrayed by Austria, and I felt Austria was essentially doing the same thing with Russia. Russia never really had any incentive to turn his back on such a fine arrangement and so it left me with zero options which majorly sucked and was annoying.


--Back to Kinseths' rest of EoG now, I agree that Austria technically was in position to turn on you at almost any point and could have made an interesting game of it. But from continued conversations with him, it sure didn't seem he ever was seriously going to turn on you--which was partially your good diplomacy constantly buttering him up about plans for future mutual growth and a joint draw. But really especially towards the end Austria did blunder because he wasn't accepting that you were a threat to stab him or push for a solo and he left you stupidly open to take several of his centers. Even if your gamble with England doesn't pay off you get numerous builds, Austria doesn't, and he doesn't have the time to move enough his units to protect his centers before your new army in the East ravages his territories for a win (at least I don't think so, tough to know without actually playing it out)

--In response to Wriggz now, I can't say for sure what I would have done if you had joined England and I....but just know that I do turn on allies. Like I said before I'm not really a person to just blindly stab for the thrill of it. You can trust me as long as I think I'll do better with you than against you. But the moment that line is crossed, you can be pretty confident I'll be switching against you. So just make sure that when working with me that you're forcing enough concessions out of me that both of us are more or less equally positioned and both are gaining from being allied. All of which is to say that there are sequences of moves and negotiations where I ally with you and we turn against England.

--I agree that you don't always play for the solo....you always play to finish as best you can though. That means if you have a good shot to solo, you go for it. If that means that you wind up in a 4 way draw because nobody can afford to turn on each other or else be eliminated, so be it. In higher level play it obviously is relatively rare for someone to solo and the prevalence of draws increases. There isn't anything wrong with all that. There is an issue though that if you're allied with someone you won't turn on them and you will just play for a draw with them--that essentially ruins the game for everyone else. (And now that I read Dad Scaper's next post, he puts it very well--the problem is when someone essentially declines to win because they'd rather not betray an alliance).

--Kevindola, if Italy had actually requested some concessions from me he would have gotten them. I was desperate--so desperate we legitimately had discussed trades where I convoyed him into the Iberian peninsula which he would have gotten to keep while I got Tunis so that I could sail my fleets into the southern seas to harass Austria/Russia. It was practically crazy talk but I would have done it as I knew something had to change if the game was going to go anywhere for me. But even though I offered these things and we had plans to do it, he sided with you in taking TRI and then just giving it back up. I would gladly have made pro Italy moves, but really never was given an opportunity to do so. And the only other requests I got were to start moving my fleets back to the north which really isn't acceptable--as soon as I do that Italy does have the option to gain the upper hand in that fight and so they needn't work with me any longer once they controlled something like WES.

--Ultimately I agree that a E/I/A alliance would have worked very well. Frankly I was worried for much of the game that that was going to happen. This is where I probably should have reached out to Russia sooner and maybe tried to find ways to work with him, but I just felt he was in such a dominant position I wasn't sure how I could really aid him without just handing him a solo.

--AYP, you do have a bit of predictability in your movements, which Kinseth hit on. You don't keep people honest. When you could force someone to have to commit everything to defending a place, you don't bother if you can't get it. So if you could sent strength three at something, but know the opponent could defend with strength three, you don't try it. That allows your opponents to not actually defend that spot, which is the "trick" Kinseth used to win the game. If you occasionally do send everything you have, there will be times where your opponent doesn't defend with everything because they have other things they want to do, and you'll gain centers. Of course finding the right balance is tricky.

--Kinseth, I don't dispute that Austria and you for most of the game were in more or less equal positions. It really came down to the later season though. You two were both close in supply centers, but the situation heavily was tilted in your favor--you had centers galore to take in the north including England's 3 home centers followed by BEL/HOL. That's before you even get to starting to mess with BRE/PAR. Austria after taking out Italy was looking at what for growth? PAR? Then maybe MAR? But the timeline is all out of favor for Austria. To break through my southern fleets was going to take him several seasons--you on the other hand were going to be making gains quicker than that. And again as I said before, you were better set to stab at Austria's centers. Austria had fewer units hanging back defending home centers. I guess the point is that if you were in Austria's shoes during 1906-1908, how do you feel about your solo chances compared to Russia's shoes? I have to think almost every diplomacy player would have preferred Russia's position. (Although again I suppose that depend on how you think Austria could benefit from working with England/France if they wanted to.) Either way I don't feel that towards the end Austria was getting the same benefit out of staying in the alliance that they would have gotten compared to breaking it off.

--With all that being said, you won the game, you weren't given it or anything. I don't want it to come off like that. You successfully manipulated players, called bluffs, made smart moves, and overall managed the game brilliantly. Your win is well deserved and there are lots of little things that can be pointed out as really skillful stuff.

kevindola November 1st, 2017 02:14 PM

Re: Diplomacy
 
There is a lot of interesting discussion about the nature of motives within the context of game outcomes relative to this game.

I will more clearly explain my thinking.

I did not go into this game thinking draw. I went into the game thinking win. But I do personally rank the game outcomes as Win-Draw-Not Win/Draw. I have seen some comments to Win or Not Win as the only options.

I WOULD rather Draw than Not Win/Draw.

I dig into this a more in Part 2 of my EGS which is far from me being comfortable posting it. But there were 3 things that slowly altered my perception that a solo was not a realistic outcome for me.

1) Fall of 1902 - Turkey goes all in and allows Russia to capture a 2nd center at the expense of my retention of Bulgaria

2) Fall of 1904 - Munich's support is not cut as I anticipated allowed Russia to take Kiel

3) Fall of 1905 - Holland is vacated allowed NTH to claim it

These 3 events were completely unanticipated by me (well at least the last 2 were) and all of them kept Russia farther ahead of me in center gains than I would have liked. Kudos to Russia, but in the last 2 instances he used very persuasive arguments on me that these were very likely not to occur and he used that to convince me that giving up any more of Turkey was not necessary.

Once season after season passed of me not being able to make ground on Russia in center total like I had planned on, I made the decision that the best realistic outcome I could play for was a draw with Russia. I did not see a realistic play I was comfortable with that would allow me to get into a position to improve. And frankly, I was in the position because I played 'poorly' or incorrectly because I based certain decisions not to press for more things against Russia because of incorrectly predicting how the fall would turn on in the above instances.

It's risk vs. reward to me. As we entered into 1906 I thought I had a 75% of draw with Russia. I thought I had a 15% chance of solo if I take France's offer and an 85% chance of loss. You can argue my number calculations all day long (and I just gave them a rough estimate now), but that IS what I thought.

These rough value assessments of my outcomes combined with my personal opinion of how different game outcomes satisfy me dictated my actions.

Absolutely, I stated it and will state it again, my experiences with certain players in the last game impacted my decisions and assessments of the above %s for this game. That does not mean I started the game looking only for a draw, but it does mean I reached a point in the game where I decided a draw is the best realistic outcome I can achieve and so played it that way.

I will be happy to hear criticism about how off base I was about that conclusion of victory chances, but as I said in an earlier post. I sent my opinions to France about why I didn't think I was in such dire straights through the course of the game, and I did not receive a rebuttal.

vegietarian18 November 1st, 2017 02:30 PM

Re: Diplomacy
 
kevindola told me about this a few weeks ago and I do want to try to get in the next game. I haven't played before but it seems like the best way to learn is to play.

Kinseth November 1st, 2017 02:31 PM

Re: Diplomacy
 
Interesting insights Kevindola.

The play with NTH - Hol succeeding was basically the same play as ION c APU - TUN. Anticipating a player must protect another position(Bel) and sliding in behind him and letting him take that position. At the time, only Bel was open as a logical place for NTH to go.

I am glad to see you had bigger aspirations, and glad to see my instincts were correct as we were jockeying for position in our diplomacy. Fighting you off about turning over another Turkish Dot made all the difference in the world(I mean Europe). And outmaneuvering England quicker than you anticipated.

I like how open everyone is being about this game, it had so much depth to it. One that I will remember for a long time!

Dad_Scaper November 1st, 2017 02:37 PM

Re: Diplomacy
 
You were in a tough spot, KD. And it's easy to second-guess yourself, and easy for others to second-guess you.

It sounds like you pressed Russia about the center disparity issue while there was still time to do something about it, and (essentially) he won those rounds of negotiations because you were persuaded not to take firm action at that time. In a way, your position was *quite* weak, in that - of the four major powers - you were the expendable one. EF had to hold down the western side of the map, and Russia was the dominant power in the East.

It's interesting to think that you were holding out for a 2WD. That's a pretty rare animal. Maybe a 3WD with one surviving western power? Russia was in a precipitously strong position for an endgame, though. With his northern fleets he was well across the stalemate line.

It was a well-played game, by the old veterans, the new veterans, and the brand newbies alike. As far as I could tell. I hope nobody confuses my comments with anything other than stray thoughts about the game and constructive criticism from someone who didn't read the press, so feel free to ignore it as you please. :)

Kinseth November 1st, 2017 02:40 PM

Re: Diplomacy
 
@dok - you going to join us next game?

Kinseth November 1st, 2017 02:45 PM

Re: Diplomacy
 
It would have been interesting to see what would have happened if France completely turned tide, and moved all his fleets vs England. If he felt the game was over, what was there to lose?

Often in these standoffs, neither side wants to make the first move.(France or Austria), even if you recognize that someone is in great position to solo and you must stop them.

wriggz November 1st, 2017 02:49 PM

Re: Diplomacy
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Ranior (Post 2167128)
I'm up for playing again of course, ready to start whenever.

--Italy, going for the spanish peninsula is a pretty big mistake. Especially if that was your plan in the opening--France has uncontested reign over that, such that they almost always capture it in 1901 and hold onto it throughout the game. France is actually one of those annoying nations where I suspect they rarely are the first to get eliminated since they have such a natural advantage for early growth.

-- What frustrated me the most about this game is that once it was clear to me that England and I were not going to be winning, I turned to the other powers on the board seeking options. Russia has long offered to turn on England, but that plan didn't appease me much as I just felt Russia would grow into an even more likely winner than I saw him at the time. So I looked towards Italy and Austria to work things out. And what annoyed me so was that it seemed neither of you were actually playing to win. Italy's movements I could not understand towards the end--Austria had done literally nothing all game for you besides let you lease TRI for a round, and then you promptly vacated it and turned your forces against me once more....yet there was literally no way your fleets/forces could break through mine. So you were slamming your head against a brick wall that wouldn't fall over. it stunned me because I just didn't get how you thought your moves were actually doing anything to assist yourself, and instead it seemed you were an obedient lap dog for Austria for most of the game serving as a buffer for him from French aggression.

--In response to Wriggz now, I can't say for sure what I would have done if you had joined England and I....but just know that I do turn on allies. Like I said before I'm not really a person to just blindly stab for the thrill of it. You can trust me as long as I think I'll do better with you than against you. But the moment that line is crossed, you can be pretty confident I'll be switching against you. So just make sure that when working with me that you're forcing enough concessions out of me that both of us are more or less equally positioned and both are gaining from being allied. All of which is to say that there are sequences of moves and negotiations where I ally with you and we turn against England.

My early plan was Turkey with drew me an Austria together. I had an exaggerated fear for Turkey and You seemed friendly so that only made sense. Also if Italy does not get into the East, it seems it is a really hard road for the win. When that door closed with Turkey moving to block me, and then Russia moving in, there was little I could do since my boarders were looking at your French fleet.

I understand it was annoying that we should dig in and ensure neither of us grow. However the way I looked at it, an EIA alliance was the likely outcome against Russia's strength. I never saw Austria/Russia as such a strong alliance since I assumed they would have to turn on each other. In my eyes You (France) were my biggest threat since your only real route to expansion was either in my centers or past my centers. Remember England did join with Austria and I, it was very close.

You final comment about holding an alliance as long as it suited you was clear in game. I realized as soon as your fleets were past me, I would be quickly swallowed up. More over to enter into a pact with you was to make war with Austria, thus I would be fighting a war with Austria instead of France, but with an ally who moved into a threating position, with whom I had built up no trust, and who I believed (rightly) would stab me as soon as it suited them. Austria needed my fleets in the interim so I could trust in that at least. My mistake was not demanding a 5th supply center when Austria reached 6 SC of their own. Also it really looked like you were just trying to get the upper hand. At that point EF were pretty strong on the board, and Germany had not clearly made their intentions to attack England. I felt you just wanted to get a foot in the door and would barge in with your 7 vs 3 SC and take me out (It's likely what I would have done).

If Austria had of come around at the 11th hour and entered into a alliance with England and I, then I think the game would have been different. I think in that case I could have expanded, and I had built up enough of a relationship with Russia (proven by their warning that Austria was going to stab me) that I could have flopped on the EIA alliance and worked with Russia towards the end. This was a much better gamble then being eaten up by France.

dok November 1st, 2017 02:52 PM

Re: Diplomacy
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Kinseth (Post 2167144)
@dok - you going to join us next game?

I am available to play if you don't have 7 others ready and willing.

Dad_Scaper November 1st, 2017 03:00 PM

Re: Diplomacy
 
Well then. Let's see who might be interested in a new game and go from there.

In order of how I remember people declaring interest:

1. Kinseth
2. Wriggz
3. Vegie
4. Dok
5. Kevindola

I'm not going to cut the list off at 7. I just want to get a sense of who might be interested, and then we'll figure out how to pare it down, if necessary. Just add your name to the list, if you have some interest in playing. Again, don't worry about the number of people on the list.

Ranior November 1st, 2017 03:12 PM

Re: Diplomacy
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by kevindola (Post 2167138)

I will be happy to hear criticism about how off base I was about that conclusion of victory chances, but as I said in an earlier post. I sent my opinions to France about why I didn't think I was in such dire straights through the course of the game, and I did not receive a rebuttal.

Here are the majority of the Austria/French talks regarding Russia throughout the game. As early as Fall 1903 I was harping about how Russia was in the better position and looked poised to solo.
Spoiler Alert!


Now as for your assertion that you sent me a rebuttal about why you ddin't think you were in dire straights, I can only assume you're talking about your message I labeled Austria 1906 above?

If so, c'mon. It was 1906 which was after about 2-3 seasons where I made concerted efforts to sway you and work with you and you constantly rebuffed me. You talked a big game about the moves we could make but always, and I mean always, stuck tight to Russia and served to cause issues for me. I felt I was getting strung along.

Then in that very same message you admit you mostly simply don't trust me. You think my talk about Russia beating you primarily is me trying to manipulate you. You'll have to forgive me for this next part, but GAHHHHHH. Coupled with your metagame talks a bit earlier, this is part of the reason I sometimes do hate playing CoN's--people think I'm constantly manipulating them to my own ends to the point where they seem to never want to trust me just because I have built up such a reputation as a great manipulator. Sure, I do think I'm pretty good at tricking people in CoN and playing as a puppet. But I'm also a skilled player who can really see what is going on as a warrior, yet often warriors allies in Con ignore me because of reputation It would seem that in this game, you essentially did the same thing where you were so afraid I was manipulating you that you essentially ignored my constant warnings as someone crying wolf rather than me actually pointing out the probable outcome of the game.

Ultimately, whatever. I'll admit in our first game we played I did wind up crying wolf over a juggernaut (although I was legitimately fearful of that myself, but whatever). You have limited experience and were working off of what you had. It's alright.

But please understand it's very rough for me to hear that I wasn't doing enough to warn you or explain to you that Russia was going to win. I repeatedly and consistently were warning you that Russia was in the better spot compared to you and that you would likely lose to him or draw. All of your press never made me feel like you actually thought you could win, you entirely were playing for the draw with Russia by the end and largely were just hoping he wouldn't stab you. Then you flat out admit you don't trust my words as you think I'm just manipulating you....

I mean what possible motive do I have at that point in the game to continue trying to work with you? I had accepted my loss and was ready and glad when it came.

Ranior November 1st, 2017 03:17 PM

Re: Diplomacy
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Kinseth (Post 2167146)
It would have been interesting to see what would have happened if France completely turned tide, and moved all his fleets vs England. If he felt the game was over, what was there to lose?

Often in these standoffs, neither side wants to make the first move.(France or Austria), even if you recognize that someone is in great position to solo and you must stop them.

The main reason I didn't do that is because I explicitly told Austria I was going to do everything in my power to make his life miserable towards the end and not let him have expansion opportunities in the southern seas. As I just shared with my correspondence I had longed warned him Russia was in a better position and he had longed ignored it. I really didn't intend to give him free centers at the end.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dad_Scaper (Post 2167152)
Well then. Let's see who might be interested in a new game and go from there.

In order of how I remember people declaring interest:

1. Kinseth
2. Wriggz
3. Vegie
4. Dok
5. Kevindola

I'm not going to cut the list off at 7. I just want to get a sense of who might be interested, and then we'll figure out how to pare it down, if necessary. Just add your name to the list, if you have some interest in playing. Again, don't worry about the number of people on the list.

I'm certainly in despite all my caterwauling.

Dad_Scaper November 1st, 2017 03:20 PM

Re: Diplomacy
 
Excellent. I expected you to add your name. As for your "caterwauling," that's what EoG's are for, partly. Go ahead and vent. There is an emotional investment in playing a game of Diplomacy, whether in person or online, and now you get to breathe.

What I was hoping was that people would just add their names to the list without me having to do it, as follows:

1. Kinseth
2. Wriggz
3. Vegie
4. Dok
5. Kevindola
6. Ranior

Kinseth November 1st, 2017 03:20 PM

Re: Diplomacy
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Ranior (Post 2167154)
I'm certainly in despite all my caterwauling.

That's the spirit!

quozl November 1st, 2017 03:23 PM

Re: Diplomacy
 
I could go in this time if there's room. Put me last on the list.

Kinseth November 1st, 2017 03:28 PM

Re: Diplomacy
 
1. Kinseth
2. Wriggz
3. Vegie
4. Dok
5. Kevindola
6. Ranior
7. quozl

Dad_Scaper November 1st, 2017 03:33 PM

Re: Diplomacy
 
Everybody can be first or last or whatever on the list. That doesn't matter right now.

All Your Pie November 1st, 2017 03:45 PM

Re: Diplomacy
 
I suppose I should also mention that, while I never had anything explicit that told me France was Ranior, I had a pretty good idea of that given the verbosity of his first few presses to me. We almost never get to work together in CoN, so it was a fun team-up.

Slap me on the list as well.

Dad_Scaper November 1st, 2017 04:02 PM

Re: Diplomacy
 
Oy, you guys are struggling to follow instructions.

1. Kinseth
2. Wriggz
3. Vegie
4. Dok
5. Kevindola
6. Ranior
7. quozl
8. AYP

Kinseth November 1st, 2017 04:03 PM

Re: Diplomacy
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Dad_Scaper (Post 2167171)
Oy, you guys are struggling to follow instructions.

1. Kinseth
2. Wriggz
3. Vegie
4. Dok
5. Kevindola
6. Ranior
7. quozl
8. AYP

Dok is ranked too high!

Dad_Scaper November 1st, 2017 04:04 PM

Re: Diplomacy
 
https://i.pinimg.com/736x/6b/ec/ab/6...lling-down.jpg

quozl November 1st, 2017 04:10 PM

Re: Diplomacy
 
1. Kinseth
2. Wriggz
3. Vegie
4. Dok
5. Kevindola
6. Ranior
7. quozl
8. AYP
9. Dad_Scaper

Am I doing it right?

Dad_Scaper November 1st, 2017 04:15 PM

Re: Diplomacy
 
No! I said no!

*Sigh*

It depends on what you were trying to do, I guess. :)

wriggz November 1st, 2017 04:18 PM

Re: Diplomacy
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Ranior (Post 2167153)
Then in that very same message you admit you mostly simply don't trust me. You think my talk about Russia beating you primarily is me trying to manipulate you. You'll have to forgive me for this next part, but GAHHHHHH. Coupled with your metagame talks a bit earlier, this is part of the reason I sometimes do hate playing CoN's--people think I'm constantly manipulating them to my own ends to the point where they seem to never want to trust me just because I have built up such a reputation as a great manipulator. Sure, I do think I'm pretty good at tricking people in CoN and playing as a puppet. But I'm also a skilled player who can really see what is going on as a warrior, yet often warriors allies in Con ignore me because of reputation It would seem that in this game, you essentially did the same thing where you were so afraid I was manipulating you that you essentially ignored my constant warnings as someone crying wolf rather than me actually pointing out the probable outcome of the game.

Just a tip, I have never played a CoN but there was something about the way you wrote your messages that I instinctively did not trust. At the time I was not speaking with Austria about anything we discussed, and was basically ignoring their option on France in general since anything they said would be self serving.


There is nothing I can point to, and maybe I'm writing a story to meet the facts, but I offer the feedback regardless.

Dad_Scaper November 1st, 2017 04:31 PM

Re: Diplomacy
 
Wriggz, in Diplomacy, don't trust anyone. At least, not based on "trust" alone. In one article about Diplomacy, my friend Andy Bartalone was quoted:
Quote:

Andy Bartalone, a Potomac Tea & Knife Society stalwart from Bowie, says of one friend, "I would trust him with the payoff mortgage on my house -- in cash. But I wouldn't trust him to stay out of Belgium."
The key is, you have to work with people you don't trust, but you have to discuss common goals and work toward them anyway. I wrote at some length above about how an Italian might not "trust" Austria not to take VEN in S1901M, but the Italian might still be able to persuade Austria not to take Venice by persuading Austria that it's not in his interest to do so. The point is not to trust someone to give you charity, the point is to trust someone to do something in the person's own self interest. Because they are doing things in their own self interest, sometimes they will do things with you, and sometimes they will do things that you can take advantage of for your own benefit.

Does that make sense? It's an important distinction. So, if you're getting messages from someone you don't "trust," but the person is still making an argument that's relevant and is something that might be important for you to know, you might benefit from listening. It's not someone else's fault that you didn't see the writing on the wall, when they tried to warn you and it was right there.

kevindola November 1st, 2017 05:27 PM

Re: Diplomacy
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Ranior (Post 2167153)
But please understand it's very rough for me to hear that I wasn't doing enough to warn you or explain to you that Russia was going to win. I repeatedly and consistently were warning you that Russia was in the better spot compared to you and that you would likely lose to him or draw. All of your press never made me feel like you actually thought you could win, you entirely were playing for the draw with Russia by the end and largely were just hoping he wouldn't stab you. Then you flat out admit you don't trust my words as you think I'm just manipulating you....

I won't belabor these points much more than has been. Constant and repeated stating that Russia is in a better spot is different than explaining to me that by doing the following moves Russia will be in an unbeatable spot. As an example you had mentioned Russia threatening my home centers, but I could not see how with us bouncing at GAL and me having a threat of an additional home center build that I kept waiving.

As for trusting your words, I didn't trust your words because I didn't believe I had seen anything out of you that would indicate you would do something reckless. I do not believe you would have moved a fleet towards England long term as we were discussing. I firmly believed that after you had secured whatever portion of France you needed, I would be next. That was based on how I watched the game unfold and the moves between you and England and the discussions you had with Italy. I could give specific examples, but it was my interpretation of the game play. My conclusions were also flavored by how you played the first game, but certainly current game data entered into it. There was no premeditated forgone conclusion of my decisions.

wriggz November 1st, 2017 05:27 PM

Re: Diplomacy
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Dad_Scaper (Post 2167179)
Wriggz, in Diplomacy, don't trust anyone. At least, not based on "trust" alone. In one article about Diplomacy, my friend Andy Bartalone was quoted:
Quote:

Andy Bartalone, a Potomac Tea & Knife Society stalwart from Bowie, says of one friend, "I would trust him with the payoff mortgage on my house -- in cash. But I wouldn't trust him to stay out of Belgium."
The key is, you have to work with people you don't trust, but you have to discuss common goals and work toward them anyway. I wrote at some length above about how an Italian might not "trust" Austria not to take VEN in S1901M, but the Italian might still be able to persuade Austria not to take Venice by persuading Austria that it's not in his interest to do so. The point is not to trust someone to give you charity, the point is to trust someone to do something in the person's own self interest. Because they are doing things in their own self interest, sometimes they will do things with you, and sometimes they will do things that you can take advantage of for your own benefit.

Does that make sense? It's an important distinction. So, if you're getting messages from someone you don't "trust," but the person is still making an argument that's relevant and is something that might be important for you to know, you might benefit from listening. It's not someone else's fault that you didn't see the writing on the wall, when they tried to warn you and it was right there.

Yes of course trust is a strong word.

I took this game to be a fine example of game theory. Knowing what I know that my opponants knows. But of course there is a gut feeling that something seems off sometimps and even if all logic imply your opponent do one thing they do another.

For example I felt like austria was going to stab me but logically that didn't seem like the smartest move to me so I opted to trust them. My gut was correCT and my brain was wrong.

In reality France didn't have much to offer me from my point of view but also there something in the gut that made me believe they were more opportunistic then the eog summary imply ed. It is that dissonance that rancor may have felt here and in his Con.

kevindola November 1st, 2017 05:30 PM

Re: Diplomacy
 
That's why I stabbed at the gut first. It knew too much

Kinseth November 1st, 2017 06:54 PM

Re: Diplomacy
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by kevindola (Post 2167197)
That's why I stabbed at the gut first. It knew too much

Gutpunch!

dok November 1st, 2017 10:13 PM

Re: Diplomacy
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Kinseth (Post 2167172)
Quote:

Originally Posted by Dad_Scaper (Post 2167171)
Oy, you guys are struggling to follow instructions.

1. Kinseth
2. Wriggz
3. Vegie
4. Dok
5. Kevindola
6. Ranior
7. quozl
8. AYP

Dok is ranked too high!

Everyone here is a solid B+.

wriggz November 1st, 2017 11:09 PM

Re: Diplomacy
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by dok (Post 2167261)
Quote:

Originally Posted by Kinseth (Post 2167172)
Quote:

Originally Posted by Dad_Scaper (Post 2167171)
Oy, you guys are struggling to follow instructions.

1. Kinseth
2. Wriggz
3. Vegie
4. Dok
5. Kevindola
6. Ranior
7. quozl
8. AYP

Dok is ranked too high!

Everyone here is a solid B+.

That seems like power creep. Better get a few lower ranked people to balance it out. however all the example I can think of have been banned.

Dad_Scaper November 2nd, 2017 12:08 AM

Re: Diplomacy
 
My plan right now is to let this stew for a couple of days and see who else wants to sign up.

Ranior November 7th, 2017 12:37 PM

Re: Diplomacy
 
Alright, I'm finally getting around to finishing up my end of game thoughts. I've never quite covered my decisions in the early part of the game, so here goes:


At the outset of this game I was trying to find someone to work with closely. Last game as Austria I thought I had found such a person but communications broke down with Italy and Turkey betrayed me. This time around I was being much more forthright with my expectations and desires of an ally. I reached out to mostly to Germany and England to get a sense for how things would develop in our part of the world. I paid a bit of attention to Italy and Russia since we could reasonably interact, but Austria and Turkey I didn't do much with beyond exchange a few words.

As for the northern powers, I first asked if they would like to engage in a triple alliance. I haven't seen anyone try a triple alliance of England/France/Germany in awhile and was curious to see what the thoughts would be. However both of my neighbors were not interested and told me so via group messages. This made it clear to me that they both had no intentions of keeping things peaceful between the three of us for long, so I immediately shifted to trying to figure out who to ally with to take out the other, fearing that the reason they both rebuffed my prior plan was because they intended to end me.

In my conversations it quickly became apparent that England was the type of player I could work with much easier than Germany. Germany was largely unwilling to commit to anything, was fairly withdrawn in communication unwilling to open up, and wasn't very timely or communicative. As is well known by now, I type a lot and prefer to have lengthy communication partners that like to discuss as much as I do. Germany was not that type of fellow. So despite the fact that as France I generally prefer to work with Germany than England, this game it was clear to me that the player of France was going to be much more amenable to the way I preferred to operate. (As for why I prefer working with Germany, I'd rather not have a naval superpower building right to the north of me. As France working with England, England tends to have the power to stab you whereas France rarely has the power to stab England. It takes careful negotiation and positioning to be able to trust the English not to turn their fleets against France after they've gained everything they can in the north with them. Working with Germany tends to be better, if anything France tends to have a bit of an edge there)

Still, England was a great ally. They were communicative, they were open, they were willing to discuss concerns and hopes openly and honestly. Again I wouldn't go far as to say I ever fully trusted the guy, but I felt he was being generally honest with me and I understood his motivations and desires and felt I could trust him to always do whatever was best for him, and I tried to make sure the position was always such that he would rather work with me than against me. (And this generally worked until the very end when I suspected he would start to turn on me and did. Alas, I do not fault him as it was probably the right play for him)

I was very hopeful around 1902 that Germany was going to fall very fast. I was thinking this could quickly lead to an England/France force marching across the board before the others could gather quick enough to stop us. The south looked a mess with Italy not being able to do much, and I had thought Turkey/Russia/Austria were going to take several seasons to work everything out. By that time I figured England and I would be in a dominant position--we would have eliminated Germany, and England could work on forcing those northern Russia centers to be theirs while I could easily crush Italy with the added help of some ground armies coming from Munich. I was hoping Austria was going to be having enough troubles with its neighbors that it wouldn't be able to come to Italy's aid. I still think this game was pretty close to falling into this situation and England and I would have essentially been able to force what Russia just did. I'm not sure how the ending would have gone in that one, but it would have at least given me more chances that what ended up happening.

But alas, things quickly started turning late 1902 and early 1903 to the point where I began to really fear that Austria/Russia had managed to do what we were hoping to, only they were a bit quicker! And indeed they were just a move or so ahead of us and were able to prop up the Germans just in time to prevent England and I from gaining the centers we were going to. This to me was THE critical part of the early game as it prevented England and I from growing large enough (I think there were some lines of play that could have lead to a four way draw where England/France and Russia/Austria basically would have stalemated. Not sure on this but it seemed possible for a little bit). But instead Russia and Austria somehow managed to convince Italy to essentially do their bidding while Germany had a single minded rage to ensure we suffered. (Can't entirely blame him as he had no other options but revenge).

It was around 1903-1904 that England and I agreed that if Italy wasn't going to be joining us that we had to get Austria to join us then. I thought Russia was in a dominant position and would be happy with the status quo, or worse if I turned on England as Russia was goading me to do, Russia would have just won even sooner.

Around this point is where we basically get into all my earlier writing where I've more than detailed my frustrations. But to quickly summarize the end game largely was me getting annoyed that Italy and Austria didn't seem to be making moves that actually benefited themselves as much as they benefited someone else and it baffled me. Italy was working with Austria, when I struggle to point to anything Austria did for Italy (alright, fine they let them rent Trieste for one turn). I was offering all sorts of deals to Italy that could have seen them actual growth, instead they seemed content to stay stagnant with their home centers and Tunis, peacefully letting Austria reclaim Trieste, and just bashed their forces against my fleets waiting for Austria to finally gut them.

Austria seemed content to think that they were getting and even deal with Russia despite the fact that Russia had much greater expansion opportunities in the north and was better positioned to stab Austria's centers. Austria was going to stagnate quickly when coming against the French fleets and it would take them quite awhile to gain dominance of the southern seas. During this time it became increasingly apparent to me that Russia would claim dominance of the northern seas shortly, and once that happened Russia could force gains upon many centers. Yet Austria would never turn on his ally.

With all that in mind I essentially quit by the end as all my energy and care was out of the game. The ending seemed clear to me, but despite me asserting Russia was going to win, Austria was never swayed. (And we've covered that enough already I won't dwell on it). I do somewhat regret not reaching out to Austria right before the end and pointing out explicitly how close Russia was to winning. I saw the moves he could take to get to 17 with a low shot at 18, although I missed exactly how good his odds of hitting 18 actually were. Still I wonder if I had reached out to Austria quickly enough if we wouldn't have been able to band together as an England/France/Austria alliance to turn the game around. Alas I had checked out though and was ready for the loss. But I do think I may have missed my final chance there to make something of the game.

Which just goes to show you that you can always come back in this game no matter how bleak things look. It's a fascinating game that still enthralls me and I look forward to playing some more. (I also look forward to getting some greater success....these two games have not gone very well for me!).

kevindola November 14th, 2017 09:24 AM

Re: Diplomacy
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Dad_Scaper (Post 2167276)
My plan right now is to let this stew for a couple of days and see who else wants to sign up.

Looks like the stewing has lasted a couple of weeks. Are we ready to initiate signups or do the holidays complicate things?

wriggz November 14th, 2017 09:35 AM

Re: Diplomacy
 
I'm cool to start (we already had our thanksgiving up here).

However I think we should preface this game with a "December Claus" as in Santa is coming so people should feel free to request delays as needed, with an expected shut down on the week of the 25th. I know many people have time off at Christmas, but I feel like that should be time dedicated to family and friends, not trying to take over Europe circa 1902.

Kinseth November 14th, 2017 10:15 AM

Re: Diplomacy
 
I am okay with starting, and around Thanksgiving & Christmas, probably put a request for longer deadline.

Ranior November 14th, 2017 01:23 PM

Re: Diplomacy
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by wriggz (Post 2168417)
I know many people have time off at Christmas, but I feel like that should be time dedicated to family and friends, not trying to take over Europe circa 1902.

Haha, this made me chuckle, thanks.

I'm good with starting, but agree longer deadlines will be needed during the holiday times. I'll be without internet Thanksgiving for sure, and then during Dec 23-26th I'll be fairly busy as well. It sounds like most agree so we'll just need to extend deadlines around those.

Looking forward to playing again.

Dad_Scaper November 14th, 2017 01:28 PM

Re: Diplomacy
 
Don't worry about deadlines during the holidays. I'll move them as needed, and if you want something in particular just ask.

Bear in mind that I do not promise in advance to grant all requests, so don't save them for the last minute. Also, this last game was plagued with late orders, and I will be more firm in the next game to make sure that the game is not needlessly delayed. You take the fate of your power in your hands when you are late; I might do something drastic.

We have 8 people on the list. Is there someone who has played in both games already who will volunteer to sit this one out? If you don't want to be that volunteer then don't be. I'm just asking if there is someone who wants to. If not, I'll move on to some other way to shorten the list to 7.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:57 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2023, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2023 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.