Heroscapers - Diplomacy

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)

The diplomacy aspect of Diplomacy, in theory, makes them all even. But I like the moves Turkey has the best.

Turkey and england are my least favorite, I am very fond of playing austria. I love the diplomacy focus that austria has.

Like Kinseth, I am not fond of Turkey. In fact, I have a slight preference for the other 6, roughly tied with each other, ahead of Turkey.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dad_Scaper (Post 2149515)

Like Kinseth, I am not fond of Turkey. In fact, I have a slight preference for the other 6, roughly tied with each other, ahead of Turkey.

I think Turkey looks fun. With Turkey, you don't have quite so many sides you have to watch and you start by a large cluster of supply centers.

That is true. It's really a matter of taste.

Has Germany gone in hiding? Is there unlimited time to be late?

I have deliberately not paid attention to who is playing what power, but Germany needs to get those moves in. People can get busy or travel or whatever, but others are waiting, and communication with the GM (or just taking your turn) is good manners.

I wrote privately to Germany, urging him to take action. It'll happen; be patient.

France. You will be missed

Rest in pepperonis France. You fought valiantly till the end.

finis

Congrats to Turkey and Italy on a most unusual final position and draw.

It is customary for players in online Dip to share "EOG," or "end of game," statements. I hope you will all do so here, rather than there. I have my own thoughts, which I will keep to myself for now.

So, fellas, what did you think? Discuss.

We can finally see the censored post by @Ranior

I plan on writing an End Game Statement, unsure when I will get to it.

Can we get a list of who was who for countries though?

Yes. I'll start:

1. Kinseth - Turkey

I was France. I'll get a statement up at some point; have to get my thoughts in order first.

1. Kinseth - Turkey
2. AYP - France

When preparing your EOG, it may help to review the season-by-season maps. You can also even embed those graphics in your EOG, to help narrate. Though I say that without actually making sure it is so.

I won't be attempting to embed the maps, for I'm not sure i can quite manage that right now. But I do have them open besides me for any who want to follow along.

To start with I was Austria. (I also happen to know kevindola was Italy. The remaning nations I havve guesses on but that's about it).

I picked Austria when I signed up as I've had plenty of Diplomacy experience and have fun with that nation. I also know it can be a burdensome nation to play in your first game so I somewhat wanted to take it so no newer player might get stuck with it and struggle.

Austria is a very boom or bust nation, and sadly it was quite the bust this time. But in those early years there were a few signs of hope, and I shall recount those here along with my failures that lead to my speedy removal.

At the onset of the game I knew I needed to make sure Germany and I had a truce. Most Germans easily acquiesce to this, but I was concerned that a newer player might get the idea that they could fight Austria, but most Diplomacy veterans will agree that is a quick way for both Germany and Austria to die early. Fortunately the Germans this round seemed quite glad to have a working relationship and we shared communication throughout those early years which in some odd way may have led to my later doom. But for a few years it was great as we both were helping each other out on what others were saying while having no funny business in BOH or TYR.

As for my immediate neighbors, I knew early on I didn't want to work with Turkey. I am not a big fan of the Austria Turkey alliance as I find it very hard to trust each other long term since Austria basically can't stab Turkey in this position while Turkey's best path for more centers often becomes taking Austrian centers. So overall I was trying to be more friendly towards Italy and Russia early on and see if they wanted to work with me.

I had misread some of the early communication and thought that Russia and Turkey were going to go for the juggernaut which worried me since I would surely be the loser of such an alliance. So I was pressing early to have Italy aid me in removing Turkey. And at least for the start things looked alright.

I started out pretty well with my first season accomplishing much of what I wanted. In the Fall I had gained SER, was sitting nicely in GAL, and had a general agreement with the Italians. The one issue is that Italy thought I was going to support him into GRE, but I had instead promised my aid to the Russianas to get into GAL. I thought Italy was taking TUN and then next year we were taking GRE. I do wonder how well our alliane may have held if we simply hadn't messed up such communications.

The next year is where things changed rapidly. I was of the understanding that I would aid Italy into Greece and in return others would help me in taking BUL from the Turks. This would start us off on a Italy Russia Austria alliance to take out Turkey which I was quite happy to do. The army in GAL was causing some headaches for Russia but I thought I could get away with keeping it there to ensure my safety as I thought the Italians looked like my best bet for a long term partner.

But then in the fall Italy reneged on their promise to assist me and Russia started playing hardball by saying I had to remove the army in GAl to receive his aid. I was very unhappy with these responses as I thought Italy really owed me for letting him into Greece. He couldn't accomplish that on his own, and now he was going to get to go to 5 total centers while he was keeping me at 4 while allowing Turkey to keep BUL. I thought this was just a bad move for all of us and was not being aggressive enough or fair.

So I went behind their backs and turned to Turkey for aid. He was overjoyed to have someone to work with and we had some great talks that I was very hopeful about. I was wary about getting into a Turkey-Austria alliance, but Turkey assured me he could help make it happen and so onward I went hoping for the best.

But then the Spring of 03 I was betrayed by Turkey and at that moment knew my game was likely done. Austria had begun to fall into the early bust, and it's hard to take it back from that position as it is relatively easy for the other nations to take out Austria if they so desire. At this point Russia wasn't particularly my friend nor Italy, and my future was crumbling. Turkey admitted that part of his reason for stabbing me was because I was telling him about all the conversations I was having with Germany and to some extent France and England and it worried him how I had already set myself up better than he for the late game and so partially turned on me because he thought he had a better chance to win with Italy. I can't say that didn't turn out to work for him, but I'd still like to think there was a future where both of us did the same trick. Alas.

By the time it was too late Russia and I did at least agree we had to work together to stop the Turkey-Italy alliance, but we couldn't hold out for long. We at least forced them into having slower progress, but by 1905 I was gone.

The rest of the game played out more or less how I thoguht. For awhile I thought Turkey might outright win as many Italian centers were very exposed, but in the end a nice draw was achieved by that deserving duo. I'm saddened that I wasn't able to work with Italy or Turkey to the end as both did prove to be excellent long term allies capable of working together for most of the game.

Overall it was a great time though and I was very happy to play again. Huge kudos to our new players who largely blended right in with the diplomacy veterans. Extra kudos for Kevindola for being a newbie who piloted Italy to a joint win.

Thanks to dadscaper for setting this up and overseeing everything. Great time.

I'm in for another if that's the plan. I'd love another crack at it haha. I can't help but feel I was this close to having a long term partner in either Italy or Turkey if we just could have developed together a bit longer, or perhaps if I had just tried harder early on a Russia/Austria alliance we could have perhaps won. I look forward to whenever my next game of Diplomacy is to get another shot at doing things right.

Excellent EoG, Ranior. Thank you for sharing your thoughts.

1. Kinseth ~ Turkey
2. AYP ~ France
3. Ranior ~ Austria

I was England. This was my first game of Diplomacy so I was a little confused on how to play. I started off trying to get a stable hold on the mainland through deals with France and Germany and that worked for a while. My eventual downfall happened because I tried to do too much at once and miscommunication with Germany. I'm sure my lack of experience showed as France and Germany squashed me on my tiny island.

Anyway I'm enjoyed playing. Thanks for the great experience and congrats to our winners.

It's a MEEEE Pope Maaaaaaarioooo.

I was Italy. This was also my first game of Diplomacy and I thought it was very fun. To the point where I downloaded an app during the game and have played multiple games since we started this.

I started things by reading up on opening Italy strategy online, and the vast majority of them said. Turkey is BAD. Kill TURKEY.

And the reasoning seemed sound, so my long term plan was a short term alliance with Austria and a long term alliance with Russia while maintaining peace with France.

Things started off miserably as both Austria and Turkey appeared to have agreed to help me into Greece, but neither materialized due to some miscommunication on both parts. Fortunately they both were eager for me as an ally so I was able to get into there the following year and still claim Tunisia.

Things got messy in the end of 1902 though. Austria wanted me to move Greece to take Bulgaria and Austria would claim Greece. Russia was also interested in keeping the pressure on Turkey and was in favor of Bulgaria falling.

I however, just did not like the position it left me in. My army would be in Bulgaria but would have no reinforcements close by for another 2 season while I would be surrounded by Austria. I wanted to wait until 1903 so I could get some additional naval support in the area which would put at least on an equal footing with the other powers in the area vying for centers. I honestly at this point didn't have any plans to make any betrayals in the immediate future, I just wanted to be self supported. It also didn't help that Austria (Ranior) revealed themselves to me so I knew who it was and I have some experience with him in other games as a calculating player who is quite adept at manipulating information to suit his own needs, so I don't think I was ever going to be comfortable intentionally leaving myself in a spot where Austria could betray me easily.

Regardless, I told him no, I would not let him have Greece in the fall of 1902 and I explained my reasons, but that we could come to an agreement in 1903. Instead a hectic proposal was made for Russia to take Bulgaria and this I agreed to. But as those who were battling in this area knew, the Winter of 1902 will go down as a turning point in the war as Austria and Turkey made as striking retaliation move against myself and Russia.

I was lucky enough to retain Greece though. Of course, Turkey then approached me with a convincing proposal to strike back against Austria and I was in no position to decline. It did require a long term attack on Russia which I wasn't thrilled about, but I couldn't have it all.

Meanwhile I had a lot of amicable talks with France throughout the course of the game, but I just saw no long term alliance once Turkey and I had quelled the Balkans.

I spoke with France and Germany the most outside of Turkey and was able to coordinate a combined strike at France with Germany.

I thought the threat Turkey and I were posing was becoming clear, but the remaining countries would have had to quickly regroup in a ragtag alliance and it didn't materialize.

Leaving myself open to Turkey? It was always a possibility, but Turkey did everything I asked to show his commitment to a draw. Well he was slow on a few things, but we were able to negotiate reasonably and make concessions that satisfied each other. The other thing is that to be honest this was my first game and frankly I would have been happy coming out of it with a 2nd place finish. Turkey proved to be an amazing and crafty ally....at least to me ;)

good fun though and thanks everyone. I'd be willing to do another!

Thank you Zetsubo and Kevindola for your thoughts, as well.

1. Kinseth ~ Turkey
2. AYP ~ France
3. Ranior ~ Austria
4. Zetsubo ~ England
5. Kevindola ~ Italy

Nice EGS you guys.

I haven't started writing mine, but I will try to write one by mid-next week. I have to go re-read all the communications between myself and other countries before I can sit down and write this properly.

~Sultan of Swing(Turkey)

Alrighty, let's see if I can get this down in a reasonable enough manner. Again, I was France.

I went into this game blind and I more or less stayed that way. My intuition was that France was a pretty good power to start out as, with basically unrestricted access to the Spanish Peninsula. In the first year I was happy to make whatever concessions to my neighbors that would allow me to secure those two points. On the diplomacy side of things, my initial thoughts were that an alliance with Austria would be beneficial. This, I think, was a miscalculation--Austria has too many pressing concerns to gain much from working with a power that doesn't border them, and as a result of my talks I somewhat neglected my more immediate neighbors. In 1902, both Germany and England violated our pre-established neutral zones, though thanks to warnings from Russia I was able to anticipate this.

I knew fighting both of my fellow western powers at once was going to be a losing battle. Since I had managed to position a fleet behind England's lines, I decided to side with Germany--I could promise them some concrete results that would quickly gain ground against England if we worked together. Fall 1903 was the turning point here--Germany took Sweden, and an unexpected offer of support from Russia allowed me to take Norway. At that point, defeating England was a matter of inevitability.

While I was finishing them off, however, Italy began to move against me. With Turkey focusing on Russia and the Italy-Turkey border seeming free of conflict, an alliance there became fairly clear to me. At that point, Russia and I agreed that only two things could happen--an alliance of Russia, France, and Germany against them, or a Turkish and Italian victory. Unfortunately, in defending against Italy's naval assault, I didn't have the forces to guard the mainland, and Italy was able to convince Germany to attack me. At that point, any hope of a resistance was lost.

D_S, I noticed at several points during the game you mentioning that the results seemed unusual. Having never played before, I'm curious about what exactly you meant. Are there certain ways that these games normally go and certain events that didn't occur here?

There were little things here and there that were, in fact, unusual. Repeated bounces in TRI were pretty rare, for instance. No Italian builds in '01 are very rare, and can doom the little green pieces pretty easily. As I recall, the opening in the West was pretty standard.

Don't regret trying to work with Austria. Normally, the best-informed players will benefit from their intelligence-gathering efforts. By working, for instance, with Austria, you could have learned valuable information about Italy's intentions, and by working with Russia you could have learned about England, and so on. Little clues.

The big mystery to me is why Kinseth did not take the solo when it was dangling in front of him. I hope he addresses that point. I think there were two factors: (1) the possibility of an IT 2 way draw was so appealing to him, aesthetically, that he would forego the solo. Two-way draws are rare beasts in competitive Dip, so *any* 2WD is a feat, but an IT 2WD is surely one of the rarest of all. So I suspect that had some appeal to him.

I also think he was partly motivated by a desire not to have to do the mental gymnastics required in a solo push. I think he was worried it would backfire somehow, and he knew that he was in the driver's seat so that Italy would have no chance to try to steal it from *him*. So I think he also was content with the proverbial bird in the hand.

I am curious for his own thoughts on the point. Kevindola's strategy of trying for that draw paid dividends, but it was brave to the point of reckless. Of course, I am here in the cheap seats and benefiting from hindsight, so it's easy for me to say. Perhaps KD felt like he didn't have any better options, and that may be true.

Kinseth just has a very trusting face

Erm, I don't accept that. Though I do think you were both very deft correspondents.

EGS - Part 1.

For this game, I decided to just allow my country to be given to me at random. But of all the countries, I dislike Turkey the most. Many like Turkey because of the defensive position it offers from the get go. My biggest worry is that I will be railroaded, limited options. I often thrive in the central powers, and sputter out as the outside powers.

I've played 20-30 games of online diplomacy since 2003. Mostly over at Dip2000.com (Which has just shut its doors.) I've never played a Face to Face Diploamcy game, oddly enough.

You can find my record here http://www.psamtek.co.uk/D2k/ look up Brian Koon.

Record in 21 games(Dip2000)
------------------
4 Solo Wins
4 2-way draws(AR, AI, FR, EF)
2 3-way draws
2 4-way draws
1 7-way draws
8 Eliminations

So first think I will note, that my philosophy when playing Diplomacy isn't always "Win" at all costs. I find the most enjoyable part is working as a team with a partner and dominating the board together. Most of the time when I have grabbed a solo, it is due to mistrust of my ally and the feeling that he will not live up to the end of his bargain and go for the solo himself. This is due to how negotiations are going over the course of several seasons. As Dad_scaper has mentioned, going for 2 way draws is a feat on its own, it is hard to build that level of trust as you both are nearing 14+ Supply centers. One bad move away, one player who decides he wants to play King Maker, and you are toast.

I try to make note of my history of being able to pull off 2 way draws, and how I value playing as an alliance over Solos. I feel over time, it is better way of playing and is going to get you more success. I am use to playing in a game where all players are known to eachother, so I can draw on my past games as evidence of my commitment to 2-way draws.

1901

This start of this game, I had some very good communications with Italy, Austria and Russia. Thinking this was a "newbies" game, I think all the experience players were on my side of the board. Russia was very insistent that we bounce in the black. I was wanting to work a Juggernaut with him, but he wanted to "Tip Toe" around at the beginning. I will make mention early, that I like decisive action from the onstart, and am looking for a partner that is willing to commit. I opened to Arm, because I just didn't see me working with Russia and his style. It also shows the board there is no fear of a Juggernaut and that you can work with Turkey. When people see the Juggernaut show up, they figure they have to do their best to stop it. Which I am fine with, but if it isn't there, must as well make sure people understand that.

Italy/Austria/Russia all have bounces with eachother. I start talking to Italy about offering him a convoy into Greece as an alliance opener. I was worried about the Italy/Austria alliance, especially with Russia being an issue for me. I decided to bounce Italy out of Greece. Blamed it on miscommunication I think, I don't remember how I played that one off.

But the Net Result, Italy didn't get a build.

1902

I am in the corner, all alone. THIS is why I dislike playing Turkey. If you don't make a friend, you are in trouble. Somehow, Austria has both Italy and Russia doing his dirty work. I spoke with Italy, and he referenced that he has read/heard much about Italy and Turkey cannot work together. I said that is a bunch of Hogwash, any country can work with any country. (I think this is part of what Dad_Scaper was mentioning in his EGS comments.) Here is some of our discussions...

Italy/Turkish Exchanges

Italy to Turkey

Spoiler Alert!

Me(Turkey) to Italy

Spoiler Alert!

The Tide is turning...

As we approach the deadline for 1902A, I am resigned to the fact that Italy and Russia are the pawns of Austria, I have little hope... Then a bird calls out, and it is Austria messaging me. He feels like Italy and Russia are closing in on him and they are poised to pinch him as I am destroyed. He wants to offer a chance to turn this around, an Olive Branch! I am eager, eager, to side with him.

His communication

Message from Austria to Turkey in agentcarr:

Spoiler Alert!

Message from Turkey to Austria in agentcarr:

Spoiler Alert!

So the adjudication comes out, and the stab on Italy and Russia works almost perfectly, there was one issue with Ser giving too much support to attacking RUM and it should have helped attack Gre. Italy kept Greece. What I wouldn't have given to see the look on Italy and Russia's faces after that adjudication came out.

1903

Austria , who I can tell is a very very good player, is in great position. I am a pawn at this point. We start discussing things more indepth, and it realy becomes clear to me how well Austria is setup in this game. He has hooks into all the powers, England/France/Germany. As the negotiations start to unfold, I think Austria has a really strong chance to solo. I don't want to play a game to be the 2nd place loser. I decide I have to act now, and look to Italy about working together again. If I know anything in diplomacy, when someone is stabbed, they are hellbent on making the stabber pay. (hell hath no fury like a woman scorned!)

I start working with Italy on a masterful plan to stab Austria. I know all of Austria's moves, and we can gut him easily. My requirements were that I was allowed to continue to attack Russia(While leading Russia to believe I was sincere in working with him.)

The Plan
Austria's moves were going to be the following.
Tri - Ven, Alb - ADR, Ser S Rum, Gal S Rum

Italy would "pull" the rug out from underneath Austria, by allowing austria into ADR. Italy agreed to support me into Ser while Russia would move Sev to Rum. In the fall I would move Sev to Rum while supporting Russia to Bud. (That was the lie part, I never intended to vacate SEV and used my own fleet to take Rumania, netting myself a +3 build season of +Ser, +Rum, +Sev and seeing my enemies crippled)

Message to Austria after the stab.

Spoiler Alert!

Part 2 later...

I think Kevindola's decision to stay in Galicia, over fierce and reasonable Russian objections, changed the course of the game. Maybe more than any one thing, as this excellent timeline demonstrates, from the Turkish perspective.

I'll try to post my thoughts when I get time. I was more abrasive in this game than in any other I've played and I was wondering how it came across to everyone.

~Russia

OK, I have some time. I've been playing Diplomacy a long time. As a kid, I played with family and friends face to face and then after growing up, played quite a bit online. I haven't played for about a decade or so though so I decided I was just going to be blunt this go-around and see where it got me.

I got Russia randomly. I started off individually asking all of my neighbors if they wanted to ally with me and everyone else if they wanted to exchange information. I usually make my long term plans depending on how people respond.

England responded by saying they wanted Norway. To me, this just seemed oppotunistic and I didn't see much potential here in a long-term ally. But maybe... so I left options open.

France readily agreed to an exchange of information, which seemed promising.

Austria gave a very long response detailing many thoughts. It was a little intimidating but seemed very workable. I had been in some very successful A-R alliances before and saw real potential here. At this time, we agreed to bounce in GAL.

Turkey responded favorably but also as vague as possible. I was disappointed that no orders were mentioned as I had talked about DMZing BLA and ARM and dividing BUL and RUM. So I asked that we bounce in BLA.

Italy responded favorably to exchanging information, then proposed an alliance against Austria and Turkey. I told Austria I was getting mixed signals from Italy and then Italy told me that Austria had relayed that information to him.

Germany agreed to an alliance but was even more vague than Turkey.

And then I see Turkey move to ARM and Germany got to BAL. Well, I guess I don't have an alliance with either of them. I did keep talking with Turkey but Germany pretty much brushed me off from then on after telling me he did it because I moved to GAL against the wishes of his ally Austria.

So, in desperation, I tried to rally Italy and Austria against Turkey saying there was an EFG alliance and we need to quickly take Turkey and the Balkans in order to combat this threat. They seemed to agree.

Fall orders came in and Austria supported me into Rum but also moved into GAL. Talk about mixed signals! And Italy was still attacking Austria.

There was tons of press being sent between me, Turkey, Austria, and Italy after that and alliances seemed to change with every press sent. It seems none of us trusted anybody. I took the Black Sea and Italy took Greece in the Spring and things looked good. Then Austria took RUM and Turkey took BLA in the Fall. and Turkey tried to support an Austrian attack on Italy, which I cut saving Greece for him. Also, England went incommunicado at this point and decided to help Germany attack my fleet in Sweden. At this point, I knew I was sunk and was just going to try eke out as much entertainment out of the situation as possible before I was eliminated.

I hit Austria the next year and Turkey the year after that. I supported France into Norway. I was just trying to do the most damage possible. It seems to have worked pretty well. I believe I was quite the thorn for the rest of the game. Sadly, Germany and England never did respond or we might have had a game going allying against the I-T alliance. But sometimes that's how it goes and so I did what I could to have fun.

Q, I wonder if you agree with my thought that Austria's insistence on staying in GAL had a singularly powerful affect on the shape of the game from then on.

Well, I did give Austria an ultimatum that if he wanted my help, he needed to move out of GAL. Of course, I did the same with Turkey and ARM. Either one could have changed the game for me.

Well I will admit that in hindsight I really missed out on an opportunity to work with Russia. This stemmed from my early feeling that a juggernaut was occuring. Reveiwing some of my correspondence it seems I believe my most compelling reason for doing so was how Russia was saying so little and didn't really seem to want my help--with hindsight it seems that was his general style he was going for this game, but it did make me fear the Juggernaut greatly in the early game, which is what lead me to try to work with Italy where I was getting good vibes from.

Given I was never feeling great about Russia, and I was putting too much faith in Italy early, I figured holding GAL would be very beneficial for the long term. I was alos still fearing if I told Russia I was leaving GAL that he would just move in--and I may just be too paranoid of that since I have in the past been burned fast as Austria with a Russian in GAl. (As that is a good quick way to die as Austria).

By the time I swapped to working with Turkey, I once again didn't think I would be needing or wanting Russian aid, so I just didn't try hard to make it happen. By the time then I was betrayed and the IT alliance was going, it was practically too late for Russia and I to amount to much, especially since France couldn't help offer much aid given what was happening in that section of the map.

I do wonder if I had just left GAL sooner if I wouldn't have had a willing ally in Russia in that Fall of 1902 who would have just helped me into Bulgaria and all would have continued on fine. In hindsight it liikely would have worked as only Italy was working with Russia at that time and the three of us could have gotten along fine for awhile. Then again perhaps that path would have led to an Italy Russia alliance that I feared who would have quickly taken me out anyhow--such is the plight of Austria though for the early game is deadly, but they are one of the stronger nations if they get a chance to grow as they have some of the shortest distance to travel to grow centers for much of the midgame.

Thanks all for submitting some post game thoughts. Always fun to dissect games and plans especially when the game takes months to play!

So I don't know that I ever got a truly objective answer to whether me moving into Bulgaria in the Fall of 02 and relinquishing Greece to Austria would have been a good move or not.

Turkey was telling me how Russia and I were just being Austria's pawns, but he had quite a bit of reasons to be saying that.

I don't really know if my request for Austria to wait until 1903 was reasonable or not, but what I did know was that I didn't completely trust him. I thought his call to arms to battle the Juggernaut was a ploy to rally the other countries to his assistance. And he was also giving me the line that the reason we needed to move so fast against Turkey was because E-G were creating an indomitable western combined force. So based on my observations I was taking all his reasoning with a grain of salt and I felt like I was being forced into a position that couldn't be supported at the time and that I wasn't comfortable with.

I actually stated those reasons to Austria the morning orders were do and told him I would not be supporting those moves. I probably didn't give him enough time to give a reasoned response at that time, but at the end of the day I'm not sure I could have been talked into vacating Greece for Bulgaria.

If curious here was our exchange:

Spoiler Alert!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Italy

Austria,

The deadline for movements is upon us. Honestly I don't think I did as
much discussion up against the weekend as was warranted, even with my
lone movement.

I have decided to hold Greece for this Fall. I know me moving into
Bulgaria was discussed and on paper looks wise as part of our mutual
growth, however I think this grants you too much power over me and
indeed all of that area.

Granted we have shown each other a lot of trust with our supply center
movements, but I have prayed on this, and the Lord has advised
patience. I think the move to Bulgaria vs. staying at Greece weakens
my position (although strengthens our alliance's position).

I think my movement to Bulgaria in the Spring would be fine. It would
allow more deployment on my part towards Turkey, and would make me feel
more comfortable about allowing you into Greece.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Austria

Yes I dearly wish you had made this clearer long ago. Now it would seem
our entire alliance's growth will be stymied and Turkey will continue
to be difficult to crack while we delay on taking his territory.

Let it be known I am not happy with this decision but am unsure how I
can otherwise proceed.

Still I think you are making a mistake here, and to get my support in
the future I will need more concrete assurances. I helped you into
Greece on the understanding you would help me gain a supply center. I
shall not make such a mistake again.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Austria to Russia AND italy

Italy seems to no longer want to move to BUL, so I am not sure we as a
group can take that center this season anymore as Italy will not move
there, and Russia will not support me there.

As such, we may have to wait until 1903 to make further progress.

And while it is not good news for us, I have confirmed with Germany and
England plans to help Germany gain Sweden. I do think this means STP
will not be attacked this phase, but I would not be sure I am being
told correct information.

As for the issue of the army present in GAL, I still see it as almost
neccessary defense against possible Rusisan aggression. If I leave GAL
open, and you later go on to take it, I will be pretty much doomed and
unable to defend myself against an attack should you want to launch one.

I also currently see no good way for me to retreat out of the area to
leave it as a DMZ. So I am not sure what solutions we can have to
figure out how to amicably work together in GAL. I promise I shall
continue to hold in the region, but I also do understand how it leaves
you concerned over your defense. Again I am open to suggestions, but I
do not see a safe way for me to leave that region without the risk that
you (Russia) takes it.

*******ooc(Russia proposes to take Bulgaria instead of Austria since I will not support Austria there in the fall)************

I agree we must dismantle Turkey and make progress on it, else we are
going to be moving to slowly to respond to the growing England/Germany
alliance which looks poised to pick off France in a few more turns. If
they grow and gain that strength, I'd like to be done with Turkey so we
can turn our forces and reply to their threat in time. As such, I don't
think we can dwaddle on taking BUL this turn.

As such I will reluctantly support your vision Russia. I expect to be
gaining at least one if not two centers in 1903 though. I am unhappy
with seeing Italy and yourself reach 5 total centers by the end of this
year while I stay at 4.

I realize that we need to work together however, and while I don't love
the idea of leaving GAL, the suggested moves at least should make it
possible to retreat while being reasonably assured it will stay open.

I shall lock in the following:

GAL-VIE (I do not want war with Germany yet)
BUD-GAL
SER S RUM-BUL/ec
ALB holds

Quote:

Originally Posted by Italy to Austria

Austria,

I am sorry the timing of my decision was late, but it was not a
decision I easily came to.

At the time I pen this missive though, there have been alternate
arrangements made, so I do not think the discussion about Turkey
lingering are valid any longer, so I will ignore that piece of
information.

I also was willing to let you take Greece next year. I explained my
concerns and why, for me, waiting seemed prudent. I will be able to
bring more force to bear against Turkey while minimizing the risk that
you decide to cut me out entirely. Perhaps this is baseless, but the
fear was there. By waiting until 1903, I will be better positioned to
support myself in Bulgaria should you decide our alliance is no longer
in your self interest.

AFTER THE FALL MOVEMENTS

Quote:

Originally Posted by Austria to Italy AND Russia

Message from Austria to Italy and Russia in agentcarr:

For the record, despite my recent turn against the both of you, I am
still willing to keep diplomacy alive.

Not that it matters much, but I made the moves I did because I was
highly unsatisfied with the situation both of you were putting me in.
Russia would not support me into Greece, but also did not want me in
GAL. That left me in limbo where I effectively could not grow and
should just stay camped on a few spaces--my home centers and Serbia. It
is not hard to see how such a position heavily advantages my enemies
who might like to grow around me and then remove me.

Similarly I was kind enough to support you into Greece Italy. In
return, I was met with concerns that I may be growing too much or
getting in too good of a position. Yet here I had just aided you in
getting a 5th supply center while I was still at 4! I think it quite
unreasonable for you to feel you didn't owe me some aid of some sort
there to ensure I would grow alongside you. Once again, I felt that you
were trying to keep me quite contained and were not in any way
concerned about my needs.

Taken together then the pair of you seemed to desire Austira to be your
stooge who would just kindly sit in the small sliver of territory you
had allowed for me (which apparently consists of VIE, BUD, SER as GAL,
TRI were to be DMZ). Furthermore Italy was set to have two builds while
I would have none. It would have been quite easy for the pair of you at
that time to turn on me and build units that would threaten me along
with Turkey and remove us both. Seeing that you two may have such
desires, I had to make my move to prevent such actions from occurring.

Again, I'm still open to negotiations though. But I wanted my thoughts
on the matter to be made clear so you could understand where I was
coming from. I made the only actions you had left for me. In the future
if you would like to work with me please remember to keep my needs in
mind along with your own. The only way an alliance can work is if all
parties are benefiting roughly mutually. You cannot try to leave a
supposed partner aside and offer them no route for growth.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Italy

I will not speak for Russia.

You did what you felt you had to do. I will say that I proposed to
Hold at Greece. The Russia move to BUL was not coordinated by me, but
seemed prudent if both you and Russia were advocating to it, which it
appeared to be the case.

I did not see the urgency to crush Turkey, and perhaps that is me being
short sighted. I was willing to cede you Greece in the spring in
exchange for me taking Bulgaria, but I wanted to wait. That would at
least ensure I could have southern fleet support if it was required. I
did not think this was an unreasonable request. Yes my timing was
late, but it appears now that I shouldn't have warned you at all.

I will assume fault for not giving you the chance to explain more why
it was so critical to make Turkey fall soon. I know the arguments
about the Northern powers, but I am not completely sold by them.

And let's not make it seem like my presence in Greece was a hindrance
to you. Firstly, you did not support me in 1901 due to failed
communication lines. Me being in Greece in the Fall of '01 completely
changes my positioning. And if I don't go into Greece in Fall of '01,
then Turkey is there, in case you forgot that bounce. Also, with my
positioning as it was building up, you could stab me at your
convenience with little to no repercussions.

Finally, although my message came late to you, I was surprised that you
did not try to talk me down or counter any of the concerns I had once
you achieved Greece. While we would both be at 5 Centers, I would be
completely ill positioned and subject to your decisions on how to carve
the Turkey.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Austria

All fair concerns and points. I could have done better as well
communicating my thoughts on how the alliance would be best served by
the moves I was suggesting rather than just assuming you would follow
along.

I do think it is shortsighted to think we have time to delay on carving
up Turkey, and then move on to other things. England and Germany seem
clearly aligned and they will rip through France in a matter of a few
more years. if they are at say 9 centers each by the start of 1906
which is entirely reasonable (they currently sit at 11 combined, they
get the other 7 from the 5 French centers, STP, and then one other
somewhere), well who is going to stop them from there? If we continued
to delay I do not think we would have had Turkey and Russia eliminated
by then but I suppose I could be wrong. Still I'd rather be aggressive
in going for growth rather than assume I have time I may not. Perhaps
just different risk tolerances.

But as you noted I did what I felt was best for me.

As for now, it seems clear you and I both are prepared to fight each
other. I will just make it clear I intend to move TRI-VEN this next
season, and so if you try to move your army to VEN it will fail.

It depends on the situation. My reading of Austria's & Russia's partial press were that they were both the type of player who is looking for a long-term ally, and as Ranior said, he thought he had that in you. In your situation, I would have gone to BUL.

On the other hand, I think you did a masterful job of painting Austria as deceitful and a problem, when in fact (as far as I could tell) he actually *hadn't* been deceitful with you. But it did help you in your communications with Russia and then with Turkey to have this running theme, even if it wasn't actually grounded in truth.

So, I would have taken BUL there, but I would not have landed the game in an excellent 2WD, either. So I'm not saying you did anything wrong but I would have played that one thing differently.

All the new players made this a much more open game, I think, then I remember seeing when I played regularly. It was unsettled, and exciting to watch.

I'll happily run another one, if people want. Or not, if the interest isn't there.

I agree with much of that analysis as well DS. This game had a bit different flavor and the newer players were a part of that. I gladly would play again.

As for kevindola managing to twist my words and paint me as decietful...well what do you think we spend all that time in the CoN forums doing? :)

I would be happy to play again. I would prefer a site that allows nations to surrender to a contingent of countries rather than forcing them to play it out to the bitter end, but I understand too why that might be desirable as it ratchets up the tension with the remaining players allegedly striving for a draw.

I am also curious to the general nature of a competitive Dip player's mindset. Is going in with the goal of a draw considered distasteful? What about bypassing a certain solo to honor an agreed upon draw? Things I was pondering on, especially as Turkey/Kinseth was repeatedly telling me in the past he plays for the draw and has a documented history of doing so (in order to get me to trust him more)

Quote:

Originally Posted by kevindola (Post 2157393)

I dislike the forced nature of making everyone play till the bitter end. I think it artificially induces Solos. Also players who are on 1-3 units with no hope of winning, simply want the game to end. They are now forced to keep playing.

Each player has his own mindset, there is no "one" way to play diplomacy. I find playing for 2 way draws to be very rewarding and successful. It works for me.

I don't think Austria staying in Galicia was "That" big of a deal, I think that Austria woulda have gone against Russia/Italy as soon as he felt he could, regardless of the situation.

I still need to finish my EGS, but it won't be till sometime next week.

I could have accommodated your request. There are dials I can turn that would have made it possible.

I did not, however, want to permit it. Going for a 2WD is a tremendous risk and a tremendous opportunity for both players. It's also an opportunity for one of the small powers, maybe even with one sad army or one lonely fleet, to play kingmaker and get revenge on some bitter foe.

So that was more me than it was the judge. If you guys want a 2WD, you can have it. But if I took out the dangerous and exciting part of getting there, it wouldn't be as impressive a feat.

Quote:

Originally Posted by kevindola (Post 2157393)

I am also curious to the general nature of a competitive Dip player's mindset. Is going in with the goal of a draw considered distasteful? What about bypassing a certain solo to honor an agreed upon draw? Things I was pondering on, especially as Turkey/Kinseth was repeatedly telling me in the past he plays for the draw and has a documented history of doing so (in order to get me to trust him more)

This was a significant debate in the old days of the so-called "Ken Lowe" judges.

The rules do not provide for "team" wins. A participant in a draw is not, by definition, a winner. And yet some players are, as we used to call them, "carebears," who will not stab allies under any circumstances and are not really playing for the solo.

My own personal style was to prefer longer-term alliances. I always had the stab available as an option, and I expect that my allies always did as well, but it was often the better long-term strategy to stay the course.

To my mind, a player who is not *playing to win* is taking something away from the experience of the game. If such a player becomes, for instance, competitive as England, and I am Turkey and I am trying to work with England to stop a runaway Germany threatening to dominate the game, then there is literally nothing I can say at that point to steer England toward attacking his German ally. So the game is more-or-less doomed at that point, because England has foreclosed diplomacy, which is, after all, the name of the game.

In a face-to-face game, I once had such a carebear ally. I knew that I could safely stab England and run away with the solo, because my Russian ally would never, ever take my home centers and stop me, even though he could, because he was a carebear. Obviously, that's not the way Kinseth was playing. If Italy was threatening the solo, Kinseth would have stepped in to prevent it.

Diplomacy is a funny game, in that different people play it differently. Here's one of the canonic articles about play styles; some of you may find it interesting:
http://www.diplomatic-pouch.org/Zine...sor/point.html

The interesting thing about this game, as I wrote earlier, is that the number of new players made it more unsettled. Some of you guys are not in any of these categories, really, because you're still finding your own voices as players. It was very interesting & entertaining to watch.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dad_Scaper (Post 2157399)

That same small sad army player, can still decide not to vote for the draw. It actually adds more to the game, as now both players who are in the 2 way alliance, start to mistrust one another as the draw is not voted on by all players. They start thinking "Is the other player voting against it because he is stringing me along and waiting for his opportunity for a solo."

I still stand by the stance, forcing a 17/17 way draw is artificially going to create more solos, or create more 3 way draws...

Anyways, it's my opinion, doesn't mean I am right, just how I feel about it.

Oh, a unanimous anonymous vote? I don't like it but if that's what the players want, that's ok with me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dad_Scaper (Post 2157410)

Oh, a unanimous anonymous vote? I don't like it but if that's what the players want, that's ok with me.

Yeah, as long as it is anonymous.

I can accommodate that on the Judge platform.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dad_Scaper (Post 2157403)

To my mind, a player who is not *playing to win* is taking something away from the experience of the game.

I agree, with Diplomacy or any game.

Quote:

Originally Posted by quozl (Post 2157415)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dad_Scaper (Post 2157403)

To my mind, a player who is not *playing to win* is taking something away from the experience of the game.

I agree, with Diplomacy or any game.

Strongly agreed as well, although with Diplomacy it is a particular problem as DS explained well. I too really don't like the "carebear" type of player who essentially shuts themselves off of Diplomacy given that is the point of the game. I played a lot of face to face Diplomacy back in the day with a group of high school friends and there was one such player who so rarely would stab anyone. His excuse was that no one would trust him again, and I will admit that face to face games do have a bit of an issue in terms of the fact that building up a reputation is useful. But in general this carebear would very often survive to one of the final 2/3 players and then wind up losing every single time. He almost never was left in a draw or anything because he would never ever strike first. It was quite annoying and took away a lot of the fun. We fortunately eventually realized this and had to suck it up and stop inviting him.

Anyhow the good news was this game was played quite well on that front--alliances were made but were willing to be broken. I'm still a little surprised Turkey didn't just go for the solo as I thought it may be there, but I also get his reasons for not doing so. I also get DS's argument for why it is important to actually play the thing out as finishing things up at 17-17 draw really does add a lot more tension than just agreeing to a draw when you're at like 13-12 or something. On the other hand, I personally don't really care if people do just want to draw.

As to some of kevindola's questions I don't consider a draw distasteful, but I do view that as your opening goal to be a bit sad. You should go in trying for the solo win and hoping and working to have everything fall your way. As most games develop you'll like not fall into such a dream scenario and have to decide if a solo is at all possible or if you really are more likely to need a draw. I personally am quite happy with either although a solo win feels the best in my opinion. I personally probably would have been likely to stab Italy if I was in Turkey's position in the late game as I thought I had a good solo chance. Then again, Turkey apparently had made many promises at that point, and so I perhaps would have held on to them--I really don't like to lie or renege on promises in Diplomacy. I really prefer to just not promise things and omit stuff if at all possible.

Basically my general gameplay is to try to find an early ally and work with them for most of the game. If I see an opportunity for a solo that I feel is pretty likely. I'll stab and go for it. Else I'm happy to draw if I don't see a good path to the solo. This round I just wasn't able to set up and hold on to an ally to make things work, but alas. I still think there was some hope in there of working with Italy or Turkey if I had just played a bit better. Ultimately if I had to have switched to working with Germany, France, or England in the midgame I also had set up those options early in the game and would have been happy to do that as well.

Overall though I was certainly reminded this round of how much I do enjoy this game. I hope we'll see another one soon. Sounds like most of us are in again?

(Looks like we'll need to replace Germany though as I haven't seen them post any end of game thoughts yet and I know they were slow to act towards the end so I suspect they'll not want to join again).

having never played but followed this thread I'm disappointed I missed out. if you run another game I'd love to have the chance to play.

You'd be great, Wriggz. I'm so pleased you're interested!

Just post below if you want to play. I think each of these guys said he was interested in another round; if not, just say so. @Zetsubo and @All Your Pie , either of you guys want to play again? I'm leaving someone out but I don't remember whom.

1. Kinseth
2. Quozl
3. Ranior
4. Kevindola

go ahead and add my name.