Diplomacy

[Aldin]

Originally Posted by Kinseth

I'd also like to note, I love the discussion about diplomacy and love how excited everyone is about it. @Aldin you should join us for the next game!

Like a lamb to the slaughter...

In truth, I would undoubtedly be a poor player from a personality perspective. I don't think I have what it takes constitutionally to either build an alliance and then betray my ally for a victory or to build an alliance and be betrayed by my ally for their victory. Both would make me feel awful on a personal level.

~Aldin, preferring more clearly defined allies and opponents

[Dad_Scaper]

It is an emotionally exhausting game, Aldin. And at higher levels, it's more - and not less - draining then you make it sound, with your description of having an ally and one stabs the other for a solo.

[kevindola]

I'm going to say you should take a pass Aldin. Although another thread for crowd commentary would be fun I bet (although maybe there aren't that many in the crowd actually) I think D_S proposed something like that once upon a time for both viewers and eliminated powers.

D_S do you have any overarching opinions on the game you'd like to share as the admin or just waiting until everyone has said their piece first?

[Dad_Scaper]

Thanks for asking, KD!

I did have this question, for one: I am curious why @wriggz did not want to try to defend the position at the end. Has that already been answered somewhere? It's not obvious to me that it was defensible, but there was some play there, I thought. Why not give I and G room to try to hold the line? What good was BRE doing in your hands? It's not like they could ever turn on you, with Austria right there.

Also, I want to make sure everyone saw this.

Originally Posted by Dad_Scaper

I was looking for a very particular different article when I stumbled across this one, which I think is better. Enjoy.

http://uk.diplom.org/pouch/Zine/S200...ttributes.html

There's no one voice to use, to win the game. You need to pay careful attention to detail, which means you need to *get* details, when you can, and you need to figure out what they mean. I believe that is the point at which Kinseth is superior. Being able to write the persuasive press is one thing; reasoning from press received is another. The link in the article gives some helpful pointers, and comparing its comments to your (plural "you," including everybody) own play might be interesting and possibly even helpful.

[kevindola]

Originally Posted by Kinseth

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.

You have half your Dip2000 solo count already in 1/7 the games here with scapers! I think you're the one playing diplomacy for the next game highlighting these stats

Since we are biding our time for the next installment of EGS or wriggz to comment (I call out wriggz b/c he said he would comment. dok, quozl, and Nukatha might be passing on commentary). How did that 7 way draw come about? I am very curious.

Also, D_S made the comment that our first two games were over relatively quickly. This one went to 1910 which was the longest so far but not overly longer than the first two if memory serves. What's an average range of game years?

[wriggz]

Originally Posted by Dad_Scaper

Thanks for asking, KD!

I did have this question, for one: I am curious why @wriggz did not want to try to defend the position at the end. Has that already been answered somewhere? It's not obvious to me that it was defensible, but there was some play there, I thought. Why not give I and G room to try to hold the line? What good was BRE doing in your hands? It's not like they could ever turn on you, with Austria right there.

After the game I have avoided this thread... to fresh I suppose. I'm at the same time proud, embarrassed, disappointed, relieved, frustrated and happy(?) with the way that game went.


I want to honour the other players with a proper EGS, so one is forth coming, but work has been very demanding of late. This partially explains the early surrender. I was willing to go against Austria and was laying the foundations to get an in, but my vacation took me off the grid more then I expected. By the time I was ready, Italy and Germany seemed ready for surrender. I was not prepared to dedicate the energy to convince them to keep going especially with the back log of work waiting for me in the office.


So I suppose domestic issues lead to England's surrender.

[Dad_Scaper]

Originally Posted by wriggz

After the game I have avoided this thread... to fresh I suppose. I'm at the same time proud, embarrassed, disappointed, relieved, frustrated and happy(?) with the way that game went.


I want to honour the other players with a proper EGS, so one is forth coming, but work has been very demanding of late. This partially explains the early surrender. I was willing to go against Austria and was laying the foundations to get an in, but my vacation took me off the grid more then I expected. By the time I was ready, Italy and Germany seemed ready for surrender. I was not prepared to dedicate the energy to convince them to keep going especially with the back log of work waiting for me in the office.


So I suppose domestic issues lead to England's surrender.

Ah, Diplomacy. The only game that leaves wounds "too fresh" for easy conversation afterward.

When you get around to writing, Wriggz, I will say that I don't think you answered my question. As I saw it, Italy and Germany approached you about trying to defend. You seemed unwilling to make any accommodation. And yet, you would have had to do very little in order to let it happen. Italy and Germany - Italy especially, I imagine - were perfectly prepared to be the architects of a defensive line.

Most importantly, you would have had nothing to fear from them. They could never try to attack you, because as soon as they did, their resources would be too thin to defend themselves from Austria, and they would have given up the solo.*

Italy and Germany could have tried to set up a defense, and all you would have had to do is spot-check their analysis to make sure it wasn't dumb and then move your units to where they were supposed to be. Which for many of them was probably nowhere; just provide some support where needed for the I & G units on the front line. Certainly an accommodation such as giving up BRE, so Italy could avoid losing another unit on the front line with Austria, seemed like a small price to pay compared to losing the whole game.

So I am curious for your thoughts about that, when you're able. To be fair, I only read a little of the press and I haven't even read all of these EoGs, but that's what I'm curious about. Apologies if it's been addressed elsewhere.

[kevindola]

As we hit 3 weeks since surrender terms were accepted is it an appropriate time to talk about signups for the next? Assuming DS is still willing of course.

[Dad_Scaper]

Sure, my part is easy.

If you want to play again, just say so, and if you've been watching and you're curious to give it a shot, just say so. We'll see if we get 7.

[Ranior]

I'm still in for another.

[kevindola]

Who else?

1. kevindola
2. Ranior


I suspect this next game wouldn't get going until late July at the earliest for reference of anyone interested in playing.

@scorpiusx
@vegietarian18
@All Your Pie

[All Your Pie]

I’ll have to see what my schedule is looking like going forward, but I am tentatively interested in playing next round.