#493
|
||||
|
||||
Re: Diplomacy
1907
Things progress as anticipated for Italy in the spring. Somewhat surprising with Russia not supporting themselves causing them to lose Moscow, but not much surprises me out of Russia this game. I was pleasantly surprised to gain the Mid Atlantic Ocean though. I didn’t plan on holding it, but I did think it would allow me critical positioning in getting a fleet into Portugal. The previously alluded second great English fleet destruction occurred this year too. Along a different coast even. A point I probably got too giddy about. The fall would be turning point for me in decision making though. I was very upset with Austria’s move to support England into Moscow without discussion with me. I saw no way this wasn’t a play to stymie his allies growth and put himself in a dominant board position. Just another among several plays and diplomatic recommendations Austria did during the game. Later there were some reasonable and soothing excuses but they fell on deaf ears. I would summarize Austria’s reasoning as 1) The opportunity came too close to the deadline to have any discussion and 2) There was no chance it would actually work because Turkey was guaranteed to cut that support. I have several complaints with both reasons, but something that stood out for me was the verbiage used echoed similar verbiage used in tactics I had been exposed too previously which were definitive misdirection plays used to stymie an ally and keep a non-equal alliance one sided. I then finalized a decision that a long term alliance with Austria was simply not tenable. You can’t teach an old Austrian new tricks as the Italian saying goes. 1908 So discussion opened with reckless abandon between myself, Germany, and England. Austria was in a board dominant position. He had no real threats to anywhere except at the Italian flank, and I was 2 seasons away from challenging him there. He could take SMY and GRE at almost any point he wanted so it seemed to make a lot of sense that if we didn’t do something to push back on Austria now, there would never be any chance. Germany really wanted me to build A (Ven), but I thought that was too blunt and wouldn’t allow any profitable moves in the spring. We 3 came to an arrangement where England and I would disarm our fleets. I would gain Paris in 1908 to offset the potential losses of GRE and SMY and maintain my defense, and England would gain SPA or POR. We would tread water until my fleets could be brought to bear against Austria. Then when I did lose GRE and SMY, I would disband forces in France allowing Germany to claim Paris again. We had a plan that Germany or I would take Trieste in 1910, with a stretch goal of claiming it in 1909. Who would take it was dependent on how the rest of the board was going. And truth be told, I was really trying to work long term with Germany at this point in the game. I proposed some plans that involved turning on England in the 1910-1911 time frame, but not until Austria had been pushed back significantly. He agreed to this and we outlined some moves. I had thought perhaps Germany would be more willing to listen to these types of plans than England had proven, but I assume that his agreement in principal had no bearing in his actual plans. But maybe something I should have picked up on was that I continually asked Germany not to share information between the two of us with England for various reasons such as 1) England leaking info to Austria (as Austria claimed to me) and 2) Germany agreeing we would be in a long term alliance against England once Austria was contained. So maybe there was some additional large print proof Germany was not going to any more open to betraying England than England had been. I ignored it though. There were actually only a few minor points (Convoy to StP vs. NWY and internally about a convoy from SPA-ALB) to be had and most of the discussion was around long term planning . 1909 And the conclusion. I wrote game over in my EGS when Germany and England moved against me this spring. Nothing had been done to Austria since we 3 had all agreed he was in a dominant position and likely to win unless we combined. In fact he was guaranteed to get +1 centers this year (SMY). Germany and England both closed communication to me this year. I found myself in an eerily similar situation to 1905 where I am being attacked by E/G in the west and find myself at war in the East. As I told England then, I followed through now. Italy will not win with foreign fleets in the Mediterranean so I chose to defend in that direction. There were other deciding factors, but was probably the biggest. As a silver lining for the spring though, I couldn’t have been happier with how the Balkan movements played out. I had studied it extensively and it played out exactly how I wanted it to. If Germany had held to our arrangement then Austria would have lost Trieste this year. But as Robb Stark will tell you, you can have great battle plans and execution but still lose to the quill and that was much the case here. I will say that an E/G opening up their attack against Italy again isn’t a bad ploy, but that spring of 09 wasn’t the most opportune time to do it. Even one more season and all my fleets except for one would have been heading towards Austria. I’m not sure what they expected the reaction to be that fall, or maybe it happened how they planned it? 1910 In another pleasing moment for me, I destroyed two more English units (up to 4! but who's counting? I AM), though I still was not receiving much or any presses from them in the spring. I cleared my head for the fall and made one last pitch to England and Germany saying that I saw no victory condition other than an Austrian win unless England agreed to give Brest to Germany or Italy and England agreed to leave Mid Atlantic. Germany said he was on board with that plan, but England declined saying he would hold all his positions and that he would not give up Brest to anyone nor evacuate the Mid Atlantic. I indicated if that was his stance we were at an impasse and we should concede. The concession was ratified shortly thereafter. END That concludes my tale. Congratulations to Austria. It was excellently played on the board and in the press, and even though he had 2 upset neighbors, they were distracted enough by the looming threat of England and Germany that alleviated pressure to get back in the game and then out negotiated for a victory in the final years. All around well played. |
#494
|
||||
|
||||
Re: Diplomacy
1902
I continue talks with Turkey about moving on Russia. Lots of misdirection going on from Germany. Several notes about three way talks from Russia also about attacking me. I think this is all false and some people are blowing smoke up me arse! Italy seems content with nabbing some of the French Dots as he is moving a fleet out to TYS, but a curious convoy to Apu. I think there were some claims about being nervous as to what Trieste was going to do. I move Trieste to Budapest, assuring Italy I am not intending on attacking him. (Familiar trend forming here, I vacate Trieste opening season, and second year in a row I Vacate trieste.) Day of Deadline I message Turkey about what he plans to do with Con. I realize we never discussed it, and having him with an Army in Rum, Army in Bul makes me a little nervous. Highlighted by the opening season discussions about how Turkey has the advantage on Austria in the alliance. So I tell him(Several hours before deadline) I intend to go Gre - Bul expecting a bounce. This is spring anyways, so if he did something else with Con, we could fix it. Regardless, I think in a 3 day deadline game, that several hours before the deadline is acceptable, almost expected that you'd be on for last minute diplomacy. So we gain Rum, and I am excited, we bounce at Bul(as Expected), I send over some really positive messages, but Turkey becomes a debbie downer. Quote:
There are so many options he has when he has Bulgaria on me, such as supporting Italy to Greece, attacking Serbia and he would have that army in Bulgaria all game long. I've played in plenty of diplomacy games to know that allies can bounce units, it is part of making the alliance work. I start planning my moves without Turkey, for I know in his response that if I stick with him, I will find a knife in my back. Italy should be a good parnter, I've developed two strong seasons of Trust with him... Fall of 1902 I keep writing Turkey, but I don't have any intentions of working with him. I am hoping that I come off genuine to make the attacks happen. But it looks like Turkey either sniffed it out, or he had no intentions of working with him this season either. The way he flipped out, just tipped his hand too much as to what was going to happen this season. I am shocked to see Italy move to ADR sea on me though, I am left scratching my head as to why this would happen. Perhaps Turkey has persuaded him, though I find that highly unlikely. I just helped Turkey into Rum and bounced him at Bul. Especially after I had two great seasons of trust built. Ugh, attacked Turkey, Russia the season before, and the one Neighbor who I thought I had built up trust with, moves in for the kill. This game is going to be over quickly for me. Oh, and I moved to Bohemia like Italy asked me too, making room for a build at Vienna and not at Trieste to make him feel good. 3 Solid moves to build trust... Oh, and I had a small little lie to Turkey, this was really a lie, but I wanted to crush his spirits by making it seem like I got really lucky that my moves didn't update properly. Quote:
Have you tried Hexscape? 3D Heroscape Multiplayer Battle program! Looking for a C3V/SOV miniature? Try one of these sites. |
#495
|
||||
|
||||
Re: Diplomacy
Well this is still the critical point of the game to me, or at least one of them. You still seem to be defending your movement in S1902 and claiming I'm the one being unreasonable. I'm going to make my case and want to continue to discuss this one but if need be we can just leave it. I'd love to hear what others think on this though too, but get if people don't want to jump into the middle.
Loosely my central thought is that you're being very unreasonable to continue to think moving to BUL in S1902 is anything but some form of attack on Turkey. I think there's no way that if you were playing Turkey you'd willingly agree to such a move with Austria. I think you too would be even more upset if someone sprung it towards the last minute without any discussion able to happen about it. Even more than that, I think your own words in your very post somewhat betray your real thoughts about it anyhow. But here goes some of my points: Quote:
That last part is absurd. The prior season you messed up the deadline and presumably were not available and checking messages for the last several hours before the deadline as you didn't even know when it was. Beyond even that though, people have lives. The deadlines are for 3 days to give people plenty of time to discuss things by logging in just once or twice a day and still be able to have fruitful discussions. It's not to allow for last 3 hours hash everything out sessions. I have no clue what I was up to before that deadline, but the way the time moves for the deadlines in this game it could be anything to I'm sleeping, to Tuesday night game group, or weekly bowling league, or just busy with family/errands/etc. If I'm available sure, I often check things close to the deadline. But it's very reasonable for players to be doing other things and the diplomacy periods are so long as to enable players to not have to rush talks at the last minute. While I think in general Turkey gets the upper hand against Austria in such an alliance, every position is different. The resulting position after S1902 is one where Austria has almost all the power. If Austria wants to attack Turkey they have very strong lines to do so. If Turkey wants to attack Austria? Zero options. Sure you can argue that that's just good Austria play to put yourself in such a position, but what does good Turkey play look like? I suspect it looks a lot like what I did--make it very clear our alliance will not be moving forward if the Austrian player will only make moves to put themselves in better positions than his ally. (Keep this thought in your mind as it's going to come up again in a few paragraphs) Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
C'mon man. You cannot have your cake and eat it too. So Italy is supposed to read the situation as an attack on Turkey while Turkey is supposed to just be hunky dory with that move and accept it as a good and fair alliance? Also, we can let Italy state why he preferred ways one or the other, but I was talking with him closely from the very beginning and began making it clear how I wasn't trusting you. I suspect much of Italy's movement against you was with how you were behaving regarding the "attack" on me in S1902. I don't think that really made you appear to be a very good or fair ally, and so I suspect Italy may have found me the more reasonable one to work with. Frankly given how you're detailing your thoughts during this time of the game, I can't blame that conclusion--I quickly began to think Austria couldn't be trusted to be a good ally, and I'm increasingly starting to think that you Kinseth aren't a very good ally. Which is where I'll try to finish this discussion at for now. But ultimately thus far I've seen nothing to convince me you can actually handle a roughly fair alliance--one where both players are more or less gaining position equally. In all three of our games thus far you've managed to get yourself into positions and alliances whereby you're in the much stronger position than your ally, yet your allies continue to work with you. I claim this is poor play by your allies, and in some ways I think they'd agree. (For example I think kevindola has learned his lesson from G2 that you were always in control of that game as you had the better position from which to move and stab, while kevindola never had such opportunities even.) I suspect England and Germany this game have somewhat learned that stabbing Italy was the wrong move as it handed the game to Austria and they needed Italy's aid for a few more seasons to knock Austria down before doing a stab. You seem to think a player sending you a fairly tame message at the end of S1902 clearly explaining why they're not happy with the move and the resulting position is a sign they can't be trusted....but I think it more so shows that you as a player can't or don't like to work with allies who demand fair deals and instead decide you'd rather just find a "stupidly" loyal ally who will do your bidding and go with your suggested moves even as those moves benefit you much more than them. Which I admit is rather at the heart of being good at this game--somehow you do need to figure out a way to have situations unfolding that benefit you more than anyone else. But my main point is that as you find yourself increasingly surrounded by good players that can actually read the board and know if they're getting a fair shake, I suspect you'll increasingly find yourself incapable of getting any allies. |
#496
|
||||
|
||||
Re: Diplomacy
Quote:
I don't want to get into everything else you said, because this is the one part I felt strongly about. Had you responded differently, different tone, different message, regardless of what you really thought, I probably play the season out differently. Have you tried Hexscape? 3D Heroscape Multiplayer Battle program! Looking for a C3V/SOV miniature? Try one of these sites. |
#497
|
||||
|
||||
Re: Diplomacy
As for the thought that I cannot play with an ally. I mentioned before I played on a site called dip2000.com that is now defunct. I played from about 2003-2016 on the site. This was a very experienced site, games are 1-2 weeks long of emailing and everyone plays knowing who is controlling each country.
The theory that I cannot play in alliances is rubbish, my track record says otherwise(I've posted this in a previous EGS also.) It does say I have been beaten 8 times! 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 Edit - unsure if you are taking this too personal, or you are just playing diplomacy for the next game. Have you tried Hexscape? 3D Heroscape Multiplayer Battle program! Looking for a C3V/SOV miniature? Try one of these sites. Last edited by Kinseth; June 12th, 2018 at 11:51 AM. |
#499
|
||||
|
||||
Re: Diplomacy
Have you tried Hexscape? 3D Heroscape Multiplayer Battle program! Looking for a C3V/SOV miniature? Try one of these sites. |
#500
|
||||
|
||||
Re: Diplomacy
Quote:
Not playing diplomacy for the next game, and not meaning to take it too personal. Obviously you can succeed at this game and you have played well. You manage to find allies. I'm just saying I'm noticing a trend whereby you seem to find yourself in alliances whereby you get the better end of the deal. But game 1 was a two way draw whereby your ally benefited as much as you did so you obviously can play that way. So perhaps I'm just going a bit too far here and it's not really important anyhow. The part that I'm still hung up on is the other part: Quote:
I get you don't want to argue everything else said, but mostly everything else I said was the entire context and reasoning behind why I responded the way I did. If your argument is essentially you just personally found my message indicative of an ally you can't work with....well fine. You leave me nowhere to argue there as I can't influence your taste or feelings. But as far as the logical side of things? I'm still struggling mightily to see how you are defending your movement as reasonable. I cannot accept the idea that you'd be happy and content with the move that was made if you were in the position of Turkey. I pretty much refuse to believe you'd have done anything differently than strike out at Austria in F1902 based on the attack in S1902. Perhaps some of this is just differences that we can't reconcile I guess. You seem to suggest that I perhaps should have responded with other words even if I didn't mean them...which is saying I should have started lying to you? I don't really play that way when trying to build an alliance. I expect and value very honest forthright discussions which include concerns about where the alliance is heading and where the balance of power lies in that alliance and how the two powers can both see mutual growth while more or less remaining equals. If I'm to the point of lying to you about how I really feel....well the alliance is kind of over anyhow. I'll eventually just lie and slide the knife in at some point. Basically to summarize this whole thing: I'm taking it a bit personal that in your statements you're at points stating or implying I'm an unreasonable diplomacy player and that other moves should have been made in my position. (Find it highly unlikely Turkey could have persuaded Italy, in many messages now stating you find my stance unreasonable after S1902 events). I'd like to see you admit that the S1902 move sets you up for an attack and that as a Turkish player you too wouldn't be happy with it. I'm fine if you want to stick with the claim that my message tone wasn't to your liking and you'd have gone a different route, but I at least want to hear agreement that the S1902 move is an attack on Turkey and Turkey should treat it as such. (And if you can't agree with that, I'm going to continue to be utterly baffled by you and think that you're deceiving yourself if you think you'd be content as the Turkish player in such a position). |
#501
|
||||
|
||||
Re: Diplomacy
I don't have much time, so I will try to be to the point.
1 - I felt your response message was waaaay overboard, you used the word "Freaking" which is a very strong word. This was a trigger for me, and a trigger that a game long alliance with you would be walking on eggshells for fear of any mishaps. 2 - I had no intentions of attacking you at that point in the game, we didn't discuss Bul/Con/Gre, and it was late of me(Couple hours till deadline) to point it out. But you also had the whole 3 days to mention it, and you didn't either. It was more of a defensive play on me part, because honestly, I think I could have let you had Bul with the the army and still attacked and took it from you that year if I wanted too. In 1902 you still don't really know who your allies are, and there could have been an I-T alliance I was unaware of and Greece could have been had if you were in Bul with an army and Italys fleet in ION. 3 - I think many things are reasonable, I think that it is reasonable for a bounce at Bul. Reasonable for you to want an army there, reasonable for myself to not want an army there. In the end, we just were not on the same page, and that is okay. I will try to learn from this going forward. Negotiating the small things, I find I don't do them often enough. Had I brought it up sooner, we could probably have hashed it out. 4 - Tone in email/message diplomacy can sometime be lost or misinterpreted. Something got lost in translation between your message and you thinking its tame, and me taking it as harsh. Wars have been fought over for less though right? In the end, still got love for ya Ranior. It is a game between friends, no different than sitting down and playing Heroscape vs someone. Have you tried Hexscape? 3D Heroscape Multiplayer Battle program! Looking for a C3V/SOV miniature? Try one of these sites. |
#502
|
||||
|
||||
Re: Diplomacy
Since I have been asked, I will throw my solicited opinion into the mix.
Let me preface by saying I have only played 3 games of PBEM diplomacy, so take my opinions with knowing I have that level of experience. In my opinion you cannot take a Diplomacy Press and evaluate it in a vacuum. This game forges a communication relationship between two individuals and only they know how that back and forth is going and the expectations of that. In addition, we are all individuals with different reactions, experiences, and goals. I say all that as a way of saying I find it very difficult to judge player reactions and responses and how that will impact another player especially taking one message out of context. All that being said: I find it against how I perceive an alliance relationship working to bounce Turkey at Bulgaria in the Spring of 02. I won't say whether it was a good move or not. That depends on a lot of things. I can tell you if I was Turkey and this situation unfolded that it would definitely deteriorate my relationship with Austria. In addition, the move to communicate the move close to the deadline would also be an issue for me. I also think the support move by Austria of BUL-RUM is not a selfless act as is being implied. It does multiple pro-Austria things, some of which are compounded with the bounce at Bulgaria. That being said, my personal take on things is not that Ranior thinks this was a bad move by Kinseth per se, he wants acknowledgement that this was a move that a typical Turkey player would not be pleased about. Next, I was asked about the tone of the response press from Turkey. Again, I don't like taking press in a vacuum, but it's very upset. I can absolutely see Austria receiving that press and thinking, 'Turkey is super ticked off and will never trust me this game. He is no longer a viable long term ally' I would be concerned that the Turkish player would not act rationally when it came time to try and ally again based on this reaction. People respond differently to things. |
#503
|
||||
|
||||
Re: Diplomacy
I think those are some fair points
@kevindola
, thanks for the feedback. 1 for Ranior, 1 for Kinseth
Have you tried Hexscape? 3D Heroscape Multiplayer Battle program! Looking for a C3V/SOV miniature? Try one of these sites. |
#504
|
||||
|
||||
Re: Diplomacy
Yeah, that's all fair. I agree Kinseth that whatever I'm saying here I still respect the heck out of you as a player and would be glad to play with you again. I really felt we were going somewhere in the early part of the game and do think we could have managed to make for good allies. But apparently you don't feel the move to BUL is as obviously anti-Turkey as I seem to think it is, and you also feel that my message indicated I'd be unreasonable going forward so alas. Had we found ways around that I agree we'd have been able to keep working forward and both been in better spots for it. (Although again if I get a bit luckier during 1903 and 1904 I probably still do fine, as is you got some fortune your way and it turned out well for you).
Thanks for at least chiming in Kevindola, and way to really play be diplomatic there :P Very fair assessment and language. I do agree my message in a vacuum comes across as if I'm possibly never trusting Austria again. I more so wanted it to be very clear that I didn't appreciate an ally moving into one of my territories unannounced. (Realistically is this not essentially an unstated pact of every alliance? I mean sure technically Kinseth announced the move before making it, but with such a short timeline for me to potentially discuss it, it comes across as unannounced. I suspect most players perceive units moving into their controlled supply centers as attacks) |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Online Diplomacy Game for Heroscapers | quozl | Other Board Games | 8 | April 9th, 2021 12:30 AM |
Diplomacy | Ranior | Other Board Games | 4 | December 28th, 2009 12:47 AM |