Diplomacy

[Dad_Scaper]

I haven't been following this whole debate, but I will say this: if I'm Italy, cooperating with Austria, I am *deeply* troubled by an unannounced and unexpected move to (or build in) Trieste. If I continued in a partnership, it would only be with watching for stab opportunities, either way. Needless sowing of distrust, if none was intended.

If that's what happened. Which I haven't been following.

[Kinseth]

Originally Posted by Dad_Scaper

I haven't been following this whole debate, but I will say this: if I'm Italy, cooperating with Austria, I am *deeply* troubled by an unannounced and unexpected move to (or build in) Trieste. If I continued in a partnership, it would only be with watching for stab opportunities, either way. Needless sowing of distrust, if none was intended.

If that's what happened. Which I haven't been following.

Well I was just showing another example, that moving into territories that neighbor supply centers of your neighbor, can be cause for alarm. The notion that "I own that supply center, so I can just walk into it with an army or fleet, and you shouldn't worry about it or tell me what to do, is kinda hogwash."

The actual instance was, Turkey moving A(Con) - Bul, and I being Austria, decided to bounce him without confirmation at Bul. But, we have beaten that dead horse

[Dad_Scaper]

Oh. Right, that can happen in an alliance. "I knew you were moving there for such-and-such reason, but I couldn't have you actually *occupying it* for these other reasons. I know it was an unpleasant surprise but I hope you can see that it didn't put you in any real danger and Austria's starting position is so fragile that I have to be very careful about allowing other powers - even allied ones - to plop armies at my borders."

Something like that. Perfectly common, though I've been on the receiving end of press like that, too, and it can be a bitter pill to swallow.

[Kinseth]

Originally Posted by Dad_Scaper

Oh. Right, that can happen in an alliance. "I knew you were moving there for such-and-such reason, but I couldn't have you actually *occupying it* for these other reasons. I know it was an unpleasant surprise but I hope you can see that it didn't put you in any real danger and Austria's starting position is so fragile that I have to be very careful about allowing other powers - even allied ones - to plop armies at my borders."

Something like that. Perfectly common, though I've been on the receiving end of press like that, too, and it can be a bitter pill to swallow.

I didn't have quite as much finesse as you posses there DS! I will have to come back to this message you wrote as an example going forward(I hope there isn't a next time!)

This was my response to Turkey's message.

Message from Austria to Turkey in bacon:

Hrm, well I didn't quite expect that kind of response. Clearly I have
read the situation wrongly. I apologies if I have overstepped bounds.
My understanding is that many of the players are on before deadline, I
waited around to discuss, but didn't hear anything from you. I thought
the bounce was reasonable given the situation. You had mentioned that
for Austria and Turkey to work together, it is much more of a risk for
Austria due to the nature of how Turkey can stab Austria. Am I being a
little too guarded? Maybe, probably? I will try to keep in mind, not
any last minute decisions like this and make sure we are on the same
page going forward.

[Ranior]

I agree that in a vacuum all of these things make some sense. Sometimes allies need to bounce. I've certainly argued for it before. And in the case of TRI/VEN there always is need to talk about who can be sitting there and move into that territory.

I just find none of it really fits this situation. Or perhaps my bigger issue is still this: everything that Austria is saying to defend and justify the move applies as well to Turkey. Austria is worried about a potential stab? Okay, but in this position Russia has no ability to really hurt you, especially while you have Turkish aid. Italy has completely vacated the border and is showing absolutely nothing aggressive towards you. Turkey is currently in no position to hurt you. Having a unit in BUL offers him slightly more options but he's still pretty hemmed in.

On the other hand for Turkey he has a Russian that isn't too pleased and probably wants the Black Sea. Admittedly Italy isn't showing him any threat, so that too is pretty safe. So the only possible enemy is Austria who currently holds all the power--Austria can actually attack Turkey at RUM and BUL but Turkey cannot do anything against Austria given the way S1902 played out. As such I still think it's insane to be arguing that Austria in any way needed to do that move to ensure the alliance was in a roughly fair spot. That move does everything to position Austria better than their ally.

If Austria allows Turkey into BUL then I'd argue the position is a bit more even. But in doing that move, is there any player here who'd prefer Turkey's position in F1902? I sure wouldn't, I'd want Austria's position.

Ultimately I still think the proof is right there anyhow--if the S1902 move wasn't partially to set up for a better stab opportunity, then why does it take every single Turkey unit just to maintain a 4 supply center standing? Austria was supremely positioned for that attack and was able to do it due to not Italian pressure and not a significant Russian one. I don't get how Austria can try to use the argument that Austria needed to bounce in BUL to help defend themselves and secure their position when Turkey is the one that was in the much fragiler spot.

I still maintain this is roughly how Kinseth always plays though--and admittedly it is great for the player that can get away with it and still have their allies work for them. My main point though is that in every game I've played thus far with Kinseth it is super clear to me at least that he's benefiting far more from his alliances than his allies are. As such, if I was in the position Italy was in G2, I'd certainly have turned and attacked rather than just let Kinseth constantly grow and always be in the better spot. (Or at least talk up and demand concessions to equal the position out). Towards the middle to end of this game Kinseth seems upset that Kevindola (Italy) turned on Austria...but what we he to do instead? Just let Austria continue to have the much stronger position and likely go on to win while Italy let Austria do so? Nah, Italy should have done what they did--try to attack Austria and gain a better position whereby you might have a shot to win. Don't just stick with the person that's not giving you a fair shake.

We'll see how future games go, but my main point is that I really believe in standing up for myself in alliances and demanding a fair shake. I don't see how people can look at the board position after S1902 and conclude Turkey should be at all happy about that, or even worse how Turkey should have agreed to put themselves in such a spot. So I stood my ground and clearly communicated how I don't play like that and I'm not at all happy and demanded how I expected things to go if we were to continue working together in the future.

Given Kinseth still seems to disagree I'm not sure we'll be able to work together since we don't seem to read the board and positions the same way. Then again if we just find ourselves as some other nations in different spots perhaps we do see eye to eye and it will go well. But I'm just trying to point out there seems to be a pattern here whereby Kinseth tends to push his allies a little bit by making bounces and moving around such that he has the ability to make stabs and/or grow faster while his other ally often finds himself in a weaker spot. Again, great for him--that is ultimately how you win diplomacy games. But my point is stronger players should be able to recognize they're not in the better spot and do something to change that.



In other things though rather than the horse I continue to beat, I'll go to the other mostly dead horse: Russia's moves. I'm not sure Dok has been following or cares, but F1902 is another of Russia's movements towards the middle of the game that frustrated me greatly. Look, obviously Turkey was no ally to Russia up to this point in the game. But neither was Austria to any level. Russia had a bit of a friend in Germany by getting Sweden early, but even in S1902 Germany moved on him. England clearly wasn't a Russian ally. So Russia had nobody working with them.

I certainly reached out to Russia in F1902 asking for him to support my unit at RUM. I fully recognized that was a big ask given I had just been attacking him and was still in position to do so. Still Austria had just attacked me for all to see (in my eyes) and let Russia know I would start working with them going forward.

So what does Russia do in F1902? Nothing. I mean I guess I get it, he just wanted to defend what he had and see how things played out to know what to do going forward. But I guess this was the start of a game long trend that I had issues with Russia about: Why bother just defending what you have if that's just going to result in a loss? Like you have to try to be improving your position and growing. You can't just sit and constantly defend and win. Had Russia in this position supported to GAL and supported RUM, we're in a massively better spot to eliminate Austria heading into 1903. Even if he's unwilling to support himself to GAL and wants to defend both UKR and SEV, I get that. But if you're not doing anything with SEV anyhow, and you have no allies but someone is suggesting they'd like to work with you and have reason to do so....c'mon. You have to give it a try. If Russia at least defends SEV there like I was expecting/hoping him to then Turkey holds on all the centers against Austria's aggression, Austria only has 5 total centers while Turkey gets to 5 and Russia holds on to 5. 10 versus 5 is so much better than the 9 versus 6 it became since Austria got to claim RUM.

I mean, whatever players are allowed to play things differently but I just can't help but feel Russia missed so so many opportunities throughout 1902-1904. If they had helped Turkey and Italy just a bit more in the attack on Austria they would have found themselves with a few more centers, one fewer enemy right on their borders, and would have had a much more successful game. (Now would Turkey and Italy just eventually have grown to attack Russia? Maybe, it's hard to say. But I don't really know what Russia's alternative was--well it was probably what they did which was slowly die because they had zero allies helping them to grow or defend their centers after awhile). If they at least get in the game and grow a bit during 1902-1904 they'd have been in much better position to work things and engage in some diplomacy and make some attacks, etc. I think the F1902 non support is just another example of a bad move by Russia.

Although finally this does loop back to the one other point Kinseth never replied to and one I probably should just give up on...but why again was Italy supposed to see the bounce in BUL as an Austrian attack on Turkey but Turkey was supposed to see it as a reasonable move? I just can't help but shake the idea that you largely knew and know it was a pushy Austrian move that might alienate your ally but were content to do so for two reasons--you knew you could easily stab Turkey and you thought Italy would ally with you so you didn't require Turkey as an ally.

[Kinseth]

Each game is different. I can see a future game having better communication and being different countries, perhaps we have a better alliance.

I think the notion of - I cannot work with Kinseth because of X in future games, and no one else should either, is a extreme and taking EGS to another level. Trying to set a metagame up in all honesty.

In this game, it didn't work out, we had our issues and we couldn't get past them. The fact we both moved on eachother in the same season illustrates that. Part of playing diplomacy, is that your allies can be your enemies in split second. If I guard myself better from potential stabs, you should learn from what you have seen me do and try to do the same.

Anyways, i'd like to get back to finishing my EGS and agree to disagree about Bul-Gre bounce and its 1 million implications!

[Kinseth]

Originally Posted by Ranior

Although finally this does loop back to the one other point Kinseth never replied to and one I probably should just give up on...but why again was Italy supposed to see the bounce in BUL as an Austrian attack on Turkey but Turkey was supposed to see it as a reasonable move? I just can't help but shake the idea that you largely knew and know it was a pushy Austrian move that might alienate your ally but were content to do so for two reasons--you knew you could easily stab Turkey and you thought Italy would ally with you so you didn't require Turkey as an ally.

Because he isn't privileged to the information that the move was done as a bounce. Attack is the wrong choice of words, and the mention of it is in retrospect. It wasn't the reason it was done, but from Italy's point of view I would have seen that move favorable as Italy.

[Ranior]

Originally Posted by Kinseth

Because he isn't privileged to the information that the move was done as a bounce. Attack is the wrong choice of words, and the mention of it is in retrospect. It wasn't the reason it was done, but from Italy's point of view I would have seen that move favorable as Italy.

Fair enough. For what it's worth I certainly told Italy about it pretty much right away during the game.

Originally Posted by Kinseth

Each game is different. I can see a future game having better communication and being different countries, perhaps we have a better alliance.

I think the notion of - I cannot work with Kinseth because of X in future games, and no one else should either, is a extreme and taking EGS to another level. Trying to set a metagame up in all honesty.

Sincerest apologies if that is how it came off across. I did not mean it like that. I 100% agree that I don't want to set up a metagame and I am absolutely NOT saying "never work with Kinseth". I'm not even trying to say I'm going to avoid working with you. Our early conversations this game were very good and I was excited by the fact that I had two strong players near me and that I was friendly with both and felt I could have strong games going with either.



What I am still trying to get across is that I feel plenty here still have lessons to learn from this game. And the main one I'm trying to get across is that in general it seems players here have let their allies get the better ends of deals than them, or made moves that have ultimately hurt them. In G2 I think Kevindola learned his lesson that he let you (Kinseth) get away with being in a controlling position of the alliance the entire time and needed to be demanding more from you or flip on you. I'm stating this round that England and Germany didn't really consider how strong a position you were in when working with you, and that flipping on Italy when they did handed the game to Austria. Basically I'm just trying to tell everyone to be a bit more cautious and analyze their positions because there a bunch of ruthless players here that will and do take advantage if you'll let them

In this game, it didn't work out, we had our issues and we couldn't get past them. The fact we both moved on eachother in the same season illustrates that. Part of playing diplomacy, is that your allies can be your enemies in split second. If I guard myself better from potential stabs, you should learn from what you have seen me do and try to do the same.

Anyways, i'd like to get back to finishing my EGS and agree to disagree about Bul-Gre bounce and its 1 million implications!

I'll try to let it go. The tough part for me is that everything you keep saying I see in my moves and so it greatly frustrates me that you still seem to think it unreasonable. In the paragraph just above you suggest I should try to guard myself against stabs better. Sure, I'd love to. Why do you think I'm so annoyed you didn't let me go to BUL? If I'm in BUL I have a much easier time at least offering some support between RUM and BUL. I can more easily get Italy's aid on something like GRE. Basically that position is much better for me to defend myself from possible stabs and even disincentives Austria from considering stabbing in the fall. Whereas the position that actually resulted looks really good for Austria to stab Turkey (which is what I figured would happen and made moves against it)



So when I see my ally making a move that sets himself up for a potential stab of me, and he forces himself into such a spot, what am I to do? You seem to think I should have stayed loyal to you, where I'm basically saying the right play from your own advice would seem to be to fight back and demand a better position. For all this talk of how you sometimes have to bounce as allies and everything else, the way this game actually played out seems to make it clear--the bounce in BUL set up Austria in a position that easily allowed them to stab Turkey in F1902 and they took it and it was almost devastating had I not thrown everything I had at defending myself. If the advice you'd like to give is that players should try to defend themselves a bit better, I don't see how you can also argue I should have been calm and collected and accepted your move as reasonable to bounce me in BUL. It's incredibly grating and frustrating to me really.



But alas. I'll promise to shut up about it publicly and just move on.

[Kinseth]

@Ranior - I think that you missed a point I made. That it was more your response and the strong words in the response that had me believing we couldn't work together after what transpired. I can totally see why as Turkey, you'd want to be in Bulgaria. I am not saying that it is a bad move from you, or unreasonable move. But... I think that bounces to build trust and keep borders free are acceptable between allies.

I also don't think that moving to Bul without announcing it to me is done in good faith, had you brought it up earlier with reasonings instead of what I felt was "Sneaking" it in, whether or not that is true, it is how I felt as Austria. I had a read that was what you were doing, and it didn't leave me all warm and fuzzy.

So in the end, communication over those three days, had you mentioned your intentions to move to Bul and I had a chance to discuss it back, perhaps you convince me why it is a good move and I become okay with it.

Lots of what-ifs, just need you to also put yourself in my shoes and see how it looks to me.

[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!

[Ranior]

I said I'd let it be and I'll be doing so. Ultimately the main point is we both agree on one thing: We failed in communication somehow with each other and things deteriorated quickly from there. I'm not happy with your reasons for the move and particularly not happy with the last minute communication, you're not happy with my response nor how I didn't notify you of my move....somehow we needed to communicate better/differently with each other and hopefully we'll be able to in the future.

Which I absolutely agree about the future--I love to discuss how games went and love to play. I look forward to more still, despite whatever other caterwauling I've been engaged in.

[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