| The new forum look - FuzzyLogic (May 27, 2010, 8:58 pm) |
Since we have the picture frame look what would ppl think if we went to a canvas-colored background, and black text? A lighter canvas than we have on the left side, in the currently dark frame?
Or is it as simple as a whiter font color? The peach is hard to read on the gray, agreed. It's easier to read on the charcoal.[Reply] |
| The new forum look (Help & Suggestions) dknemeyer May 27, 09:37 pm |
| It would take some testing. The key is lots of contrast; the optimal is near-white on near-black or vice-versa for readability, but you don't need to be that pure. Given the aesthetic that you've established here I might suggest making the grey darker, maybe quite a bit darker, and get the font as close to white without breaking your overall colour palette as possible. That should do it. The only thing to be aware of then is whether or not those changes clash with other font/backgrounds elsewhere on the site so it no longer seems coherent. |
| The new forum look - FuzzyLogic (May 27, 2010, 8:53 pm) |
Ok, so that is something we can change... I clicked thru how you said, and yes, "Variants vs Standard" fills approx 40% of the messages on the 1st page of the Community forum. So what would you rather see here, "Variants vs Standard" have one line? One line with an indicator of how many replies it had? Sort it by date of last post in the topic, I presume, right?
This comes down to taste. Some forums, I've seen it where popular posts will indeed fill your general view. On others, you just have one line per thread.
Try this...
Go into like you described, then click on "Variants vs Standard" (any one of them). Read the message if you like. Then scroll down. Toward the bottom, you see two columns...
1st column is an indented tree of the current thread, showing who all replied to who.
2nd column has all threads in the Community Forum. I presume a list like this column is how you'd prefer to see the initial list? This gives you a grand overview of every thread that has been posted in Community, but very little feel for "what's being talked about, today".
That's what the other view was designed to show you. Today, these issues are hot... sort of thing.
Thoughts?
-mike[Reply] |
| The new forum look (Help & Suggestions) FuzzyLogic May 27, 09:02 pm |
Notice this, too...
With the concept of only the most recent post in a thread being shown, it is too easy to never see the older ones, unless you show them all.
E.g. I just posted 3 messages in this thread. But when I go to the home page now, my posts about the colors and the arrangement will never get seen, unless someone happens to deliberately go into that thread and read it intentionally.
By listing all the messages, yeah, this thread does appear to dominate Help & Suggestions today, but isn't that appropriate if it's really that active? If ppl want to see older inactive threads, you can scroll down and see them in the "Threads in this Topic" section.
Just brainstorming... |
| The new forum look (Help & Suggestions) dknemeyer May 27, 09:43 pm |
I think post volume matters. Traditionally DC has a very LOW post volume outside of the games themselves. Thus, if you only show the most recent single post of n topics you are going to have a small group of recent things and then a bunch of stale ones. If we assume the forums will remain lightly used into the foreseeable future, what we have now seems right.
On the other hand, in an active forum with lots of posts and diversity, it is far better to simply show the last post on each topic as Sun is mentioning.
Beyond that it is just personal preference. I'm not sure what mine is I suppose it changes on context. It sounds like Sun's is the single post/many topics. Both ways are valid in some absolute sense. |
| The new forum look (Help & Suggestions) sunchung May 27, 11:23 pm |
I think having the summary of the message also confuses things a bit. You only get a glimpse of the topic, and sometimes things can meander in a thread. My 2 cents (and by the way, I really appreciate the thoughts and efforts in improving the site) is if there's an infrequent visitor to the site, then they don't quite know what people are responding to.
If you want to include the summary of the topic, and have it display on the landing page, then why not the first post of that thread? And then if you showed what the number of responses are to that topic, then you can see which are the "hot topics" currently on the site.
Lastly, I think the other thing is I think the font may be too small...
Notice this, too...
With the concept of only the most recent post in a thread being shown, it is too easy to never see the older ones, unless you show them all.
E.g. I just posted 3 messages in this thread. But when I go to the home page now, my posts about the colors and the arrangement will never get seen, unless someone happens to deliberately go into that thread and read it intentionally.
By listing all the messages, yeah, this thread does appear to dominate Help & Suggestions today, but isn't that appropriate if it's really that active? If ppl want to see older inactive threads, you can scroll down and see them in the "Threads in this Topic" section.
Just brainstorming... |
| The new forum look (Help & Suggestions) sunchung May 27, 11:17 pm |
I think a single line per topic, how many postings, and the date of the last post makes sense.
In terms of threaded versus flat (I think that's the term) I realize it's a personal preference. It's just that it's sometimes hard to follow the conversation if it splits out. Where as a flat structure makes sure that the conversation is a single one... There's a website that I've seen that actually has both options. If you go to www.dpreview.com and go to the "forum section" and then click on one of the topics, there's a toggle button at the top that allows you to switch the view.
Ok, so that is something we can change... I clicked thru how you said, and yes, "Variants vs Standard" fills approx 40% of the messages on the 1st page of the Community forum. So what would you rather see here, "Variants vs Standard" have one line? One line with an indicator of how many replies it had? Sort it by date of last post in the topic, I presume, right?
This comes down to taste. Some forums, I've seen it where popular posts will indeed fill your general view. On others, you just have one line per thread.
Try this...
Go into like you described, then click on "Variants vs Standard" (any one of them). Read the message if you like. Then scroll down. Toward the bottom, you see two columns...
1st column is an indented tree of the current thread, showing who all replied to who.
2nd column has all threads in the Community Forum. I presume a list like this column is how you'd prefer to see the initial list? This gives you a grand overview of every thread that has been posted in Community, but very little feel for "what's being talked about, today".
That's what the other view was designed to show you. Today, these issues are hot... sort of thing.
Thoughts?
-mike |
| DC289: End of Game - DucatiRider (May 27, 2010, 8:01 pm) |
I initiated the vote this time around because a Turkey win looked inevitable. If England, Germany and Russia joined together to push Turkey back then I'm sure that would have worked. But I'm not sure we would have had the trust to pull that off.
On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 4:38 PM, Pontus Strimling <pontusstrimling(at)yahoo.com> wrote:
Thanks for an exiting game guys. II got into it a little late and first round i was terrified that everyone where plotting against me. Then Austria decided to attack Russia without telling me which throw me into a lop and then Austria disappeared. I really liked our second Austria although he thought he was talking to Italy when he was talking to me in the beginning. Russia was no longer cooperative and austria was so I thought I'd lock that down and move forward into a long term Austria Turk alliance. I really thought that was the way to go all the way through. Then germany and Russia pulled a fast one and managed to keep us from moving into Russia. A great move that we completely missed. I now thought that moving forward would take too long so i made a deal with Russia and moved in on Austria instead. That gave me a chance to betray Italy and seal his
fate. I took a center or two from Austria and then made peace with him again.
Then russia turned on Germany i swooped Austria and moved in on Russia and where voted winner (which i don't really understand i thought Id be stopped at 17sc with Eng/germany holding the rest)
All in all a great game it was fun playing with all of you and Austria deserved a better faith.
Chochem/Pontus
--- Den tors 2010-05-27 skrev JOHN CLARKE <john.c1arke(at)btinternet.com>:
Från: JOHN CLARKE <john.c1arke(at)btinternet.com>
Ämne: Re: DC289: End of Game
Till: "Mark Jefferson" <markj18(at)gmail.com>, "Rocketship" <rocketship.rocketship(at)gmail.com>
Kopia: "Jeffrey Krauss" <jeffreykrauss(at)live.com>, pontusstrimling(at)yahoo.com,
diplomacy(at)jeffreyk.com, dc289(at)diplomaticcorp.com
Datum: torsdag 27 maj 2010 19:40
Congratulations to those who survived, but especially to Pontus/Chochem - the Balkans certainly lived up its reputation in this one, and he managed it better than any of us.
Personally, after a disastrous start, I was delighted to have survived 1901, never mind still be there (only just, may be, but still there) in 1908!
I hope we meet up again in the future.
John
From: Mark Jefferson <markj18(at)gmail.com>
To: Rocketship <rocketship.rocketship(at)gmail.com>
Cc: Jeffrey Krauss <jeffreykrauss(at)live.com>; pontusstrimling(at)yahoo.com; john.c1arke(at)btinternet.com; diplomacy(at)jeffreyk.com; dc289(at)diplomaticcorp.com
Sent: Thursday, 27 May, 2010 15:35:03
Subject: Re: DC289: End of Game
Congrats to Pontus. Turkey seemed to sneak up in this game as the dominate nation. I guess with most of us concentrating on France and Austria it allowed Turkey to grow without too much resistance. It's a good reminder that sometimes you have to drop your agenda and tactics for the big picture.
On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 10:49 PM, Rocketship <rocketship.rocketship(at)gmail.com> wrote:
Oh yeah. Whoops. Well, after we got past the rough beginning it was good though, eh?
Matthew
On May 26, 2010, at 8:44 PM, Jeffrey Krauss wrote:
Thanks for a fun game everyone! It started out a bit rough (I find Matthew's "no NMRs" amusing given the first year and our couple of abandons  ), but after we got a good set of folks playing, it was quite enjoyable!
-Jeff
> Subject: DC289: End of Game
> From: rocketship.rocketship(at)gmail.com[Reply] |
| 24 Hours... - Samnuva (May 27, 2010, 7:26 pm) |
Scratch the deadline warning.
On May 27, 2010, at 8:21 PM, Steven Hu wrote:
Wait, I thought the deadline was moved to May 31st.
> From: sam_buck_productions(at)mac.com
> Subject: 24 Hours...[Reply] |
| 24 Hours... - Samnuva (May 27, 2010, 7:19 pm) |
| 24 Hour warning. Orders please. [Reply] |
| 24 Hours... (dc310) Samnuva May 27, 07:26 pm |
Scratch the deadline warning.
On May 27, 2010, at 8:21 PM, Steven Hu wrote:
Wait, I thought the deadline was moved to May 31st.
> From: sam_buck_productions(at)mac.com
> Subject: 24 Hours... |
| The new forum look - sunchung (May 27, 2010, 6:54 pm) |
The issue I've been having with the threads is that it's embedded versus "flat". On one hand, you can see who is responding to whom, but it forces you to click through each message in order to see the entire conversation. I prefer the vBullentin style where it's a flat organization and you can see what everyone else has written.
For instance, when I click on "Community" and then "Category Tree", and then under "General" select a topic, I get a long list of new messages that all relate to the same topic. Instead, I would prefer to see all of the topics themselves. If there's a fast moving topic, then that would dominate the view. Right now, "variants vs standard" takes up 1/2 of the first page. It makes the other topics hidden.[Reply] |
| The new forum look (Help & Suggestions) FuzzyLogic May 27, 08:53 pm |
Ok, so that is something we can change... I clicked thru how you said, and yes, "Variants vs Standard" fills approx 40% of the messages on the 1st page of the Community forum. So what would you rather see here, "Variants vs Standard" have one line? One line with an indicator of how many replies it had? Sort it by date of last post in the topic, I presume, right?
This comes down to taste. Some forums, I've seen it where popular posts will indeed fill your general view. On others, you just have one line per thread.
Try this...
Go into like you described, then click on "Variants vs Standard" (any one of them). Read the message if you like. Then scroll down. Toward the bottom, you see two columns...
1st column is an indented tree of the current thread, showing who all replied to who.
2nd column has all threads in the Community Forum. I presume a list like this column is how you'd prefer to see the initial list? This gives you a grand overview of every thread that has been posted in Community, but very little feel for "what's being talked about, today".
That's what the other view was designed to show you. Today, these issues are hot... sort of thing.
Thoughts?
-mike |
| The new forum look (Help & Suggestions) FuzzyLogic May 27, 09:02 pm |
Notice this, too...
With the concept of only the most recent post in a thread being shown, it is too easy to never see the older ones, unless you show them all.
E.g. I just posted 3 messages in this thread. But when I go to the home page now, my posts about the colors and the arrangement will never get seen, unless someone happens to deliberately go into that thread and read it intentionally.
By listing all the messages, yeah, this thread does appear to dominate Help & Suggestions today, but isn't that appropriate if it's really that active? If ppl want to see older inactive threads, you can scroll down and see them in the "Threads in this Topic" section.
Just brainstorming... |
| The new forum look (Help & Suggestions) dknemeyer May 27, 09:43 pm |
I think post volume matters. Traditionally DC has a very LOW post volume outside of the games themselves. Thus, if you only show the most recent single post of n topics you are going to have a small group of recent things and then a bunch of stale ones. If we assume the forums will remain lightly used into the foreseeable future, what we have now seems right.
On the other hand, in an active forum with lots of posts and diversity, it is far better to simply show the last post on each topic as Sun is mentioning.
Beyond that it is just personal preference. I'm not sure what mine is I suppose it changes on context. It sounds like Sun's is the single post/many topics. Both ways are valid in some absolute sense. |
| The new forum look (Help & Suggestions) sunchung May 27, 11:23 pm |
I think having the summary of the message also confuses things a bit. You only get a glimpse of the topic, and sometimes things can meander in a thread. My 2 cents (and by the way, I really appreciate the thoughts and efforts in improving the site) is if there's an infrequent visitor to the site, then they don't quite know what people are responding to.
If you want to include the summary of the topic, and have it display on the landing page, then why not the first post of that thread? And then if you showed what the number of responses are to that topic, then you can see which are the "hot topics" currently on the site.
Lastly, I think the other thing is I think the font may be too small...
Notice this, too...
With the concept of only the most recent post in a thread being shown, it is too easy to never see the older ones, unless you show them all.
E.g. I just posted 3 messages in this thread. But when I go to the home page now, my posts about the colors and the arrangement will never get seen, unless someone happens to deliberately go into that thread and read it intentionally.
By listing all the messages, yeah, this thread does appear to dominate Help & Suggestions today, but isn't that appropriate if it's really that active? If ppl want to see older inactive threads, you can scroll down and see them in the "Threads in this Topic" section.
Just brainstorming... |
| The new forum look (Help & Suggestions) sunchung May 27, 11:17 pm |
I think a single line per topic, how many postings, and the date of the last post makes sense.
In terms of threaded versus flat (I think that's the term) I realize it's a personal preference. It's just that it's sometimes hard to follow the conversation if it splits out. Where as a flat structure makes sure that the conversation is a single one... There's a website that I've seen that actually has both options. If you go to www.dpreview.com and go to the "forum section" and then click on one of the topics, there's a toggle button at the top that allows you to switch the view.
Ok, so that is something we can change... I clicked thru how you said, and yes, "Variants vs Standard" fills approx 40% of the messages on the 1st page of the Community forum. So what would you rather see here, "Variants vs Standard" have one line? One line with an indicator of how many replies it had? Sort it by date of last post in the topic, I presume, right?
This comes down to taste. Some forums, I've seen it where popular posts will indeed fill your general view. On others, you just have one line per thread.
Try this...
Go into like you described, then click on "Variants vs Standard" (any one of them). Read the message if you like. Then scroll down. Toward the bottom, you see two columns...
1st column is an indented tree of the current thread, showing who all replied to who.
2nd column has all threads in the Community Forum. I presume a list like this column is how you'd prefer to see the initial list? This gives you a grand overview of every thread that has been posted in Community, but very little feel for "what's being talked about, today".
That's what the other view was designed to show you. Today, these issues are hot... sort of thing.
Thoughts?
-mike |
| dc286 ~ Vista Seven - sgttodd (May 27, 2010, 6:51 pm) |
The deadline for Fall 1909 orders is: Tuesday, June 2nd (at) 2359 UTC.
The following units were dislodged:
French A St Petersburg retreats to Finland.
Unit locations:
Austria: F Albania, A Greece, A Trieste, A Vienna.
France: A Burgundy, F English Channel, A Finland, F Gulf of Lyon, A
Holland, A Munich, F North Sea, F Norway, A Ruhr, F Tunis, A Tyrolia, A
Venice.
Germany: F Baltic Sea, A Berlin, A Bohemia, A Kiel, A Silesia, F
Skagerrak, A St Petersburg, F Sweden.
Italy: A Rome, F Tyrrhenian Sea.
Russia: A Bulgaria, A Galicia, F Ionian Sea, A Moscow, A Sevastopol, A
Ukraine.
Movement results for Spring of 1909.
Austria: F Albania Supports F Aegean Sea - Ionian Sea.
Austria: A Budapest - Vienna.
Austria: A Greece Hold.
Austria: A Trieste Supports A Budapest - Vienna.
France: A Belgium - Holland.
France: F Brest - English Channel.
France: A Burgundy - Munich.
France: F Marseilles - Gulf of Lyon.
France: F North Sea - Denmark (*Bounce*).
France: F Norway Supports A St Petersburg (*Cut*).
France: A Paris - Burgundy.
France: A Ruhr Supports A Burgundy - Munich.
France: A St Petersburg Hold (*Dislodged*).
France: F Tunis, no move received.
France: A Tyrolia Supports A Burgundy - Munich (*Cut*).
France: A Venice - Rome (*Fails*).
France: A Vienna - Bohemia (*Disbanded*).
Germany: F Baltic Sea - Denmark (*Bounce*).
Germany: A Bohemia - Tyrolia (*Fails*).
Germany: F Denmark - Skagerrak.
Germany: A Livonia - St Petersburg.
Germany: A Munich - Kiel.
Germany: A Prussia - Berlin.
Germany: A Silesia - Munich (*Fails*).
Germany: F Sweden - Norway (*Fails*).
Italy: F Ionian Sea - Tyrrhenian Sea.
Italy: A Rome - Venice (*Fails*).
Russia: F Aegean Sea - Ionian Sea.
Russia: A Bulgaria Hold.
Russia: A Galicia Supports A Budapest - Vienna.
Russia: A Moscow Supports A Livonia - St Petersburg.
Russia: A Sevastopol Supports A Moscow.
Russia: A Ukraine Supports A Moscow.
The deadline for Fall 1909 orders is: Tuesday, June 2nd (at) 2359 UTC.
files: http://mainecav.org/diplomacy[Reply] |
| DCI 274: Turkish EoG: MacBeth the Long Version - FuzzyLogic (May 27, 2010, 5:33 pm) |
This is the most delightful EOG statement I've ever had the pleasure of
reading, in all my years of dip! Thank you...
-mike
-----Original Message-----
Sent: Thursday, May 27, 2010 2:55 PM
Subject: DCI 274: Turkish EoG: MacBeth the Long Version
So, this is not the EoG I thought I'd be writing just a couple of game
years ago...
My EoGs tend to be long and full of analysis. Encyclopedic,
really, because I don't have an editor telling me, "Cut that. Nobody
wants to read it. Exercise a judicious abridgment" I'm sure this EoG
runs way too long, especially when I get into Joe and Jorge and me and
the spirit of the game.
So, pace yourself. Get up occasionally, stretch out, walk around.
Much like DCI 274 itself, my EoG is a bout of endurance, not a race of
speed.
THE GM
I have already stated that Mike was a model of timeliness and
consistency. It is worth applauding twice. I would gladly play in a
Sims-moderated game again.
Having said that... I don't expect Sims to GM next year's DCI. I
expect him to play in it as a formidable threat to win. As fun as it
must be to GM a game like this, I'm sure Mike would rather have been
playing in it. (Actually, I was hoping to volunteer myself to GM next
year before the opportunity opened up for me to win).
THE VARIANT
Last year's DCI was a two-round affair, so clearly the DCI can (and
maybe should) be run in a variety of formats. I find myself pondering
back upon Dan's proposal to play "It came from outer space". My gut
reaction says it's a curious, probably interesting variant, but is it
too un-dip-like for the DCI? After all, shouldn't the DCI reward
straight-up Dip? (Should it?) And then I realize I'm making arbitrary
distinctions as to what is appropriate or inappropriate for the DCI
format. I am okay with and even endorse map variants (like Crowded or
last year's Stonehenge), but I am wary of rules variants (like Payola,
Machiavelli, or "It came..." .
So, I'm being arbitrary, and clearly that's the job of the DC
Moderators in arranging the DCI But I'm still curious what other
people think.
Having said all of that, I found Crowded to be a tantalizing
choice. As Mike noted early on, it sets the players straight to
negotiating, as one can make no progress except at the expense of
others. Except for a few countries (E, S, & T), everybody gets the joy
of feeling like they're playing an interior country. There was
immediate and dramatic conflict. Myself, I committed my first stab in
Spring 1901. I liked this dynamic
The other big plus of Crowded is that it's on a familiar map. So,
while it's a variant, it's at least a very familiar one.
The drawback of Crowded, of course, is that it's less balanced than
Standard dip. Some powers are more equal than others. True, we all had
the opportunity to set our country preferences, but it's hard to assess
a position before you've actually tried to play it.
It so happens that I actually did play Crowded before (DipWorld
Game 322 back in 2004). It was the 1898 variant, and I was Norway (and,
yes, I did trade ideas with Jorge early on about how to play Norway...
but Jorge was always an exceptional communicator, even amid this pool of
excellent communicators). The first few years pf DW 322 unfolded in
startlingly similar fashion to DCI 274. The Balkans were rapidly
vivisected. Lowlands opened directly into Kiel only to see Norway
spearhead a retaliatory charge, leading to a big-brother relationship
between Norway and Germany. Austria-Italy allied. France-Spain fell to
tatters. Eventually, though, that game took its own path. In that
game, AI remained allied and nearly swept the map. Norway didn't stab
Germany. Austria almost soloed.
At this point in my EoG, I *was* intending to make some assertions
about balance of power in Crowded. In particular, I was going to point
out how impossible the Balkans position is, especially as Turkey has
almost nowhere else to go except through the Balkans (and don't even get
me started on how each of them has two SCs adjacent to both Aegean and
Black Sea). Or how much better Italy looks with a divided Iberia and a
jammed eastern front. Or how England has its hands full with all those
sea powers. However, it turns out I am largely wrong in my conclusions
about the map. I have just surveyed other Crowded games at floc.net
with standard press settings. It turns out that, in fact, Balkans can
succeed (by attacking Turkey). Italy still struggles. And England does
pretty well on the whole.
I made a tally of good end-results by country (judged by my own
cursory glance at the end-map). Across 28 games (26 from floc.net plus
DW 322 plus DCI 274), this is what I came up with:
Germany - 9 (2 solos)
England, Turkey - 8 (1 Turk solo)
Norway - 7
Balkans, France, Russia - 5 (2 Russian solos)
Austria, Spain - 3
Italy, and Lowlands - 2
My favorite outcome was an ELN triple that swept the board. For the
record, my own pre-game preferences for DCI 274 were any of G, L, N, R,
and T. I'm glad I didn't get Lowlands
One trend grabs my attention: the southern and western powers (I,
F, L, and S) seem to fare far worse than the northern and eastern ones.
I'd be curious to know how other players felt about playing
Crowded.
But back to Dan's proposal to play "It came from outer space"... What
variants would *I* suggest for the DCI? I think I would try to pick
really balanced variants (but not Pure or Chromatic... blech!). 1900
has a very good reputation. Abstraction II is supposed to be good, too
(with different convoy rules, though). Anarchy should work very well
(since players pick their own home SCs). Renaissance might be
interesting, too. I guess I'd lean toward Anarchy (especially as the
number of players is flexible). On a different tack, I like the
scramble feel of Chaos, CivDip, 1898... so, I'd also suggest maybe a
game of 1897? (Though a one-center start for everybody might create too
much randomness in early survival?)
THE OTHER VARIANT
To my mind, the *real* variant being played in the DCI was the scoring
system: most centers = DCI Crown. This is not the usual DC system.
Usually, in DC, if you don't solo then you draw, and it matters little
whether you have 15 centers or 5 centers. But not so in the DCI. It
entirely changed the game and, I think, lent it a blood-thirsty cast. I
would not have stabbed Jorge had not the individual title been on the
line. Not even remotely. Joe might not have stabbed Jorge either, for
that matter.
As you may have guessed already, before I played at DC, I played at
the now-defunct DW. And DipWorld had a different scoring system than DC
uses. It was:
Player Score = # of Centers + Points for place
where 1st = 48; 2nd = 24; 3rd = 12; etc. [Note: Solo = 96, and everybody
else gets zero]. In DW, placement really mattered for the top-three
finishers. But survival in a draw was not much of a motivator for
fourth or fifth place runners up. In fact, the only end-game scenarios
were 'Solo' and DIAS (as there was no scoring distinction between
finishing in the drawing coalition versus outside it). I am not arguing
that one system is better than another. They just have different
incentives, and different incentives beget different styles of play.
THE PLAYERS
DCI 274 is probably the best game of Dip I've had the honor to play in
anywhere. The quality of the opposition was high, and that quality
showed in the high level of communication which unfurled... immediately
the game began. There was none of this sounding out personalities in
order to see who were the communicative ones, who had interesting ideas,
and who could be relied upon. It was obvious (and a wee bit
intimidating) that everybody was going to be communicative, clever, and
reliable (in a no-NMR way). If you pause to reflect on this for a
moment, it will strike you how uncommon it is for every player to be
attentive and insightful in a game. I remember it gave me a rush when I
first realized it. There would be no weak link / obvious target.
Conversely, I wasn't going to be able to advance myself by out-talking
my neighbors.
In fairness, Jorge was the communications exemplar, striking up a
conversation with me and maintaining it through all the roller-coaster
turns of the game. It was unusual to have running conversations with
all my immediate neighbors... plus Jorge. At points in the early- and
mid-game, I was sure that our conversation was not being used to my
advantage... but one expects that in Diplomacy.
The rest of this EoG is a rough chronological order of the game
organized by the player who dominated the Turkish game experience. Each
section focuses both on strategy and a personality (or two). Frank,
Garry, Matt, Max -- I'm sorry, but I hardly knew ya. I don't have
stories to share about you.
-- DREW
If I had it all to do over again, I would stab Drew again. Because he
wrote such funny press after the stab. "Sometimes I think about having
you executed just to see the expression on your face." (Season 2,
"Black Adder". Yup. I would.
But why stab Drew in the first place? On one hand, Nigel and I had
a good plan. We were going to re-enact a Juggernaut... just with more
players on the board than in Standard Dip. If anything, we hoped that
the existence of Balkans would make it harder to organize a resistance
(all the more testimony to Dan, Mikael, and Drew for actually doing it).
Nigel gained my early trust by keeping the plan simple; he effectively
conveyed his buy-in.
On the other hand, Drew's emails read a bit scattered and
occasionally incoherent. There were good ideas to be had, but I didn't
like sifting for them. Meanwhile, he had to coordinate a tricky ABT
alliance. Plus, although my preference was to head north in an ABT,
Drew's plans always tended to have me heading south toward Italy. Yes,
the ABT alliance had merits and could've worked, but too many teeth were
being pulled in the process.
And then I did something uncharacteristically Zen-like brilliant
for me: I let it be. Somehow, I knew the ABT wasn't going to work. It
couldn't. All I did was help the joints to creak a little more by
emphasizing a couple of difficulties with the alliance in my ABT press.
And that's when a beautiful thing happened. It all just fell apart.
Naturally, gracefully, of its own accord. The day of the first
deadline, Dan wrote me a "I am beginning to wish we weren't in this ABT
alliance" email. I replied with: "Funny you should mention it, because
I have a perfectly smashing ART stab entirely diagrammed through
W1901... It just happens to be laying on my desk".
Drew worked hard at making the ABT work in spite of the natural
antipathy between Balkans and Turkey. But, as I said, I'd stab him
again just to receive his comical emails. In fact, next time I play
Drew, I'm going to stab him all over again.
-- MIKAEL
Mikael was unavoidable unendurable destiny for me much of the game.
Alone of my neighbors, he didn't write much at the outset (this
changed). In the midgame, to Dan's glee, Mikael and I seemed locked in
an inextricable naval conflict, wherein I vs. T was the natural tension.
And later, when we finally found grounds for cooperation, we wound up
scuttling it over a miscommunication. Much has been written about Dan
and his sharpened dagger in this game... but the sad confession is that
his treachery would not have been possible but for Mikael's and my
willingness to allow Dan to play us off against each other.
I still look back at Winter 1901 and think I was screwed no matter
what I did (how often is Winter 1901 really all that crucial of a
season?!? But that's part of why this was a great game...). If I built
an army, then Nigel would've known I was coming after him... and with
the already-manifest ABI scrum, I knew that nobody was going to come aid
me in a battle with Nigel. So, I did the more 'neutral' thing and built
a fleet in Smyrna... which Mikael immediately and correctly recognized
as a warlike intent toward Italy. Even then, I had hopes that ABI would
be unable to unite in order to stop Nigel and I in our tracks (after
all, Mikael had just bludgeoned Dan, hadn't he?). But Mikael proved me
wrong on the board, just as I had dared him to do. And he didn't just
stop at ABI; he and Jorge combined to make it ABGIN.
If it hadn't been for Dan's mercurial nature, I would not have
survived Mikael's onslaught.
In total, I found Mikael to be a frustrating opponent -- which is
to say that he did his job vis-a-vis my Turkey. I would like to think
that he and I could make good allies if our countries weren't so
geographically at odds with each other.
-- DAN
Dan wins my vote for Personality of the Game Award, given to the player
who most indelibly leaves his imprint on the game. Surely, no single
player so influenced the flow of this game as did Dan. Jorge ran a good
second, though. All in all, I admire Dan's tenacity and immensely
enjoyed his role in the game. Thank you ever so much, Dan.
Jorge had warned me from Day 1 that Dan is cut-throat. A wee bit
of an understatement. Dan was perfidious. He stabbed. And betrayed.
And he tortured small, furry animals. I think I dubbed him the
Stab-O-Matic. And that appellation worked well for my interests, for in
truth, all of the talk about Dan's dagger-happy tendencies was only so
much propaganda. Oh, let me be clear: Dan was a villain. But that's
okay in Dip, so long as it works for you... which it did up to a point.
While there's been a lot of talk about Dan's stabs, I think we have
chosen to be silent on the bigger story... the story that shines some
redemption on Dan's actions. The storyline with Dan isn't that he
stabbed a lot. The storyline is that, in spite of stabbing so often,
Dan still persuaded some of the best players in DC to ally with him time
and time again. And this reveals incredible diplomatic skill. It also
shows an uncommon temperament that respects the fluidity of diplomatic
relations and does not treat any stab or alliance (by or against him) as
final. Most people hold a grudge after a stab, but Dan repeatedly was
right back on the phone dreaming up another cunning plan. As I noted
above: after a certain time, the fault is no longer Dan's for stabbing
us; it is ours for giving him so many opportunities to stab.
But, obviously, in the end, Dan's treachery backfired on him. But
was this because of the number of his stabs? Or the *quality* of his
stabs?. I think some of his stabs were not good stabs or were not
pressed relentlessly until the victim lay gasping near-lifeless in his
last SC. An example. Dan tried to eliminate Drew in Fall 1902 but made
two crucial errors. First, he didn't forewarn his other, more important
ally Mikael (and the stab attempt dealt collateral positional damage to
Mikael, so it risked scuttling the alliance). Second, he attempted the
stab via a tactically risky (nay, foolish) support from Budapest which
not only was likely to be cut, but actually got dislodged.
And then he patched it all up again with Drew and Mikael! I was
floored and flabbergasted. And awed.
But Dan's chief mistake (in my humblest of omniscient opinions) was
his first real stab of Mikael in Spring 1904(?). That was an alliance
that (from my throne in Turkey) seemed a force to be reckoned with. It
was the alliance that had a good chance to lay the golden egg.
Ultimately, as an aside, it was this stab that allowed me to survive in
the corner and to build the third fleet with which to establish my
Turkish Stonewall. It is with perfect 20-20 hindsight that I say Dan
should have stayed in the AI alliance until my corner position had been
shattered. Perfect hindsight... but I think it was my insight at the
time, too.
In the end, Dan left too many of his victims still standing. And
somewhere around 1906/1907, I think he was heard reciting more
Shakespeare: "Now is the winter of our discontent made glorious summer
by this Duke of Austria; and all the clouds that lowered upon our house
in the deep bosom of the ocean buried. Now are our brows bound with
victorious wreaths." Little did he realize how much the world scorns
hump-backed villains.
-- NIGEL
I don't have a lot of stories to tell about Nigel. Fidelity is not
often the stuff of great Dip stories. But, with all due obsequiousness
to other players... Nigel is the guy from this game I would most likely
ally with again. As I mentioned earlier, his straight-forward,
uncomplicated style worked very well by me.
For the most part, thanks to the ABGIN, Nigel and I were allies
both in a bind, unable to directly aid each other. By 1906, I had
established the Turkish Stonewall: F EMed, F Aegean, F Constantinople.
It was every Turkish turtle's dream, utterly unassailable except via
Armenia. And I relied on Nigel to defend that to his death (which was
impending). I could exaggerate and say I was using him as a human
shield... it's certainly more colorful... but, there was really nothing
more I could have done for him. My thought was that I could hold this
position until the cavalry arrived from the West, which ought to come
before Nigel's last stand, God rest his soul.
An ordinary player would made a last stand in Sevastapol and died
like a loyal soldier. But Nigel surprised me and caused me sleepless
nights. He dealt and double-dealt with his AI oppressors, thus
extricating a rebirth from a mere one center. It was an extraordinary
feat. But it came at the cost of letting enemies into Armenia. My
nightmare of poison-fanged Austrian hump-backed villains was coming
true. Surely, my end had arrived.
But then, in 1907, the cavalry arrived. Dan was given a beat-down.
And the Austrian orcs in Armenia disbanded. And then began the Glory
Years. The acme of Russo-Turkish relations.
In spite of some friction around 1909, Nigel and I functioned as
one nation, each tending to the other's resurrection and focusing on our
mutual goal: a DIAS ASAP. When Joe stabbed Jorge, we expanded to become
an NRT trio. And all was well. Jorge has already told the story of how
he and I chose to spurn Austrian alliance (and Russian elimination) in
1910, so I won't dwell on it. But I was pleased with the maneuver.
Very pleased. It was reflective of something I later told Joe: I could
stab Nigel, but then'd I'd have to start looking over my shoulder for
angels with flaming swords; for I was sure such despicable treachery
against my most loyal ally -- an ally with whom I had developed an
unusual and special tight-knit bond -- would not go unpunished by
Heaven.
And yet all good things do pass. Alas, Nigel's interest in the
game eventually dissipated. He had formerly been an active participant
in our NRT round tables, but he lapsed into just chiming in on Friday
mornings about six or so hours before the deadline. Still, in the end,
he owned a share of the draw.
-- JORGE
I have already written of Jorge's superb communication. There is no
greater virtue in Diplomacy than frequent, well-written press, and Jorge
seemed determined to out-press everybody. It worked on me, and I was
content to see him do well for so much of the game.
As I mentioned, Jorge and I talked early about how to play Norway.
My previous experience said that Norway was a great defensive position
which rightly had to prioritize naval supremacy and try to reach
Gibraltar. Toward that end, I thought England and Lowlands had to be
his primary targets, followed by France and Spain. Germany had to be
kept fleet-light. And Russia should make for a strategic ally (this
last opinion also coincided with my Turkish alliance with Russia).
Jorge took my advice and then made up his own mind. Still, by Spring
1905, he had far exceeded the objectives I had discussed. He had fleets
in NAt and Iri plus a weaker German ally who could absorb Austrian
aggression for awhile. Which is why it didn't see his betrayal of Max
coming. I thought it a mistake at the time, but I really cannot
second-guess him when his bigger problem was an EF alliance that he
needed to split however he could.
So, to return to my semi-narrative here... Nigel and I rebounded
from Dan's yoke -- all thanks to the success of the FN(+IRT) alliance
against Dan. But there can be too much of a good thing. Joe and Jorge
made great gains with help from both Nigel and me. But they were also
both exerting carbon-to-diamond pressure directly on us. There was talk
at the time of what form the draw would take. I was insisting upon a
share of the draw (reckoning that, being in the far corner, they
couldn't easily eliminate me without risking a solo by one or the other;
plus, 35 centers cannot be evenly divided between two players). Joe and
Jorge were sticking with a 2-way.
In particular, I remember a specific exchange with Jorge. In 1909,
Nigel had convoyed an army to Ankara (whereas I had expected a fleet).
And while it didn't make sense for him to stab me, I was quite skittish
all the same. I wrote to Jorge and asked for an unenforceable promise:
if Nigel screws me over, please take Sevastopol from him. Since I
wasn't really expecting a stab from Nigel, and since the request
couldn't be enforced anyway, I didn't put much stock in it. But Jorge's
response was uncharacteristically cold and aloof: "The problem is that
you are on record as being against that draw I'm seeking. At this point
Nigs is my muscle on you to vote Yes." It chilled me. Maybe I should
be afraid of Nigel! Not because Nigel would stab me, but because Jorge
would force him into it! I cannot exactly say why this one brief email
had such an effect on me, but it did. It clearly reminded me the
bottom-line Diplomacy truth: in spite of a lovely
running correspondence, no neighbor is wholly my friend. We are
competitors each seeking individual glory.
I'm going to park Jorge by the curb for a minute and write more
about him later. But first...
-- JOE
Joe entered my life in 1908. He rode a white stallion and drove my
Italian and Austrian nemeses before him like chaff before the wind.
Orphan children strewed rose petals before his feet and gratefully sang
his name with hosannas.
The agreement by Joe and Jorge to unite against Austria provided
desperately needed short-term relief. I started to envision a 4-way
FNRT draw (or any draw that included me!). But, conquerors are
conquerors, and in spite of a Fall 1908 agreement for Joe to take Greece
(with my support) and then hand it over to me, Joe found reasons to
reconsider the agreement before the end of 1909. This was about the
time when Jorge rebuffed my request for a safeguard against Nigel, and I
wasn't so much loving either of my FN liberators.
However, in the meanwhile, Joe and I had started a running
conversation about the game-end scenarios. It had begun in the lead-up
to Spring 1908, as I was laying clear my Turkish goals, and I mentioned
to Joe: "Provided you mind your border with Jorge properly, I think you
are in the stronger position in FN. Much stronger." I don't think Joe
had seriously entertained the thought of himself as having the upper
hand until that point.
I don't know what impact the Spring 1908 adjudication had on Joe's
thoughts, but it seemed significant to me at the time. On that
adjudication -- before Joe and I had much of a chance to follow up on my
comment -- Joe opened himself up terribly vulnerably to Jorge while
Jorge simultaneously moved two armies adjacent to Munich. Belgium and
Munich were indefensible if Jorge hearkened to the Dagger's Call. With
his seizure of Warsaw from Dan, he'd have a 13-8 lead in SCs versus Joe.
I was 105% certain that Jorge would strike. I said as much to Joe. The
irony, of course, is that Jorge was a true ally. Yet, after this
incident, I wonder if Joe wasn't more struck by his brief peril than by
his ally's good graces.
It didn't hurt that Joe and I started to discuss that most
compelling of things: the scoring system and cost-benefit analysis. If
Jorge had gone for the stab, his best case scenario was a solo. The DCI
Crown via a solo -- that would be something to tell his grandchildren
about! If not, had Jorge's solo bid fallen short thanks to an unwieldy
AFIRT alliance (in which IT would have been of no help), then Jorge
still stood a very good chance of claiming the DCI Crown with 15 or 16
centers. If AFIRT managed to hurl him backward (which was certainly
possible, though 5-way alliances are not so easy to hold together), the
odds remained exceedingly good that Jorge would retain a part in a
game-ending 3-way draw. And that's the reality of the scoring system:
there is often not a huge risk associated with taking a big gamble, but
there are great rewards. Obviously, Jorge analyzed the board and
decided the solo bid was not a gamble he wished to attempt.
But later, Joe would face much the same gamble. The scoring system,
the cost-benefit analysis, and his irritation with Jorge all helped him
choose the road Jorge had not taken.
In Fall 1909, Joe seized Greece in spite of me. He stabbed Mikael
for both Rome and Venice. And Nigel convoyed an army to Ankara when I
was expecting his fleet. I thought, "This is it. Joe is finally going
for the solo -- he'll fortify his line against Jorge and out-race him to
18 centers by gobbling up Balkan and Turkish dots." Joe blandly told me
that I knew his reason for depriving me of Greece, but I brushed it off
as a thin veil for his underlying motive, and I told him so in a letter
that we both referenced several times later in the game:
"> You know the reason of course.
I do, but it's not the one you name. The real reason is: you are
embracing the path eschewed by Jorge. Guts, glory, and a solo bid. You
have deftly wielded the Dagger Known As Dan to thwart your foes and to
quickly sweep up a couple of builds. The Russian convoy is a nice
touch, too. Of course, Dan won't long remain reliable, but you don't
expect him to. You may just have enough to push onward to victory.
Excelsior!
Good luck to you on your bid. Personally, I was disappointed in
Jorge for not taking the gamble. What you are doing is more in the
Spirit of the Game."
Poetic, eh? Patriotic. Gets the blood coursing through the arteries.
I'd come a long way rhetorically from the utterly frustrated letter I
wrote to Mikael back in October:
"I see Naples
I see France
I see Mikael's
Underpants."
Yes, my emails had come a long way. Whereas Mikael never replied to my
poem, Joe really heard my Siren's Song.
But I don't want to claim credit for Joe's courage. If I have
dwelled upon his motives, it's because I tend to overanalyze things, not
because I feel I authored his decision. I did, it seems, help screw his
courage to the sticking place (which puts me into yet another
Shakespeare play...). But the ambition was Joe's. He made up his own
mind, and he wore his boldness rightly as his own. And eventually, by
the time Birnam Wood marched on high Dunsinane, he faced his fate with
all the ferocity of a real MacBeth. He ultimately failed, but I
confess... I was proud of him. He honored the Spirit of the Game.
[And, I'll note, he lost nothing score-wise for his venture... he still
finished with a share of the draw].
-- JOE & JORGE
I am not going to comment on The Feud beyond the following three points.
(1) I happily did not suffer friction from either Joe nor Jorge that
would at all suggest that either was capable of the nastiness that
erupted. (2) It was Joe who breached protocol by publicly flaming
Jorge. This happens occasionally in Diplomacy (I blushingly remember
the last time I did it some years ago as a powerless Italian...). Joe
eventually apologized, which is all I could ask, but it was quite a
flaming. (3) Genies do not return to their bottles; it was The Feud and
its lingering resentments (and Joe's willingness to cede centers to my
fleets) that made my Crown even remotely possible. We all know that,
had calmer heads prevailed, I would never have had even a glimmer of
hope.
But at the outset, there was no Feud. There was just a stab. And
a solo bid. And a really nasty piece of work that Jorge and I
perpetrated against Dan (by which I reckoned that all of my scores with
the Stab-O-Matic had now been repaid).
And then followed the second Golden Era. Not only did Jorge now
*need* Nigel and me, but we all needed each other if we were to prevent
a French solo. That we would form a 3-way alliance was predictable.
But the alliance that we did form was... extraordinary. I cannot say I
have ever enjoyed a more tightly knit alliance. It was a thing of
beauty and perhaps of grace. Not only were all moves an open book, but
all moves benefited from three brains instead of one. This may sound
cliche, but I think it was crucial. It was the union of our minds
rather than our collection of units that stopped Joe. For several
years, all three of us enthusiastically joined in the drawing and
refining of battle plans. And particularly in 1914, we just plain
out-thought the French, because we had three times the available time to
consider all the alternatives.
I must here sheepishly admit that this alliance would have been
impossible without the tone of Jorge's leadership. Yes, Jorge was in
some sense ultimately looking out for his own welfare (after all, his
goal was to recapture the elusive DCI Crown). But I do believe that we
reached beyond mere self-interest and achieved a team concept, wherein
ownership of centers was not jealously guarded, and one nation's
positioning was routinely subverted to the position of the team. And
again, it was usually Jorge who sacrificed.
It took me a very long time in this game to understand Jorge to the
extent that I now do. But I do believe that he is of a different
character than Joe... or myself. It's hard to quantify. I want to say
that he's an Alliance Player... but he did do treacherous things to
Frank, Nigel, and especially Max. Still, when I look at all the pieces:
extensive communication, team-oriented alliance, choosing an FN draw
over a solo bid, not wanting to push the NRT toward a solo... Jorge
played the game differently. At least in my experience of him. He
played for himself and his own success as we all do, but at the same
time, he didn't. And therein is an irony. Because his style brought
him success but arguably deprived him of the Crown, as he instead
over-trusted two players who are of a different character.
The NRT survived three setbacks, as Jorge noted in his EGS. The
first was intentional, the other two not. First, in Autumn 1912, I
disbanded my fleet in Naples. And, yes, I did this intentionally to
breathe life back into Joe. A distant corner of my mind was, believe it
or not, already thinking of how to 'get back into the game', in spite of
having only five centers. I kept quiet on that. But much more than my
re-emergence, as incredulous as this will sound to Jorge, I really was
worried about Jorge. At the time, Nigel and I were having discussions
of "So, once we stop Joe, how are we going to stop Jorge? Or will it be
out of the frying pan and into the fire?" The fact that I worried about
Jorge showed that I did not understand either him nor Joe yet. On one
hand, I seriously believed that Joe might disband northern units
(opposing Jorge) instead of southern units (opposing me). I did not
know the depth of their underlying
antipathy (which only surfaced publicly that very season). On the
other hand, I didn't realize that Jorge really would stop once he had
reached supply center parity with Joe. I thought it very realistic that
Jorge might continue to steam along in the north and continue for a solo
bid. Unless I gave Joe a cushion in the south. So, I disbanded my
fleet in Naples, and I made my allies very cross. And I extended the
game.
The other two setbacks were both accidents. Nigel's NMR was a
brutal, awfully timed debacle, and it resurrected chances for Joe's two
eastern units. The same season, I misordered a fleet (honestly, I
thought it was in Aegean...), leaving Ionian unfortunately empty (a much
smaller debacle). But again... such were the turns of fortune that both
helped extend the game long enough for me to get back into it.
-- ADAM (or "How I Came to Steal a Victory"
This was the best game of Diplomacy I've ever had the honor to play in.
All but the last two years. No, I'm not being self-disparaging. After
1914, the game had played out. Joe's solo bid was finis, barring a
Norwegian NMR. He lost his relish for the game. Nigel detached. Jorge
sought only to restore his advantage in SCs so that he could have the
Crown. People were ready for the game to end. And I walked to victory
partly on the eggshells of apathy. But first, Joe had one favor to
repay...
I wrote to Joe after F1914 saying that I had totally screwed up my
chances of winning. I had made the mistake of submitting the best
moves. Tactically, they were the very best. But strategically... I
should really have submitted orders that would extend the game and lead
to me having to convoy units into Trieste and Venice. Now, I would be
unable to catch up to Jorge.
It must have been a strange friendship for Joe. Here, I had urged,
coaxed, wheedled, and cajoled him until he reached out to seize victory.
Yet, all the time he was crusading, I clearly maintained that I was his
foe. I was a friend who was really an enemy. An enemy who cheered him
on as a friend. Oooh, such a frenemy was I...
Intermittently along the way, Joe had been offering me deals. Stab
Nigel. Let's form a two-way against Jorge. But what balance could
there really be when he outnumbered me by six centers? In 1915, Joe
started offering me a solo (even though he still outnumbered me by
four). I frankly didn't believe him, because again, I didn't understand
the psychology at play (and I didn't have the armies to procure the
Balkans). For Joe to help me to solo, he'd have to send armies into
Tyrolia and Vienna. Then, he'd both outnumber me and control the center
of the map. It seemed yet another effort to split the NRT and revive
his solo bid. I thought Joe was still playing to win. But it appears
he was just playing to avenge himself on Jorge.
Conversely, I worried that if I shattered the crystal luminance
that was NRT, Jorge would give Joe the solo rather than allow my
treachery to succeed. Jorge had been pretty disapproving when I
disbanded F Naples -- it had almost scuttled our alliance. And often,
traitors are more hated than enemies. An ill-aimed stab might, I
wrongly thought, make Jorge like me even less than Joe. So, I turned
Joe's offer down.
And it's here that Joe repaid my favor. He hounded me. Guts and
Glory! Solo! It was his turn to play Lady MacBeth whilst I played a
balking MacBeth. We generated a stack of email, all while Jorge and
Nigel were turning the lights out in the storefront. He begged and
pleaded. He delivered an ultimatum. He publicly announced his intent
to vote for a draw. He did everything I had done to/for him in
encouraging him to stab Jorge in the first place. It was a favor
dutifully repaid.
Still, many things had to happen in that last year-plus to make a
winner out of me. Probably the key thing was: Nigel and Jorge couldn't
suspect me. Which they should have. Not because I behaved
suspiciously, but simply because my SC count was catching up, and
Diplomacy players should know to exercise caution. There were really
only two things that could stop Jorge from winning: (1) Joe's obstinacy
and (2) a Turkish grab for power. Well, Joe finally and sincerely
announced his surrender in late 1915. So, the only threat left was me.
And I am pretty sure that the circa 1912 versions of Jorge and Nigel
would never have let me sneak into a victory. But by 1915... it was
time to pack up the suitcases.
In Fall 1915, I openly took Serbia while Nigel chose not to take
Bulgaria in exchange. That was the first last step. (It also showed
how oblivious Nigel was about my emerging Caesar-like ambition). It
gave me a second build and an army in the Balkans. In Winter 1915,
Jorge suggested I build two armies. I didn't have to be told twice!
(But had he and Nigel insisted upon a fleet... there probably would have
been no stab). In Spring 1916, Joe was muttering into my ear: "Come on
kid! You can do it! Give'em a jab with your left and a hook with your
right! You're the champ, kid! You're the champ! I'm behind you all
the way!" I essentially told Joe that I might stab, but he'd have to
hand over the keys to the French army. He did. That was essential for
my success. (And later, he didn't complain when my orders for him cost
him two disbands and the loss of Holland). Then Nigel announced his
intention to symbolically re-occupy St. Petersburg
and Sevastopol. I was probably going to stab anyway, but that was the
last domino. [Again, if Nigel or Jorge had stopped to analyze the
threat from Turkey, they might have insisted on the very
un-alliance-like move of F Bla-Con/Bul... probably without informing
which destination Nigel would choose... and since we all expected the
draw to pass that season, it shouldn't matter. But that could've maybe
been enough to stop me from stabbing, too].
PATIENCE
In the late-game and post-game, I have read some praise for Patience.
Yes, it is a virtue that worked admirably to my advantage all throughout
the game. It worked way back in Spring 1901 when I waited for Drew's
ABT alliance to fall apart. In mid-game, it enabled me to construct the
Turkish Stonewall. And in the end, it enabled me to revive from 3
stinkin' centers to claim an undeserved Crown. Yes, Patience is a
very... how do I say this?... overrated virtue. It works very well for
Turkey. It brought me a win in this game, so I'm certainly not going to
snarl and spit at it. But I'd rather play Austria. I'd rather author
my own success. For, as we all know, this game belonged to Dan, Jorge,
and Joe. If anyone 'deserved' to win, it was one of them. I was but
the beneficiary of their struggles.
PSYCHOLOGY / PHILOSOPHY / CLOSING THOUGHTS
"It's what Jeeves would call the psychology of the individual." - P.G.
Wodehouse
Why did I coach Joe forward to stab Jorge? Why did I stab Jorge? Why
*didn't* Jorge stab? I cannot wholly say.
I think my counsel to Joe went far beyond my own desire to survive
(which surely was aided by his stab). I had a deeper motive of which I
was not fully aware. Something psychological. Something which was
certainly linked to the opposing psychology that led Jorge to pass on a
solo bid. It's what I referred to in my email to Joe as The Spirit of
the Game (which sounds horrendously pompous, but it's the name I used,
so we're stuck with it).
Almost by definition, The Spirit of the Game is my a personal
interpretation. Each player approaches the game with his own sense of
The Spirit.
My sense of The Spirit is related to the famous Herm Edwards quote:
"You play to win the game". There are many other motivators (like a
great alliance or sportsmanship), but winning is the first goal. In a
game like the DCI or a tournament, where a title is on the line, I prize
winning even more highly.
Also, given the draw-based scoring system, where the rewards for
valor often outweigh the risk, fortune favors the bold. [I reiterate
here: in the end, Joe didn't lose much on his score by trying for the
solo; he still figured in the draw].
When I saw Joe acquiescing to a 2-way FN draw sans the DCI Crown, I
confess it didn't feel right. Jorge was playing a dangerous game to
keep SC parity so tight but to reserve the Crown for his own. The Crown
is lying there! Duncan sleeps in thy castle this night! Reach out and
seize it! Thou shall'st be more than man! My maternal instinct (my
Lady MacBeth maternal instinct) stirred:
"Wouldst thou have that
Which thou esteem'st the ornament of life,
And live a coward in thine own esteem,
Letting 'I dare not' wait upon 'I would'"?
Joe dared. And let me say: he got really close. Just because he fell
short does not mean he shouldn't have tried.
But what of Jorge? He did not stab Joe in a similar position. Did
he violate The Spirit of the Game? Ultimately, upon great reflection, I
would say that he did not. He chose a different, more subtle path
toward victory. It was a calculation that didn't pan out. Neither Joe
nor I cooperated far enough to allow him his hard-earned victory. But
like Joe, Jorge came really close to winning. His calculation fell
short, but it was worth the try.
And yet... during the game and even now, I did feel that Jorge
chose not to _seize_ victory. He tried to corral it and nurture it
rather than act brashly. As you can tell: I thought brash action was
called for. Nigel can confirm that, around 1912, facing the prospects
of a Jorge Crown vs. a Joe Crown, my preference was: (a) whichever one
gets us a draw; followed by (b) Joe, because he opted for Guts and
Glory.
In the recently ended DC 285 (Ancient Med), I settled for a 2-way
Egyptian-Persian draw with Mike Hoffman. I thought I had a slight
inside track for the solo (so did he). But we settled on a draw,
because the odds were close, and because we had a really good alliance
we didn't want to shatter. The alliance was more valuable than the win.
If the DCI were just another club game, I wouldn't have stabbed at
the end. I would barely have even considered it. I had a really good
alliance that I didn't enjoy shattering. A superb alliance. The type
where a stab isn't just a betrayal of my allies... it's almost a
betrayal of sportsmanship. Plus, I felt like a scum bag for stabbing at
a time when everybody else was just ready to be done with the game. If
Joe hadn't been Lady MacBeth-ing me, I doubt I would've gone through
with it.
Additionally, I kept coming back to: "You play to win the game."
That was my goal at the beginning of the game. It should still be my
goal fifteen game years into it. If other people are tiring of the
game, that shouldn't change my goal. If my allies are expecting me to
restore Jorge to the lead, that shouldn't change my goal.
I have never done that before. Exploited my opponents' waning
enthusiasm for a victory. It was more a case of outlasting than of
out-thinking. In the aftermath, it doesn't feel as radiant by half as
allying and conniving my way to power. But it's a type of virtue...
Patience.
Which is not the final word you'd expect from an EoG that has so many
words about...
Your DCI Winner,
MacBeth[Reply] |
| ACD236/DC288: Balkans1860 Spring 1867: Tirana - Kenshi777 (May 27, 2010, 5:03 pm) |
and I suppose you all probably do want attachments...
B.
--
Diplomacy in Texas!
www.texasdiplomacy.com
http://www.dipwiki.com
Realpolitik files available here for the Sengoku, Balkans1860, South
American Supremacy, and DarkAges Diplomacy Variants[Reply] |
| ACD236/DC288: Balkans1860 Spring 1867: Tirana - Kenshi777 (May 27, 2010, 5:02 pm) |
Word of the day is: Fail. RP printed the word *Fails* in this
adjudication more than you'd see in a whole day on failblog.com. The
curse of the fail struck indiscriminately - Romania, Bulgaria, Greece,
Serbia, and the Ottomans all failed at something or another that they
tried. Better luck next season. That leaves Austria - who has the
one retreat order needed for this season, and Italy, who caused said
retreat. On to the history blurb, at the site of the fiercest
fighting this season: Tirana.
Tirana before the First World War was one of the great bastions of
Islam in Europe. No Ottoman territory in Europe embraced the culture
and religion of their Turkish overlords more than Tirana. This
favored status led to regional prominence for Tirana under the Ottoman
reign, though the city slipped into decline as the Ottoman hold over
the region waned. Independence (and communism) brought even greater
disaster for Tirana and Albania as a whole, which is struggling even
today to emerge and assume its place as a European capital.
***NEXT DEADLINE: I would really like to see Allen's retreat by
tomorrow, though the deadline will have to actually be Tuesday, 1700
EST. If we *do* get that retreat broadcast before tomorrow, then the
Fall 1867 deadline will be Thursday, June 3rd, at 1700 EST. If not,
then I will extend the deadline accordingly.
***RETREAT DUE: Army Venezia may retreat to Trent, Bologna, or OTB.
***DRAW PROPOSAL: A 3-way BRS draw has been proposed. Please include
your votes on that proposal with your next set of orders.
***PLAYERS:
ITALY: Adam Levy
AUSTRIA-HUNGARY: Allen York
SERBIA: Garry Bledsoe
GREECE: Nigel Phillips
ROMANIA: Mike Sims
BULGARIA: Ross Webb
OTTOMAN EMPIRE: Gregory Bim-Merle
***RESULTS:
Italy:
A Salzburg - Venezia
Austria-Hungary:
A Venezia Supports A Salzburg (*Dislodged*)
Serbia:
F Adriatic Sea - Gulf of Venezia
A Agram Supports A Trieste
A Bitola Supports A Tirana
F Cetinje - Adriatic Sea
A Kragujevac - Scutari (*Fails*)
A Sarajevo - Cetinje
A Trieste Supports A Salzburg - Venezia
Romania:
F Bosporus - Sea of Marmara (*Fails*)
A Budapest Hold
F Constanta - Burgas Bay
A Craiova - Nis
A Graz - Salzburg
A Nis - Skopje
A Pecs - Graz
F Salonika Supports A Serres - Kozani
F Sea of Marmara - Thermaic Gulf (*Fails*)
A Tirana Supports A Kozani - Agrinio (*Cut*)
Bulgaria:
A Ankara - Manisa
A Antalya - Izmir (*Fails*)
F Bursa Supports A Antalya - Izmir
A Kozani - Agrinio (*Fails*)
A Plovdiv - Sofia
A Serres - Kozani (*Fails*)
F Thermaic Gulf - Gulf of Izmir (*Bounce*)
Greece:
F Aegean Sea Supports F Athens - Larisa (*Fails*)
A Agrinio Supports F Scutari - Tirana (*Cut*)
A Ancona Hold
F Athens - Larisa (*Fails*)
F Eastern Mediterranean Supports A Izmir - Antalya
F Gulf of Taranto Supports F Scutari - Tirana
F Larisa - Kozani (*Fails*)
F Saronic Gulf - Gulf of Izmir (*Bounce*)
F Scutari - Tirana (*Fails*)
F Torino Hold
Ottomans:
A Izmir - Antalya (*Fails*)
Thanks!
B.
--
Diplomacy in Texas!
www.texasdiplomacy.com
http://www.dipwiki.com
Realpolitik files available here for the Sengoku, Balkans1860, South
American Supremacy, and DarkAges Diplomacy Variants[Reply] |
| ACD236/DC288: Balkans1860 Spring 1867: Tirana (dc288) Kenshi777 May 27, 05:03 pm |
and I suppose you all probably do want attachments...
B.
--
Diplomacy in Texas!
www.texasdiplomacy.com
http://www.dipwiki.com
Realpolitik files available here for the Sengoku, Balkans1860, South
American Supremacy, and DarkAges Diplomacy Variants |
| ACD236/DC288: Balkans1860 Spring 1867: Tirana (dc288) teflongnome May 28, 06:37 am |
Austria-Hungary:
A Venezia - Bologna
And publicly vote NO to the 3-way. I'll vote in favor if Greece is included.
Allen
>>> Benjamin Hester <screwtape777(at)gmail.com> 5/27/2010 6:02 PM >>>
Word of the day is: Fail. RP printed the word *Fails* in this
adjudication more than you'd see in a whole day on failblog.com. The
curse of the fail struck indiscriminately - Romania, Bulgaria, Greece,
Serbia, and the Ottomans all failed at something or another that they
tried. Better luck next season. That leaves Austria - who has the
one retreat order needed for this season, and Italy, who caused said
retreat. On to the history blurb, at the site of the fiercest
fighting this season: Tirana.
Tirana before the First World War was one of the great bastions of
Islam in Europe. No Ottoman territory in Europe embraced the culture
and religion of their Turkish overlords more than Tirana. This
favored status led to regional prominence for Tirana under the Ottoman
reign, though the city slipped into decline as the Ottoman hold over
the region waned. Independence (and communism) brought even greater
disaster for Tirana and Albania as a whole, which is struggling even
today to emerge and assume its place as a European capital.
***NEXT DEADLINE: I would really like to see Allen's retreat by
tomorrow, though the deadline will have to actually be Tuesday, 1700
EST. If we *do* get that retreat broadcast before tomorrow, then the
Fall 1867 deadline will be Thursday, June 3rd, at 1700 EST. If not,
then I will extend the deadline accordingly.
***RETREAT DUE: Army Venezia may retreat to Trent, Bologna, or OTB.
***DRAW PROPOSAL: A 3-way BRS draw has been proposed. Please include
your votes on that proposal with your next set of orders.
***PLAYERS:
ITALY: Adam Levy
AUSTRIA-HUNGARY: Allen York
SERBIA: Garry Bledsoe
GREECE: Nigel Phillips
ROMANIA: Mike Sims
BULGARIA: Ross Webb
OTTOMAN EMPIRE: Gregory Bim-Merle
***RESULTS:
Italy:
A Salzburg - Venezia
Austria-Hungary:
A Venezia Supports A Salzburg (*Dislodged*)
Serbia:
F Adriatic Sea - Gulf of Venezia
A Agram Supports A Trieste
A Bitola Supports A Tirana
F Cetinje - Adriatic Sea
A Kragujevac - Scutari (*Fails*)
A Sarajevo - Cetinje
A Trieste Supports A Salzburg - Venezia
Romania:
F Bosporus - Sea of Marmara (*Fails*)
A Budapest Hold
F Constanta - Burgas Bay
A Craiova - Nis
A Graz - Salzburg
A Nis - Skopje
A Pecs - Graz
F Salonika Supports A Serres - Kozani
F Sea of Marmara - Thermaic Gulf (*Fails*)
A Tirana Supports A Kozani - Agrinio (*Cut*)
Bulgaria:
A Ankara - Manisa
A Antalya - Izmir (*Fails*)
F Bursa Supports A Antalya - Izmir
A Kozani - Agrinio (*Fails*)
A Plovdiv - Sofia
A Serres - Kozani (*Fails*)
F Thermaic Gulf - Gulf of Izmir (*Bounce*)
Greece:
F Aegean Sea Supports F Athens - Larisa (*Fails*)
A Agrinio Supports F Scutari - Tirana (*Cut*)
A Ancona Hold
F Athens - Larisa (*Fails*)
F Eastern Mediterranean Supports A Izmir - Antalya
F Gulf of Taranto Supports F Scutari - Tirana
F Larisa - Kozani (*Fails*)
F Saronic Gulf - Gulf of Izmir (*Bounce*)
F Scutari - Tirana (*Fails*)
F Torino Hold
Ottomans:
A Izmir - Antalya (*Fails*)
Thanks!
B.
--
Diplomacy in Texas!
www.texasdiplomacy.com
http://www.dipwiki.com
Realpolitik files available here for the Sengoku, Balkans1860, South
American Supremacy, and DarkAges Diplomacy Variants |
| ACD236/DC288: Balkans1860 Spring 1867: Tirana (dc288) Nigs May 28, 12:13 pm |
I will be voting in favour because I proposed it: due to RL issues that I don't want to go into, I need to finish playing dip for a while, maybe for good. So although theoretically I can defend some dots for a long time, i'd rather not have to try. Just thought I'd make that clear. If the game continues, i'll try to keep my end up
Nigs
Get a free e-mail account with Hotmail. Sign-up now. |
| ACD236/DC288: Balkans1860 Spring 1867: Tirana (dc288) teflongnome May 28, 12:17 pm |
I'd vote for a 4-way BRSG if someone proposed that, but Nigel should be part of a draw.
Allen
>>> Nigel PHILLIPS <nephilli99(at)hotmail.com> 5/28/2010 1:13 PM >>>
I will be voting in favour because I proposed it: due to RL issues that I don't want to go into, I need to finish playing dip for a while, maybe for good. So although theoretically I can defend some dots for a long time, i'd rather not have to try. Just thought I'd make that clear. If the game continues, i'll try to keep my end up
Nigs
Get a free e-mail account with Hotmail. Sign-up now. |
| ACD236/DC288: Balkans1860 Spring 1867: Tirana (dc288) Kenshi777 May 28, 01:46 pm |
Okay - so the retreat is official, and Thursday, June 3rd 1700 EST
will be the deadline for Fall 1867. Please include all votes on a
BRSG draw at that time.
Thanks -
B.
On 5/28/10, Allen York wrote:
Austria-Hungary:
A Venezia - Bologna
And publicly vote NO to the 3-way. I'll vote in favor if Greece is
included.
Allen
>>> Benjamin Hester 5/27/2010 6:02 PM >>>
Word of the day is: Fail. RP printed the word *Fails* in this
adjudication more than you'd see in a whole day on failblog.com. The
curse of the fail struck indiscriminately - Romania, Bulgaria, Greece,
Serbia, and the Ottomans all failed at something or another that they
tried. Better luck next season. That leaves Austria - who has the
one retreat order needed for this season, and Italy, who caused said
retreat. On to the history blurb, at the site of the fiercest
fighting this season: Tirana.
Tirana before the First World War was one of the great bastions of
Islam in Europe. No Ottoman territory in Europe embraced the culture
and religion of their Turkish overlords more than Tirana. This
favored status led to regional prominence for Tirana under the Ottoman
reign, though the city slipped into decline as the Ottoman hold over
the region waned. Independence (and communism) brought even greater
disaster for Tirana and Albania as a whole, which is struggling even
today to emerge and assume its place as a European capital.
***NEXT DEADLINE: I would really like to see Allen's retreat by
tomorrow, though the deadline will have to actually be Tuesday, 1700
EST. If we *do* get that retreat broadcast before tomorrow, then the
Fall 1867 deadline will be Thursday, June 3rd, at 1700 EST. If not,
then I will extend the deadline accordingly.
***RETREAT DUE: Army Venezia may retreat to Trent, Bologna, or OTB.
***DRAW PROPOSAL: A 3-way BRS draw has been proposed. Please include
your votes on that proposal with your next set of orders.
***PLAYERS:
ITALY: Adam Levy
AUSTRIA-HUNGARY: Allen York
SERBIA: Garry Bledsoe
GREECE: Nigel Phillips
ROMANIA: Mike Sims
BULGARIA: Ross Webb
OTTOMAN EMPIRE: Gregory Bim-Merle
***RESULTS:
Italy:
A Salzburg - Venezia
Austria-Hungary:
A Venezia Supports A Salzburg (*Dislodged*)
Serbia:
F Adriatic Sea - Gulf of Venezia
A Agram Supports A Trieste
A Bitola Supports A Tirana
F Cetinje - Adriatic Sea
A Kragujevac - Scutari (*Fails*)
A Sarajevo - Cetinje
A Trieste Supports A Salzburg - Venezia
Romania:
F Bosporus - Sea of Marmara (*Fails*)
A Budapest Hold
F Constanta - Burgas Bay
A Craiova - Nis
A Graz - Salzburg
A Nis - Skopje
A Pecs - Graz
F Salonika Supports A Serres - Kozani
F Sea of Marmara - Thermaic Gulf (*Fails*)
A Tirana Supports A Kozani - Agrinio (*Cut*)
Bulgaria:
A Ankara - Manisa
A Antalya - Izmir (*Fails*)
F Bursa Supports A Antalya - Izmir
A Kozani - Agrinio (*Fails*)
A Plovdiv - Sofia
A Serres - Kozani (*Fails*)
F Thermaic Gulf - Gulf of Izmir (*Bounce*)
Greece:
F Aegean Sea Supports F Athens - Larisa (*Fails*)
A Agrinio Supports F Scutari - Tirana (*Cut*)
A Ancona Hold
F Athens - Larisa (*Fails*)
F Eastern Mediterranean Supports A Izmir - Antalya
F Gulf of Taranto Supports F Scutari - Tirana
F Larisa - Kozani (*Fails*)
F Saronic Gulf - Gulf of Izmir (*Bounce*)
F Scutari - Tirana (*Fails*)
F Torino Hold
Ottomans:
A Izmir - Antalya (*Fails*)
Thanks!
B.
--
Diplomacy in Texas!
www.texasdiplomacy.com
http://www.dipwiki.com
Realpolitik files available here for the Sengoku, Balkans1860, South
American Supremacy, and DarkAges Diplomacy Variants
--
Diplomacy in Texas!
www.texasdiplomacy.com
http://www.dipwiki.com
Realpolitik files available here for the Sengoku, Balkans1860, South
American Supremacy, and DarkAges Diplomacy Variants |
| ACD236/DC288: Balkans1860 Spring 1867: Tirana (dc288) FuzzyLogic May 28, 01:59 pm |
Re: ACD236/DC288: Balkans1860 Spring 1867: Tirana
Look guys I think there is no question that unless there is dissention among BRS, we will overrun the boot in time. It's nothing against Nigs, but I vote no to such a 4-way. Nigs even publicly stated that he sees the writing and is willing to concede, and so I think we can get better. I'll vote yes to a 3-way, but that's already shot down, so with fall orders let's repropose the 3-way for spring when there's only 5 powers voting. Normally I would not even jump at a 3-way here. But Nigs has some personal stuff to tend to, so I think it's decent to simply accept someone's offer if they offer to concede.
-mike
From: Benjamin Hester [mailto:screwtape777(at)gmail.com]
Sent: Fri 5/28/2010 1:46 PM
To: Allen York
Cc: Adam Levy; Michael Sims; gbimmerle; Garry Bledsoe; Nigel PHILLIPS; Ross Webb; dc288; Matthew Kelly; Packrat; ACD-Games
Subject: Re: ACD236/DC288: Balkans1860 Spring 1867: Tirana
Okay - so the retreat is official, and Thursday, June 3rd 1700 EST
will be the deadline for Fall 1867. Please include all votes on a
BRSG draw at that time.
Thanks -
B.
On 5/28/10, Allen York <Allen.York(at)cchmc.org> wrote:
> Austria-Hungary:
> A Venezia - Bologna
>
> And publicly vote NO to the 3-way. I'll vote in favor if Greece is
> included.
>
> Allen
>
>>>> Benjamin Hester <screwtape777(at)gmail.com> 5/27/2010 6:02 PM >>>
> Word of the day is: Fail. RP printed the word *Fails* in this
> adjudication more than you'd see in a whole day on failblog.com. The
> curse of the fail struck indiscriminately - Romania, Bulgaria, Greece,
> Serbia, and the Ottomans all failed at something or another that they
> tried. Better luck next season. That leaves Austria - who has the
> one retreat order needed for this season, and Italy, who caused said
> retreat. On to the history blurb, at the site of the fiercest
> fighting this season: Tirana.
>
> Tirana before the First World War was one of the great bastions of
> Islam in Europe. No Ottoman territory in Europe embraced the culture
> and religion of their Turkish overlords more than Tirana. This
> favored status led to regional prominence for Tirana under the Ottoman
> reign, though the city slipped into decline as the Ottoman hold over
> the region waned. Independence (and communism) brought even greater
> disaster for Tirana and Albania as a whole, which is struggling even
> today to emerge and assume its place as a European capital.
>
> ***NEXT DEADLINE: I would really like to see Allen's retreat by
> tomorrow, though the deadline will have to actually be Tuesday, 1700
> EST. If we *do* get that retreat broadcast before tomorrow, then the
> Fall 1867 deadline will be Thursday, June 3rd, at 1700 EST. If not,
> then I will extend the deadline accordingly.
>
> ***RETREAT DUE: Army Venezia may retreat to Trent, Bologna, or OTB.
>
> ***DRAW PROPOSAL: A 3-way BRS draw has been proposed. Please include
> your votes on that proposal with your next set of orders.
>
> ***PLAYERS:
>
> ITALY: Adam Levy
> AUSTRIA-HUNGARY: Allen York
> SERBIA: Garry Bledsoe
> GREECE: Nigel Phillips
> ROMANIA: Mike Sims
> BULGARIA: Ross Webb
> OTTOMAN EMPIRE: Gregory Bim-Merle
>
> ***RESULTS:
>
> Italy:
>
> A Salzburg - Venezia
>
> Austria-Hungary:
>
> A Venezia Supports A Salzburg (*Dislodged*)
>
> Serbia:
>
> F Adriatic Sea - Gulf of Venezia
> A Agram Supports A Trieste
> A Bitola Supports A Tirana
> F Cetinje - Adriatic Sea
> A Kragujevac - Scutari (*Fails*)
> A Sarajevo - Cetinje
> A Trieste Supports A Salzburg - Venezia
>
> Romania:
>
> F Bosporus - Sea of Marmara (*Fails*)
> A Budapest Hold
> F Constanta - Burgas Bay
> A Craiova - Nis
> A Graz - Salzburg
> A Nis - Skopje
> A Pecs - Graz
> F Salonika Supports A Serres - Kozani
> F Sea of Marmara - Thermaic Gulf (*Fails*)
> A Tirana Supports A Kozani - Agrinio (*Cut*)
>
> Bulgaria:
>
> A Ankara - Manisa
> A Antalya - Izmir (*Fails*)
> F Bursa Supports A Antalya - Izmir
> A Kozani - Agrinio (*Fails*)
> A Plovdiv - Sofia
> A Serres - Kozani (*Fails*)
> F Thermaic Gulf - Gulf of Izmir (*Bounce*)
>
> Greece:
>
> F Aegean Sea Supports F Athens - Larisa (*Fails*)
> A Agrinio Supports F Scutari - Tirana (*Cut*)
> A Ancona Hold
> F Athens - Larisa (*Fails*)
> F Eastern Mediterranean Supports A Izmir - Antalya
> F Gulf of Taranto Supports F Scutari - Tirana
> F Larisa - Kozani (*Fails*)
> F Saronic Gulf - Gulf of Izmir (*Bounce*)
> F Scutari - Tirana (*Fails*)
> F Torino Hold
>
> Ottomans:
>
> A Izmir - Antalya (*Fails*)
>
> Thanks!
> B.
>
> --
> Diplomacy in Texas!
> www.texasdiplomacy.com
>
> http://www.dipwiki.com
> Realpolitik files available here for the Sengoku, Balkans1860, South
> American Supremacy, and DarkAges Diplomacy Variants
>
--
Diplomacy in Texas!
www.texasdiplomacy.com
http://www.dipwiki.com
Realpolitik files available here for the Sengoku, Balkans1860, South
American Supremacy, and DarkAges Diplomacy Variants |
| ACD236/DC288: Balkans1860 Spring 1867: Tirana (dc288) rodtheworm May 28, 02:00 pm |
I'd vote yes on a 4-way too - perhaps BRS would win in the end, but it's far from certain. At this stage I'd find it a bit rude excluding Nigs, especially after such a well played game on his part.
Can these be counted as official proposals?
Ross
|
| ACD236/DC288: Balkans1860 Spring 1867: Tirana (dc288) teflongnome May 28, 02:11 pm |
I don't understand, I didn't get into this game to be part of a draw, and how could it be possible to grant a draw to anything but all survivors? Who here thinks he played a "better" game than someone else? Just because 3 powers have locked in and are somehow satisfied mutually stroking each other doesn't mean they've played better.
I'll argue that they've played worse, people should play the game to win. I'm losing, and the risks were catastrophic for me, but given Mike's position around Serbia, how can he defend voting in favor of a draw?
As I said, eliminate me and vote yourselves the draw. Sorry Nigel, I just can't vote for this when I see so much more game play left. ESPECIALLY when we're testing the variant. Based on the first test, the DIAS was reasonable, but this variant should see something of an endgame, and this game is far from played out.
Allen
>>> Ross Webb <rodtheworm(at)hotmail.com> 5/28/2010 3:00 PM >>>
I'd vote yes on a 4-way too - perhaps BRS would win in the end, but it's far from certain. At this stage I'd find it a bit rude excluding Nigs, especially after such a well played game on his part.
Can these be counted as official proposals?
Ross
|
| ACD236/DC288: Balkans1860 Spring 1867: Tirana (dc288) FuzzyLogic May 28, 02:25 pm |
Allen,
Don't misquote me please.
I said normally I wouldn't vote for a draw this early in a game. There is no telling what would happen. It's early. Really. But in this case, Nigel has privately approached me w his predicament. If he wants to concede, it's his choice. I'm a regulation chess player too. If your opponent puts out his hand and says "good game". You don't look at him and go "no way, you should play the game to win". No. You accept, and say thank you, and move on. This is what we have. BRS have mapped out the moves into the Aegean and into Italy many moves deep. Purely out of my respect for Nigel, if he says good game, I'll say thank you and move on to another. I agree it's far from played out. But I'm not going to force somoene to play who's offering to concede. It's just a game. I can play others. But he needs to tend to what he needs to do.
-mike
From: Allen York [mailto:Allen.York(at)cchmc.org]
Sent: Fri 5/28/2010 2:11 PM
To: alevy(at)arubanetworks.com; Michael Sims; gbimmerle(at)gmail.com; screwtape777(at)gmail.com; Garry Bledsoe; nephilli99(at)hotmail.com; Ross Webb
Cc: dc288; kelly058(at)verizon.net; brn2dip(at)yahoo.com; acd-games(at)yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: ACD236/DC288: Balkans1860 Spring 1867: Tirana
I don't understand, I didn't get into this game to be part of a draw, and how could it be possible to grant a draw to anything but all survivors? Who here thinks he played a "better" game than someone else? Just because 3 powers have locked in and are somehow satisfied mutually stroking each other doesn't mean they've played better.
I'll argue that they've played worse, people should play the game to win. I'm losing, and the risks were catastrophic for me, but given Mike's position around Serbia, how can he defend voting in favor of a draw?
As I said, eliminate me and vote yourselves the draw. Sorry Nigel, I just can't vote for this when I see so much more game play left. ESPECIALLY when we're testing the variant. Based on the first test, the DIAS was reasonable, but this variant should see something of an endgame, and this game is far from played out.
Allen
>>> Ross Webb <rodtheworm(at)hotmail.com> 5/28/2010 3:00 PM >>>
I'd vote yes on a 4-way too - perhaps BRS would win in the end, but it's far from certain. At this stage I'd find it a bit rude excluding Nigs, especially after such a well played game on his part.
Can these be counted as official proposals?
Ross
|
| ACD236/DC288: Balkans1860 Spring 1867: Tirana (dc288) rodtheworm Jun 01, 05:03 pm |
Guys,
Due to increasing time pressures I'd like to put out that I'm also now willing to accept any draw proposed. While I've enjoyed this game a lot, I'm really feeling the pressure with placements now and I'm worried about missing deadlines - I really don't want that to happen. Normally I'd try to stick this out and just let Mike and Garry lead the tactical stuff, but with Nigs also wanting to resolve things I think it's better to end things here than try to grind out a resolution when we can all see which way things are going.
From my point of view, if this alliance held, the game would end in a three-way. I think it virtually certain that we would break out and overrun Greece. However, I don't think this game should necessarily be taken as an indication of what could normally be expecte to happen. I think the main reason this alliance has held so far is that it looks like it shouldn't work and a new variant is an opportunity to test crazy stuff. If this variant becomes more popular - which, with a few revisions, I think it has the potential to - I think the BSR alliance is about as likely to hold stable as an AIT in Standard. It can be made to work, but it's not one I think you'd see cropping up often.
Anyway, that's my position. Could I count this as an ongoing, permenant yes vote for any draw proposed?
Thanks,
Ross
|
| ACD236/DC288: Balkans1860 Spring 1867: Tirana (dc288) Kenshi777 Jun 01, 05:05 pm |
I'll accept the permanent vote if sent to me privately.
B.
On 6/1/10, dc288(at)diplomaticcorp.com wrote:
Rodtheworm posted in dc288. The message was...
________________________________
Guys,
Due to increasing time pressures I'd like to put out that I'm also now
willing to accept any draw proposed. While I've enjoyed this game a lot,
I'm really feeling the pressure with placements now and I'm worried about
missing deadlines - I really don't want that to happen. Normally I'd try to
stick this out and just let Mike and Garry lead the tactical stuff, but with
Nigs also wanting to resolve things I think it's better to end things here
than try to grind out a resolution when we can all see which way things are
going.
From my point of view, if this alliance held, the game would end in a
three-way. I think it virtually certain that we would break out and overrun
Greece. However, I don't think this game should necessarily be taken as an
indication of what could normally be expecte to happen. I think the main
reason this alliance has held so far is that it looks like it shouldn't work
and a new variant is an opportunity to test crazy stuff. If this variant
becomes more popular - which, with a few revisions, I think it has the
potential to - I think the BSR alliance is about as likely to hold stable as
an AIT in Standard. It can be made to work, but it's not one I think you'd
see cropping up often.
Anyway, that's my position. Could I count this as an ongoing, permenant yes
vote for any draw proposed?
Thanks,
Ross
________________________________
Read or reply to this post online.
You can also reply to this post via email. If you do, be sure to leave the
[post:16609] in the subject line so your message is routed to the
appropriate forum.
You received this message because you subscribed to the dc288 forum at
diplomaticcorp.com. If you do not wish to receive future posts, you may
change your subscriptions in your profile. If you are unable to discontinue
undesired messages, please notify feedback-at-diplomaticcorp.com.
--
Diplomacy in Texas!
www.texasdiplomacy.com
http://www.dipwiki.com
Realpolitik files available here for the Sengoku, Balkans1860, South
American Supremacy, and DarkAges Diplomacy Variants |
| DC289: End of Game - chochem (May 27, 2010, 4:38 pm) |
Thanks for an exiting game guys. II got into it a little late and first round i was terrified that everyone where plotting against me. Then Austria decided to attack Russia without telling me which throw me into a lop and then Austria disappeared. I really liked our second Austria although he thought he was talking to Italy when he was talking to me in the beginning. Russia was no longer cooperative and austria was so I thought I'd lock that down and move forward into a long term Austria Turk alliance. I really thought that was the way to go all the way through. Then germany and Russia pulled a fast one and managed to keep us from moving into Russia. A great move that we completely missed. I now thought that moving forward would take too long so i made a deal with Russia and moved in on Austria instead. That gave me a chance to betray Italy and seal his
fate. I took a center or two from Austria and then made peace with him again.
Then russia turned on Germany i swooped Austria and moved in on Russia and where voted winner (which i don't really understand i thought Id be stopped at 17sc with Eng/germany holding the rest)
All in all a great game it was fun playing with all of you and Austria deserved a better faith.
Chochem/Pontus
--- Den tors 2010-05-27 skrev JOHN CLARKE <john.c1arke(at)btinternet.com>:
Från: JOHN CLARKE <john.c1arke(at)btinternet.com>
Ämne: Re: DC289: End of Game
Till: "Mark Jefferson" <markj18(at)gmail.com>, "Rocketship" <rocketship.rocketship(at)gmail.com>
Kopia: "Jeffrey Krauss" <jeffreykrauss(at)live.com>, pontusstrimling(at)yahoo.com,
diplomacy(at)jeffreyk.com, dc289(at)diplomaticcorp.com
Datum: torsdag 27 maj 2010 19:40
Congratulations to those who survived, but especially to Pontus/Chochem - the Balkans certainly lived up its reputation in this one, and he managed it better than any of us.
Personally, after a disastrous start, I was delighted to have survived 1901, never mind still be there (only just, may be, but still there) in 1908!
I hope we meet up again in the future.
John
From: Mark Jefferson <markj18(at)gmail.com>
To: Rocketship <rocketship.rocketship(at)gmail.com>
Cc: Jeffrey Krauss <jeffreykrauss(at)live.com>; pontusstrimling(at)yahoo.com; john.c1arke(at)btinternet.com; diplomacy(at)jeffreyk.com; dc289(at)diplomaticcorp.com
Sent: Thursday, 27 May, 2010 15:35:03
Subject: Re: DC289: End of Game
Congrats to Pontus. Turkey seemed to sneak up in this game as the dominate nation. I guess with most of us concentrating on France and Austria it allowed Turkey to grow without too much resistance. It's a good reminder that sometimes you have to drop your agenda and tactics for the big picture.
On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 10:49 PM, Rocketship <rocketship.rocketship(at)gmail.com> wrote:
Oh yeah. Whoops. Well, after we got past the rough beginning it was good though, eh?
Matthew
On May 26, 2010, at 8:44 PM, Jeffrey Krauss wrote:
Thanks for a fun game everyone! It started out a bit rough (I find Matthew's "no NMRs" amusing given the first year and our couple of abandons ), but after we got a good set of folks playing, it was quite enjoyable!
-Jeff
> Subject: DC289: End of Game
> From: rocketship.rocketship(at)gmail.com[Reply] |
| dc311 Fall '09 Results - notasb (May 27, 2010, 4:31 pm) |
Austria - Bruce Ray
England - Daniel Dzikowicz
France - Nick Powell
Germany - Dirk Knemeyer
Italy - Jason K
Russia - Paul Russell
Turkey - Hamish Williams
GM Notes:
End Game proposals Fail, the game continues.
Map:
http://home.comcast.net/~dawench/311/31109Fall.gif
Deadline:
Retreats, Builds and Disbands are due Friday May 28th 2 PM CDST (GMT -5) 1900 GMT
Orders and Results:
Austria:
F Adriatic Sea - Ionian Sea (*Fails*)
Dirk-NICU (*Invalid*)
A Greece - Bulgaria (*Fails*)
A Marseilles - Piedmont (*Dislodged*)
F Naples - Tyrrhenian Sea
A Rome - Naples
A Rumania Supports A Greece - Bulgaria
A Serbia Supports A Greece - Bulgaria
A Tyrolia, no move received
Tys S Mar - Pie (*Invalid*)
A Venice Supports A Marseilles - Piedmont
England:
F Brest Hold (*Dislodged*)
F Gulf of Lyon Supports A Piedmont - Marseilles
F Helgoland Bight Supports F North Sea
F North Sea Supports F Helgoland Bight (*Cut*)
A Norway Supports F Sweden (*Cut*)
A Piedmont - Marseilles
F Spain(sc) Supports A Piedmont - Marseilles
F Sweden Supports A Norway (*Dislodged*)
F Tunis Hold
Germany:
F Baltic Sea Supports F Gulf of Bothnia - Sweden
A Belgium Supports F Holland
F Denmark - North Sea (*Fails*)
A Gascony Supports A Picardy - Brest
F Gulf of Bothnia - Sweden
F Holland Supports F Denmark - North Sea
A Kiel - Denmark (*Fails*)
A Moscow - Sevastopol (*Fails*)
A Picardy - Brest
A Sevastopol - Armenia (*Fails*)
A St Petersburg - Norway (*Fails*)
Turkey:
F Aegean Sea Supports A Bulgaria
F Armenia Hold
A Bulgaria Hold
A Constantinople Supports A Bulgaria
F Ionian Sea Supports F Tunis - Tyrrhenian Sea (*Void*)
Retreats Due:
Austrian A Marseilles can retreat to Burgundy or OTB.
English F Brest can retreat to Mid-Atlantic Ocean or English Channel or OTB.
English F Sweden can retreat to Finland or Skagerrak or OTB.
Builds Due:
Germany: 13 / 11 Build 2
Austria: 9 / 9 (9/ 8 Build 1 if Retreat OTB)
Disbands Due:
England: 8 / 9 Remove 1 ( 8/ 8 or 8/ 7 Build 1 dependant on Retreats)
Turkey: 4 / 5 Remove 1
------------
Experience is a wonderful thing. It
enables you to recognize a mistake when you make it again.
The New Busy think 9 to 5 is a cute idea. Combine multiple calendars with Hotmail. Get busy.[Reply] |
| DC-322 Deadline Reminder - TheWhiteWolf (May 27, 2010, 3:51 pm) |
Guys, Don't forget that tomorrow's the Spring 827 deadline. I'm still short two sets of orders, so check your inboxes for confirmations!
Andy
I'm a Firefly fan and proud! Read my fiction:
http://www.fanfiction.net/u/1369632/[Reply] |
| dc308 - Winter 1904 Results - z93blom (May 27, 2010, 3:22 pm) |
Gentlemen,
Orders are due in less than 24 hours. Get them in...
/Fredrik
2010/5/20 Fredrik Blom <fredrik(at)familjenblom.se>
Gentlemen,The winter builds are in, and we see a whole bunch of new Fleets in the Mediterranean, while other Fleets are removed by default.
Russia and Turkey are now officially placed in Civil Disorder, failing to submit orders for two consecutive major turns. I will not seek out any replacements. Countries in civil disorder will automatically hold, and units displaced will automatically disband. Revise your strategies accordingly.
We have a player who is going to be out of touch for a few days, so the next deadline is going to be in about a week:
Next turn: Spring 1905 Movement
Next Deadline: Friday, 28th of May, 18:00 GMT (6PM).
Austria: Build A Budapest
France: Build F Marseilles
Italy:
Build F NaplesBuild F Rome
Russia:Remove F Skagerrak
Turkey: Remove F Black Sea
Next turn: Spring 1905 Movement
Next Deadline: Friday, 28th of May, 18:00 GMT (6PM).
/Fredrik[Reply] |
| DCI 274: Turkish EoG: MacBeth the Long Version - AceRimmer (May 27, 2010, 2:55 pm) |
So, this is not the EoG I thought I'd be writing just a couple of game years ago...
My EoGs tend to be long and full of analysis. Encyclopedic, really, because I don't have an editor telling me, "Cut that. Nobody wants to read it. Exercise a judicious abridgment" I'm sure this EoG runs way too long, especially when I get into Joe and Jorge and me and the spirit of the game.
So, pace yourself. Get up occasionally, stretch out, walk around. Much like DCI 274 itself, my EoG is a bout of endurance, not a race of speed.
THE GM
I have already stated that Mike was a model of timeliness and consistency. It is worth applauding twice. I would gladly play in a Sims-moderated game again.
Having said that... I don't expect Sims to GM next year's DCI. I expect him to play in it as a formidable threat to win. As fun as it must be to GM a game like this, I'm sure Mike would rather have been playing in it. (Actually, I was hoping to volunteer myself to GM next year before the opportunity opened up for me to win).
THE VARIANT
Last year's DCI was a two-round affair, so clearly the DCI can (and maybe should) be run in a variety of formats. I find myself pondering back upon Dan's proposal to play "It came from outer space". My gut reaction says it's a curious, probably interesting variant, but is it too un-dip-like for the DCI? After all, shouldn't the DCI reward straight-up Dip? (Should it?) And then I realize I'm making arbitrary distinctions as to what is appropriate or inappropriate for the DCI format. I am okay with and even endorse map variants (like Crowded or last year's Stonehenge), but I am wary of rules variants (like Payola, Machiavelli, or "It came...".
So, I'm being arbitrary, and clearly that's the job of the DC Moderators in arranging the DCI But I'm still curious what other people think.
Having said all of that, I found Crowded to be a tantalizing choice. As Mike noted early on, it sets the players straight to negotiating, as one can make no progress except at the expense of others. Except for a few countries (E, S, & T), everybody gets the joy of feeling like they're playing an interior country. There was immediate and dramatic conflict. Myself, I committed my first stab in Spring 1901. I liked this dynamic
The other big plus of Crowded is that it's on a familiar map. So, while it's a variant, it's at least a very familiar one.
The drawback of Crowded, of course, is that it's less balanced than Standard dip. Some powers are more equal than others. True, we all had the opportunity to set our country preferences, but it's hard to assess a position before you've actually tried to play it.
It so happens that I actually did play Crowded before (DipWorld Game 322 back in 2004). It was the 1898 variant, and I was Norway (and, yes, I did trade ideas with Jorge early on about how to play Norway... but Jorge was always an exceptional communicator, even amid this pool of excellent communicators). The first few years pf DW 322 unfolded in startlingly similar fashion to DCI 274. The Balkans were rapidly vivisected. Lowlands opened directly into Kiel only to see Norway spearhead a retaliatory charge, leading to a big-brother relationship between Norway and Germany. Austria-Italy allied. France-Spain fell to tatters. Eventually, though, that game took its own path. In that game, AI remained allied and nearly swept the map. Norway didn't stab Germany. Austria almost soloed.
At this point in my EoG, I *was* intending to make some assertions about balance of power in Crowded. In particular, I was going to point out how impossible the Balkans position is, especially as Turkey has almost nowhere else to go except through the Balkans (and don't even get me started on how each of them has two SCs adjacent to both Aegean and Black Sea). Or how much better Italy looks with a divided Iberia and a jammed eastern front. Or how England has its hands full with all those sea powers. However, it turns out I am largely wrong in my conclusions about the map. I have just surveyed other Crowded games at floc.net with standard press settings. It turns out that, in fact, Balkans can succeed (by attacking Turkey). Italy still struggles. And England does pretty well on the whole.
I made a tally of good end-results by country (judged by my own cursory glance at the end-map). Across 28 games (26 from floc.net plus DW 322 plus DCI 274), this is what I came up with:
Germany - 9 (2 solos)
England, Turkey - 8 (1 Turk solo)
Norway - 7
Balkans, France, Russia - 5 (2 Russian solos)
Austria, Spain - 3
Italy, and Lowlands - 2
My favorite outcome was an ELN triple that swept the board. For the record, my own pre-game preferences for DCI 274 were any of G, L, N, R, and T. I'm glad I didn't get Lowlands
One trend grabs my attention: the southern and western powers (I, F, L, and S) seem to fare far worse than the northern and eastern ones.
I'd be curious to know how other players felt about playing Crowded.
But back to Dan's proposal to play "It came from outer space"... What variants would *I* suggest for the DCI? I think I would try to pick really balanced variants (but not Pure or Chromatic... blech!). 1900 has a very good reputation. Abstraction II is supposed to be good, too (with different convoy rules, though). Anarchy should work very well (since players pick their own home SCs). Renaissance might be interesting, too. I guess I'd lean toward Anarchy (especially as the number of players is flexible). On a different tack, I like the scramble feel of Chaos, CivDip, 1898... so, I'd also suggest maybe a game of 1897? (Though a one-center start for everybody might create too much randomness in early survival?)
THE OTHER VARIANT
To my mind, the *real* variant being played in the DCI was the scoring system: most centers = DCI Crown. This is not the usual DC system. Usually, in DC, if you don't solo then you draw, and it matters little whether you have 15 centers or 5 centers. But not so in the DCI. It entirely changed the game and, I think, lent it a blood-thirsty cast. I would not have stabbed Jorge had not the individual title been on the line. Not even remotely. Joe might not have stabbed Jorge either, for that matter.
As you may have guessed already, before I played at DC, I played at the now-defunct DW. And DipWorld had a different scoring system than DC uses. It was:
Player Score = # of Centers + Points for place
where 1st = 48; 2nd = 24; 3rd = 12; etc. [Note: Solo = 96, and everybody else gets zero]. In DW, placement really mattered for the top-three finishers. But survival in a draw was not much of a motivator for fourth or fifth place runners up. In fact, the only end-game scenarios were 'Solo' and DIAS (as there was no scoring distinction between finishing in the drawing coalition versus outside it). I am not arguing that one system is better than another. They just have different incentives, and different incentives beget different styles of play.
THE PLAYERS
DCI 274 is probably the best game of Dip I've had the honor to play in anywhere. The quality of the opposition was high, and that quality showed in the high level of communication which unfurled... immediately the game began. There was none of this sounding out personalities in order to see who were the communicative ones, who had interesting ideas, and who could be relied upon. It was obvious (and a wee bit intimidating) that everybody was going to be communicative, clever, and reliable (in a no-NMR way). If you pause to reflect on this for a moment, it will strike you how uncommon it is for every player to be attentive and insightful in a game. I remember it gave me a rush when I first realized it. There would be no weak link / obvious target. Conversely, I wasn't going to be able to advance myself by out-talking my neighbors.
In fairness, Jorge was the communications exemplar, striking up a conversation with me and maintaining it through all the roller-coaster turns of the game. It was unusual to have running conversations with all my immediate neighbors... plus Jorge. At points in the early- and mid-game, I was sure that our conversation was not being used to my advantage... but one expects that in Diplomacy.
The rest of this EoG is a rough chronological order of the game organized by the player who dominated the Turkish game experience. Each section focuses both on strategy and a personality (or two). Frank, Garry, Matt, Max -- I'm sorry, but I hardly knew ya. I don't have stories to share about you.
-- DREW
If I had it all to do over again, I would stab Drew again. Because he wrote such funny press after the stab. "Sometimes I think about having you executed just to see the expression on your face." (Season 2, "Black Adder". Yup. I would.
But why stab Drew in the first place? On one hand, Nigel and I had a good plan. We were going to re-enact a Juggernaut... just with more players on the board than in Standard Dip. If anything, we hoped that the existence of Balkans would make it harder to organize a resistance (all the more testimony to Dan, Mikael, and Drew for actually doing it). Nigel gained my early trust by keeping the plan simple; he effectively conveyed his buy-in.
On the other hand, Drew's emails read a bit scattered and occasionally incoherent. There were good ideas to be had, but I didn't like sifting for them. Meanwhile, he had to coordinate a tricky ABT alliance. Plus, although my preference was to head north in an ABT, Drew's plans always tended to have me heading south toward Italy. Yes, the ABT alliance had merits and could've worked, but too many teeth were being pulled in the process.
And then I did something uncharacteristically Zen-like brilliant for me: I let it be. Somehow, I knew the ABT wasn't going to work. It couldn't. All I did was help the joints to creak a little more by emphasizing a couple of difficulties with the alliance in my ABT press. And that's when a beautiful thing happened. It all just fell apart. Naturally, gracefully, of its own accord. The day of the first deadline, Dan wrote me a "I am beginning to wish we weren't in this ABT alliance" email. I replied with: "Funny you should mention it, because I have a perfectly smashing ART stab entirely diagrammed through W1901... It just happens to be laying on my desk".
Drew worked hard at making the ABT work in spite of the natural antipathy between Balkans and Turkey. But, as I said, I'd stab him again just to receive his comical emails. In fact, next time I play Drew, I'm going to stab him all over again.
-- MIKAEL
Mikael was unavoidable unendurable destiny for me much of the game. Alone of my neighbors, he didn't write much at the outset (this changed). In the midgame, to Dan's glee, Mikael and I seemed locked in an inextricable naval conflict, wherein I vs. T was the natural tension. And later, when we finally found grounds for cooperation, we wound up scuttling it over a miscommunication. Much has been written about Dan and his sharpened dagger in this game... but the sad confession is that his treachery would not have been possible but for Mikael's and my willingness to allow Dan to play us off against each other.
I still look back at Winter 1901 and think I was screwed no matter what I did (how often is Winter 1901 really all that crucial of a season?!? But that's part of why this was a great game...). If I built an army, then Nigel would've known I was coming after him... and with the already-manifest ABI scrum, I knew that nobody was going to come aid me in a battle with Nigel. So, I did the more 'neutral' thing and built a fleet in Smyrna... which Mikael immediately and correctly recognized as a warlike intent toward Italy. Even then, I had hopes that ABI would be unable to unite in order to stop Nigel and I in our tracks (after all, Mikael had just bludgeoned Dan, hadn't he?). But Mikael proved me wrong on the board, just as I had dared him to do. And he didn't just stop at ABI; he and Jorge combined to make it ABGIN.
If it hadn't been for Dan's mercurial nature, I would not have survived Mikael's onslaught.
In total, I found Mikael to be a frustrating opponent -- which is to say that he did his job vis-a-vis my Turkey. I would like to think that he and I could make good allies if our countries weren't so geographically at odds with each other.
-- DAN
Dan wins my vote for Personality of the Game Award, given to the player who most indelibly leaves his imprint on the game. Surely, no single player so influenced the flow of this game as did Dan. Jorge ran a good second, though. All in all, I admire Dan's tenacity and immensely enjoyed his role in the game. Thank you ever so much, Dan.
Jorge had warned me from Day 1 that Dan is cut-throat. A wee bit of an understatement. Dan was perfidious. He stabbed. And betrayed. And he tortured small, furry animals. I think I dubbed him the Stab-O-Matic. And that appellation worked well for my interests, for in truth, all of the talk about Dan's dagger-happy tendencies was only so much propaganda. Oh, let me be clear: Dan was a villain. But that's okay in Dip, so long as it works for you... which it did up to a point.
While there's been a lot of talk about Dan's stabs, I think we have chosen to be silent on the bigger story... the story that shines some redemption on Dan's actions. The storyline with Dan isn't that he stabbed a lot. The storyline is that, in spite of stabbing so often, Dan still persuaded some of the best players in DC to ally with him time and time again. And this reveals incredible diplomatic skill. It also shows an uncommon temperament that respects the fluidity of diplomatic relations and does not treat any stab or alliance (by or against him) as final. Most people hold a grudge after a stab, but Dan repeatedly was right back on the phone dreaming up another cunning plan. As I noted above: after a certain time, the fault is no longer Dan's for stabbing us; it is ours for giving him so many opportunities to stab.
But, obviously, in the end, Dan's treachery backfired on him. But was this because of the number of his stabs? Or the *quality* of his stabs?. I think some of his stabs were not good stabs or were not pressed relentlessly until the victim lay gasping near-lifeless in his last SC. An example. Dan tried to eliminate Drew in Fall 1902 but made two crucial errors. First, he didn't forewarn his other, more important ally Mikael (and the stab attempt dealt collateral positional damage to Mikael, so it risked scuttling the alliance). Second, he attempted the stab via a tactically risky (nay, foolish) support from Budapest which not only was likely to be cut, but actually got dislodged.
And then he patched it all up again with Drew and Mikael! I was floored and flabbergasted. And awed.
But Dan's chief mistake (in my humblest of omniscient opinions) was his first real stab of Mikael in Spring 1904(?). That was an alliance that (from my throne in Turkey) seemed a force to be reckoned with. It was the alliance that had a good chance to lay the golden egg. Ultimately, as an aside, it was this stab that allowed me to survive in the corner and to build the third fleet with which to establish my Turkish Stonewall. It is with perfect 20-20 hindsight that I say Dan should have stayed in the AI alliance until my corner position had been shattered. Perfect hindsight... but I think it was my insight at the time, too.
In the end, Dan left too many of his victims still standing. And somewhere around 1906/1907, I think he was heard reciting more Shakespeare: "Now is the winter of our discontent made glorious summer by this Duke of Austria; and all the clouds that lowered upon our house in the deep bosom of the ocean buried. Now are our brows bound with victorious wreaths." Little did he realize how much the world scorns hump-backed villains.
-- NIGEL
I don't have a lot of stories to tell about Nigel. Fidelity is not often the stuff of great Dip stories. But, with all due obsequiousness to other players... Nigel is the guy from this game I would most likely ally with again. As I mentioned earlier, his straight-forward, uncomplicated style worked very well by me.
For the most part, thanks to the ABGIN, Nigel and I were allies both in a bind, unable to directly aid each other. By 1906, I had established the Turkish Stonewall: F EMed, F Aegean, F Constantinople. It was every Turkish turtle's dream, utterly unassailable except via Armenia. And I relied on Nigel to defend that to his death (which was impending). I could exaggerate and say I was using him as a human shield... it's certainly more colorful... but, there was really nothing more I could have done for him. My thought was that I could hold this position until the cavalry arrived from the West, which ought to come before Nigel's last stand, God rest his soul.
An ordinary player would made a last stand in Sevastapol and died like a loyal soldier. But Nigel surprised me and caused me sleepless nights. He dealt and double-dealt with his AI oppressors, thus extricating a rebirth from a mere one center. It was an extraordinary feat. But it came at the cost of letting enemies into Armenia. My nightmare of poison-fanged Austrian hump-backed villains was coming true. Surely, my end had arrived.
But then, in 1907, the cavalry arrived. Dan was given a beat-down. And the Austrian orcs in Armenia disbanded. And then began the Glory Years. The acme of Russo-Turkish relations.
In spite of some friction around 1909, Nigel and I functioned as one nation, each tending to the other's resurrection and focusing on our mutual goal: a DIAS ASAP. When Joe stabbed Jorge, we expanded to become an NRT trio. And all was well. Jorge has already told the story of how he and I chose to spurn Austrian alliance (and Russian elimination) in 1910, so I won't dwell on it. But I was pleased with the maneuver. Very pleased. It was reflective of something I later told Joe: I could stab Nigel, but then'd I'd have to start looking over my shoulder for angels with flaming swords; for I was sure such despicable treachery against my most loyal ally -- an ally with whom I had developed an unusual and special tight-knit bond -- would not go unpunished by Heaven.
And yet all good things do pass. Alas, Nigel's interest in the game eventually dissipated. He had formerly been an active participant in our NRT round tables, but he lapsed into just chiming in on Friday mornings about six or so hours before the deadline. Still, in the end, he owned a share of the draw.
-- JORGE
I have already written of Jorge's superb communication. There is no greater virtue in Diplomacy than frequent, well-written press, and Jorge seemed determined to out-press everybody. It worked on me, and I was content to see him do well for so much of the game.
As I mentioned, Jorge and I talked early about how to play Norway. My previous experience said that Norway was a great defensive position which rightly had to prioritize naval supremacy and try to reach Gibraltar. Toward that end, I thought England and Lowlands had to be his primary targets, followed by France and Spain. Germany had to be kept fleet-light. And Russia should make for a strategic ally (this last opinion also coincided with my Turkish alliance with Russia). Jorge took my advice and then made up his own mind. Still, by Spring 1905, he had far exceeded the objectives I had discussed. He had fleets in NAt and Iri plus a weaker German ally who could absorb Austrian aggression for awhile. Which is why it didn't see his betrayal of Max coming. I thought it a mistake at the time, but I really cannot second-guess him when his bigger problem was an EF alliance that he needed to split however he could.
So, to return to my semi-narrative here... Nigel and I rebounded from Dan's yoke -- all thanks to the success of the FN(+IRT) alliance against Dan. But there can be too much of a good thing. Joe and Jorge made great gains with help from both Nigel and me. But they were also both exerting carbon-to-diamond pressure directly on us. There was talk at the time of what form the draw would take. I was insisting upon a share of the draw (reckoning that, being in the far corner, they couldn't easily eliminate me without risking a solo by one or the other; plus, 35 centers cannot be evenly divided between two players). Joe and Jorge were sticking with a 2-way.
In particular, I remember a specific exchange with Jorge. In 1909, Nigel had convoyed an army to Ankara (whereas I had expected a fleet). And while it didn't make sense for him to stab me, I was quite skittish all the same. I wrote to Jorge and asked for an unenforceable promise: if Nigel screws me over, please take Sevastopol from him. Since I wasn't really expecting a stab from Nigel, and since the request couldn't be enforced anyway, I didn't put much stock in it. But Jorge's response was uncharacteristically cold and aloof: "The problem is that you are on record as being against that draw I'm seeking. At this point Nigs is my muscle on you to vote Yes." It chilled me. Maybe I should be afraid of Nigel! Not because Nigel would stab me, but because Jorge would force him into it! I cannot exactly say why this one brief email had such an effect on me, but it did. It clearly reminded me the bottom-line Diplomacy truth: in spite of a lovely
running correspondence, no neighbor is wholly my friend. We are competitors each seeking individual glory.
I'm going to park Jorge by the curb for a minute and write more about him later. But first...
-- JOE
Joe entered my life in 1908. He rode a white stallion and drove my Italian and Austrian nemeses before him like chaff before the wind. Orphan children strewed rose petals before his feet and gratefully sang his name with hosannas.
The agreement by Joe and Jorge to unite against Austria provided desperately needed short-term relief. I started to envision a 4-way FNRT draw (or any draw that included me!). But, conquerors are conquerors, and in spite of a Fall 1908 agreement for Joe to take Greece (with my support) and then hand it over to me, Joe found reasons to reconsider the agreement before the end of 1909. This was about the time when Jorge rebuffed my request for a safeguard against Nigel, and I wasn't so much loving either of my FN liberators.
However, in the meanwhile, Joe and I had started a running conversation about the game-end scenarios. It had begun in the lead-up to Spring 1908, as I was laying clear my Turkish goals, and I mentioned to Joe: "Provided you mind your border with Jorge properly, I think you are in the stronger position in FN. Much stronger." I don't think Joe had seriously entertained the thought of himself as having the upper hand until that point.
I don't know what impact the Spring 1908 adjudication had on Joe's thoughts, but it seemed significant to me at the time. On that adjudication -- before Joe and I had much of a chance to follow up on my comment -- Joe opened himself up terribly vulnerably to Jorge while Jorge simultaneously moved two armies adjacent to Munich. Belgium and Munich were indefensible if Jorge hearkened to the Dagger's Call. With his seizure of Warsaw from Dan, he'd have a 13-8 lead in SCs versus Joe. I was 105% certain that Jorge would strike. I said as much to Joe. The irony, of course, is that Jorge was a true ally. Yet, after this incident, I wonder if Joe wasn't more struck by his brief peril than by his ally's good graces.
It didn't hurt that Joe and I started to discuss that most compelling of things: the scoring system and cost-benefit analysis. If Jorge had gone for the stab, his best case scenario was a solo. The DCI Crown via a solo -- that would be something to tell his grandchildren about! If not, had Jorge's solo bid fallen short thanks to an unwieldy AFIRT alliance (in which IT would have been of no help), then Jorge still stood a very good chance of claiming the DCI Crown with 15 or 16 centers. If AFIRT managed to hurl him backward (which was certainly possible, though 5-way alliances are not so easy to hold together), the odds remained exceedingly good that Jorge would retain a part in a game-ending 3-way draw. And that's the reality of the scoring system: there is often not a huge risk associated with taking a big gamble, but there are great rewards. Obviously, Jorge analyzed the board and decided the solo bid was not a gamble he wished to attempt.
But later, Joe would face much the same gamble. The scoring system, the cost-benefit analysis, and his irritation with Jorge all helped him choose the road Jorge had not taken.
In Fall 1909, Joe seized Greece in spite of me. He stabbed Mikael for both Rome and Venice. And Nigel convoyed an army to Ankara when I was expecting his fleet. I thought, "This is it. Joe is finally going for the solo -- he'll fortify his line against Jorge and out-race him to 18 centers by gobbling up Balkan and Turkish dots." Joe blandly told me that I knew his reason for depriving me of Greece, but I brushed it off as a thin veil for his underlying motive, and I told him so in a letter that we both referenced several times later in the game:
"> You know the reason of course.
I do, but it's not the one you name. The real reason is: you are embracing the path eschewed by Jorge. Guts, glory, and a solo bid. You have deftly wielded the Dagger Known As Dan to thwart your foes and to quickly sweep up a couple of builds. The Russian convoy is a nice touch, too. Of course, Dan won't long remain reliable, but you don't expect him to. You may just have enough to push onward to victory. Excelsior!
Good luck to you on your bid. Personally, I was disappointed in Jorge for not taking the gamble. What you are doing is more in the Spirit of the Game."
Poetic, eh? Patriotic. Gets the blood coursing through the arteries. I'd come a long way rhetorically from the utterly frustrated letter I wrote to Mikael back in October:
"I see Naples
I see France
I see Mikael's
Underpants."
Yes, my emails had come a long way. Whereas Mikael never replied to my poem, Joe really heard my Siren's Song.
But I don't want to claim credit for Joe's courage. If I have dwelled upon his motives, it's because I tend to overanalyze things, not because I feel I authored his decision. I did, it seems, help screw his courage to the sticking place (which puts me into yet another Shakespeare play...). But the ambition was Joe's. He made up his own mind, and he wore his boldness rightly as his own. And eventually, by the time Birnam Wood marched on high Dunsinane, he faced his fate with all the ferocity of a real MacBeth. He ultimately failed, but I confess... I was proud of him. He honored the Spirit of the Game. [And, I'll note, he lost nothing score-wise for his venture... he still finished with a share of the draw].
-- JOE & JORGE
I am not going to comment on The Feud beyond the following three points. (1) I happily did not suffer friction from either Joe nor Jorge that would at all suggest that either was capable of the nastiness that erupted. (2) It was Joe who breached protocol by publicly flaming Jorge. This happens occasionally in Diplomacy (I blushingly remember the last time I did it some years ago as a powerless Italian...). Joe eventually apologized, which is all I could ask, but it was quite a flaming. (3) Genies do not return to their bottles; it was The Feud and its lingering resentments (and Joe's willingness to cede centers to my fleets) that made my Crown even remotely possible. We all know that, had calmer heads prevailed, I would never have had even a glimmer of hope.
But at the outset, there was no Feud. There was just a stab. And a solo bid. And a really nasty piece of work that Jorge and I perpetrated against Dan (by which I reckoned that all of my scores with the Stab-O-Matic had now been repaid).
And then followed the second Golden Era. Not only did Jorge now *need* Nigel and me, but we all needed each other if we were to prevent a French solo. That we would form a 3-way alliance was predictable. But the alliance that we did form was... extraordinary. I cannot say I have ever enjoyed a more tightly knit alliance. It was a thing of beauty and perhaps of grace. Not only were all moves an open book, but all moves benefited from three brains instead of one. This may sound cliche, but I think it was crucial. It was the union of our minds rather than our collection of units that stopped Joe. For several years, all three of us enthusiastically joined in the drawing and refining of battle plans. And particularly in 1914, we just plain out-thought the French, because we had three times the available time to consider all the alternatives.
I must here sheepishly admit that this alliance would have been impossible without the tone of Jorge's leadership. Yes, Jorge was in some sense ultimately looking out for his own welfare (after all, his goal was to recapture the elusive DCI Crown). But I do believe that we reached beyond mere self-interest and achieved a team concept, wherein ownership of centers was not jealously guarded, and one nation's positioning was routinely subverted to the position of the team. And again, it was usually Jorge who sacrificed.
It took me a very long time in this game to understand Jorge to the extent that I now do. But I do believe that he is of a different character than Joe... or myself. It's hard to quantify. I want to say that he's an Alliance Player... but he did do treacherous things to Frank, Nigel, and especially Max. Still, when I look at all the pieces: extensive communication, team-oriented alliance, choosing an FN draw over a solo bid, not wanting to push the NRT toward a solo... Jorge played the game differently. At least in my experience of him. He played for himself and his own success as we all do, but at the same time, he didn't. And therein is an irony. Because his style brought him success but arguably deprived him of the Crown, as he instead over-trusted two players who are of a different character.
The NRT survived three setbacks, as Jorge noted in his EGS. The first was intentional, the other two not. First, in Autumn 1912, I disbanded my fleet in Naples. And, yes, I did this intentionally to breathe life back into Joe. A distant corner of my mind was, believe it or not, already thinking of how to 'get back into the game', in spite of having only five centers. I kept quiet on that. But much more than my re-emergence, as incredulous as this will sound to Jorge, I really was worried about Jorge. At the time, Nigel and I were having discussions of "So, once we stop Joe, how are we going to stop Jorge? Or will it be out of the frying pan and into the fire?" The fact that I worried about Jorge showed that I did not understand either him nor Joe yet. On one hand, I seriously believed that Joe might disband northern units (opposing Jorge) instead of southern units (opposing me). I did not know the depth of their underlying
antipathy (which only surfaced publicly that very season). On the other hand, I didn't realize that Jorge really would stop once he had reached supply center parity with Joe. I thought it very realistic that Jorge might continue to steam along in the north and continue for a solo bid. Unless I gave Joe a cushion in the south. So, I disbanded my fleet in Naples, and I made my allies very cross. And I extended the game.
The other two setbacks were both accidents. Nigel's NMR was a brutal, awfully timed debacle, and it resurrected chances for Joe's two eastern units. The same season, I misordered a fleet (honestly, I thought it was in Aegean...), leaving Ionian unfortunately empty (a much smaller debacle). But again... such were the turns of fortune that both helped extend the game long enough for me to get back into it.
-- ADAM (or "How I Came to Steal a Victory"
This was the best game of Diplomacy I've ever had the honor to play in. All but the last two years. No, I'm not being self-disparaging. After 1914, the game had played out. Joe's solo bid was finis, barring a Norwegian NMR. He lost his relish for the game. Nigel detached. Jorge sought only to restore his advantage in SCs so that he could have the Crown. People were ready for the game to end. And I walked to victory partly on the eggshells of apathy. But first, Joe had one favor to repay...
I wrote to Joe after F1914 saying that I had totally screwed up my chances of winning. I had made the mistake of submitting the best moves. Tactically, they were the very best. But strategically... I should really have submitted orders that would extend the game and lead to me having to convoy units into Trieste and Venice. Now, I would be unable to catch up to Jorge.
It must have been a strange friendship for Joe. Here, I had urged, coaxed, wheedled, and cajoled him until he reached out to seize victory. Yet, all the time he was crusading, I clearly maintained that I was his foe. I was a friend who was really an enemy. An enemy who cheered him on as a friend. Oooh, such a frenemy was I...
Intermittently along the way, Joe had been offering me deals. Stab Nigel. Let's form a two-way against Jorge. But what balance could there really be when he outnumbered me by six centers? In 1915, Joe started offering me a solo (even though he still outnumbered me by four). I frankly didn't believe him, because again, I didn't understand the psychology at play (and I didn't have the armies to procure the Balkans). For Joe to help me to solo, he'd have to send armies into Tyrolia and Vienna. Then, he'd both outnumber me and control the center of the map. It seemed yet another effort to split the NRT and revive his solo bid. I thought Joe was still playing to win. But it appears he was just playing to avenge himself on Jorge.
Conversely, I worried that if I shattered the crystal luminance that was NRT, Jorge would give Joe the solo rather than allow my treachery to succeed. Jorge had been pretty disapproving when I disbanded F Naples -- it had almost scuttled our alliance. And often, traitors are more hated than enemies. An ill-aimed stab might, I wrongly thought, make Jorge like me even less than Joe. So, I turned Joe's offer down.
And it's here that Joe repaid my favor. He hounded me. Guts and Glory! Solo! It was his turn to play Lady MacBeth whilst I played a balking MacBeth. We generated a stack of email, all while Jorge and Nigel were turning the lights out in the storefront. He begged and pleaded. He delivered an ultimatum. He publicly announced his intent to vote for a draw. He did everything I had done to/for him in encouraging him to stab Jorge in the first place. It was a favor dutifully repaid.
Still, many things had to happen in that last year-plus to make a winner out of me. Probably the key thing was: Nigel and Jorge couldn't suspect me. Which they should have. Not because I behaved suspiciously, but simply because my SC count was catching up, and Diplomacy players should know to exercise caution. There were really only two things that could stop Jorge from winning: (1) Joe's obstinacy and (2) a Turkish grab for power. Well, Joe finally and sincerely announced his surrender in late 1915. So, the only threat left was me. And I am pretty sure that the circa 1912 versions of Jorge and Nigel would never have let me sneak into a victory. But by 1915... it was time to pack up the suitcases.
In Fall 1915, I openly took Serbia while Nigel chose not to take Bulgaria in exchange. That was the first last step. (It also showed how oblivious Nigel was about my emerging Caesar-like ambition). It gave me a second build and an army in the Balkans. In Winter 1915, Jorge suggested I build two armies. I didn't have to be told twice! (But had he and Nigel insisted upon a fleet... there probably would have been no stab). In Spring 1916, Joe was muttering into my ear: "Come on kid! You can do it! Give'em a jab with your left and a hook with your right! You're the champ, kid! You're the champ! I'm behind you all the way!" I essentially told Joe that I might stab, but he'd have to hand over the keys to the French army. He did. That was essential for my success. (And later, he didn't complain when my orders for him cost him two disbands and the loss of Holland). Then Nigel announced his intention to symbolically re-occupy St. Petersburg
and Sevastopol. I was probably going to stab anyway, but that was the last domino. [Again, if Nigel or Jorge had stopped to analyze the threat from Turkey, they might have insisted on the very un-alliance-like move of F Bla-Con/Bul... probably without informing which destination Nigel would choose... and since we all expected the draw to pass that season, it shouldn't matter. But that could've maybe been enough to stop me from stabbing, too].
PATIENCE
In the late-game and post-game, I have read some praise for Patience. Yes, it is a virtue that worked admirably to my advantage all throughout the game. It worked way back in Spring 1901 when I waited for Drew's ABT alliance to fall apart. In mid-game, it enabled me to construct the Turkish Stonewall. And in the end, it enabled me to revive from 3 stinkin' centers to claim an undeserved Crown. Yes, Patience is a very... how do I say this?... overrated virtue. It works very well for Turkey. It brought me a win in this game, so I'm certainly not going to snarl and spit at it. But I'd rather play Austria. I'd rather author my own success. For, as we all know, this game belonged to Dan, Jorge, and Joe. If anyone 'deserved' to win, it was one of them. I was but the beneficiary of their struggles.
PSYCHOLOGY / PHILOSOPHY / CLOSING THOUGHTS
"It's what Jeeves would call the psychology of the individual." - P.G. Wodehouse
Why did I coach Joe forward to stab Jorge? Why did I stab Jorge? Why *didn't* Jorge stab? I cannot wholly say.
I think my counsel to Joe went far beyond my own desire to survive (which surely was aided by his stab). I had a deeper motive of which I was not fully aware. Something psychological. Something which was certainly linked to the opposing psychology that led Jorge to pass on a solo bid. It's what I referred to in my email to Joe as The Spirit of the Game (which sounds horrendously pompous, but it's the name I used, so we're stuck with it).
Almost by definition, The Spirit of the Game is my a personal interpretation. Each player approaches the game with his own sense of The Spirit.
My sense of The Spirit is related to the famous Herm Edwards quote: "You play to win the game". There are many other motivators (like a great alliance or sportsmanship), but winning is the first goal. In a game like the DCI or a tournament, where a title is on the line, I prize winning even more highly.
Also, given the draw-based scoring system, where the rewards for valor often outweigh the risk, fortune favors the bold. [I reiterate here: in the end, Joe didn't lose much on his score by trying for the solo; he still figured in the draw].
When I saw Joe acquiescing to a 2-way FN draw sans the DCI Crown, I confess it didn't feel right. Jorge was playing a dangerous game to keep SC parity so tight but to reserve the Crown for his own. The Crown is lying there! Duncan sleeps in thy castle this night! Reach out and seize it! Thou shall'st be more than man! My maternal instinct (my Lady MacBeth maternal instinct) stirred:
"Wouldst thou have that
Which thou esteem'st the ornament of life,
And live a coward in thine own esteem,
Letting 'I dare not' wait upon 'I would'"?
Joe dared. And let me say: he got really close. Just because he fell short does not mean he shouldn't have tried.
But what of Jorge? He did not stab Joe in a similar position. Did he violate The Spirit of the Game? Ultimately, upon great reflection, I would say that he did not. He chose a different, more subtle path toward victory. It was a calculation that didn't pan out. Neither Joe nor I cooperated far enough to allow him his hard-earned victory. But like Joe, Jorge came really close to winning. His calculation fell short, but it was worth the try.
And yet... during the game and even now, I did feel that Jorge chose not to _seize_ victory. He tried to corral it and nurture it rather than act brashly. As you can tell: I thought brash action was called for. Nigel can confirm that, around 1912, facing the prospects of a Jorge Crown vs. a Joe Crown, my preference was: (a) whichever one gets us a draw; followed by (b) Joe, because he opted for Guts and Glory.
In the recently ended DC 285 (Ancient Med), I settled for a 2-way Egyptian-Persian draw with Mike Hoffman. I thought I had a slight inside track for the solo (so did he). But we settled on a draw, because the odds were close, and because we had a really good alliance we didn't want to shatter. The alliance was more valuable than the win.
If the DCI were just another club game, I wouldn't have stabbed at the end. I would barely have even considered it. I had a really good alliance that I didn't enjoy shattering. A superb alliance. The type where a stab isn't just a betrayal of my allies... it's almost a betrayal of sportsmanship. Plus, I felt like a scum bag for stabbing at a time when everybody else was just ready to be done with the game. If Joe hadn't been Lady MacBeth-ing me, I doubt I would've gone through with it.
Additionally, I kept coming back to: "You play to win the game." That was my goal at the beginning of the game. It should still be my goal fifteen game years into it. If other people are tiring of the game, that shouldn't change my goal. If my allies are expecting me to restore Jorge to the lead, that shouldn't change my goal.
I have never done that before. Exploited my opponents' waning enthusiasm for a victory. It was more a case of outlasting than of out-thinking. In the aftermath, it doesn't feel as radiant by half as allying and conniving my way to power. But it's a type of virtue... Patience.
Which is not the final word you'd expect from an EoG that has so many words about...
Your DCI Winner,
MacBeth[Reply] |
| DCI 274: Turkish EoG: MacBeth the Long Version (DC Invitational) FuzzyLogic May 27, 05:33 pm |
This is the most delightful EOG statement I've ever had the pleasure of
reading, in all my years of dip! Thank you...
-mike
-----Original Message-----
Sent: Thursday, May 27, 2010 2:55 PM
Subject: DCI 274: Turkish EoG: MacBeth the Long Version
So, this is not the EoG I thought I'd be writing just a couple of game
years ago...
My EoGs tend to be long and full of analysis. Encyclopedic,
really, because I don't have an editor telling me, "Cut that. Nobody
wants to read it. Exercise a judicious abridgment" I'm sure this EoG
runs way too long, especially when I get into Joe and Jorge and me and
the spirit of the game.
So, pace yourself. Get up occasionally, stretch out, walk around.
Much like DCI 274 itself, my EoG is a bout of endurance, not a race of
speed.
THE GM
I have already stated that Mike was a model of timeliness and
consistency. It is worth applauding twice. I would gladly play in a
Sims-moderated game again.
Having said that... I don't expect Sims to GM next year's DCI. I
expect him to play in it as a formidable threat to win. As fun as it
must be to GM a game like this, I'm sure Mike would rather have been
playing in it. (Actually, I was hoping to volunteer myself to GM next
year before the opportunity opened up for me to win).
THE VARIANT
Last year's DCI was a two-round affair, so clearly the DCI can (and
maybe should) be run in a variety of formats. I find myself pondering
back upon Dan's proposal to play "It came from outer space". My gut
reaction says it's a curious, probably interesting variant, but is it
too un-dip-like for the DCI? After all, shouldn't the DCI reward
straight-up Dip? (Should it?) And then I realize I'm making arbitrary
distinctions as to what is appropriate or inappropriate for the DCI
format. I am okay with and even endorse map variants (like Crowded or
last year's Stonehenge), but I am wary of rules variants (like Payola,
Machiavelli, or "It came...".
So, I'm being arbitrary, and clearly that's the job of the DC
Moderators in arranging the DCI But I'm still curious what other
people think.
Having said all of that, I found Crowded to be a tantalizing
choice. As Mike noted early on, it sets the players straight to
negotiating, as one can make no progress except at the expense of
others. Except for a few countries (E, S, & T), everybody gets the joy
of feeling like they're playing an interior country. There was
immediate and dramatic conflict. Myself, I committed my first stab in
Spring 1901. I liked this dynamic
The other big plus of Crowded is that it's on a familiar map. So,
while it's a variant, it's at least a very familiar one.
The drawback of Crowded, of course, is that it's less balanced than
Standard dip. Some powers are more equal than others. True, we all had
the opportunity to set our country preferences, but it's hard to assess
a position before you've actually tried to play it.
It so happens that I actually did play Crowded before (DipWorld
Game 322 back in 2004). It was the 1898 variant, and I was Norway (and,
yes, I did trade ideas with Jorge early on about how to play Norway...
but Jorge was always an exceptional communicator, even amid this pool of
excellent communicators). The first few years pf DW 322 unfolded in
startlingly similar fashion to DCI 274. The Balkans were rapidly
vivisected. Lowlands opened directly into Kiel only to see Norway
spearhead a retaliatory charge, leading to a big-brother relationship
between Norway and Germany. Austria-Italy allied. France-Spain fell to
tatters. Eventually, though, that game took its own path. In that
game, AI remained allied and nearly swept the map. Norway didn't stab
Germany. Austria almost soloed.
At this point in my EoG, I *was* intending to make some assertions
about balance of power in Crowded. In particular, I was going to point
out how impossible the Balkans position is, especially as Turkey has
almost nowhere else to go except through the Balkans (and don't even get
me started on how each of them has two SCs adjacent to both Aegean and
Black Sea). Or how much better Italy looks with a divided Iberia and a
jammed eastern front. Or how England has its hands full with all those
sea powers. However, it turns out I am largely wrong in my conclusions
about the map. I have just surveyed other Crowded games at floc.net
with standard press settings. It turns out that, in fact, Balkans can
succeed (by attacking Turkey). Italy still struggles. And England does
pretty well on the whole.
I made a tally of good end-results by country (judged by my own
cursory glance at the end-map). Across 28 games (26 from floc.net plus
DW 322 plus DCI 274), this is what I came up with:
Germany - 9 (2 solos)
England, Turkey - 8 (1 Turk solo)
Norway - 7
Balkans, France, Russia - 5 (2 Russian solos)
Austria, Spain - 3
Italy, and Lowlands - 2
My favorite outcome was an ELN triple that swept the board. For the
record, my own pre-game preferences for DCI 274 were any of G, L, N, R,
and T. I'm glad I didn't get Lowlands
One trend grabs my attention: the southern and western powers (I,
F, L, and S) seem to fare far worse than the northern and eastern ones.
I'd be curious to know how other players felt about playing
Crowded.
But back to Dan's proposal to play "It came from outer space"... What
variants would *I* suggest for the DCI? I think I would try to pick
really balanced variants (but not Pure or Chromatic... blech!). 1900
has a very good reputation. Abstraction II is supposed to be good, too
(with different convoy rules, though). Anarchy should work very well
(since players pick their own home SCs). Renaissance might be
interesting, too. I guess I'd lean toward Anarchy (especially as the
number of players is flexible). On a different tack, I like the
scramble feel of Chaos, CivDip, 1898... so, I'd also suggest maybe a
game of 1897? (Though a one-center start for everybody might create too
much randomness in early survival?)
THE OTHER VARIANT
To my mind, the *real* variant being played in the DCI was the scoring
system: most centers = DCI Crown. This is not the usual DC system.
Usually, in DC, if you don't solo then you draw, and it matters little
whether you have 15 centers or 5 centers. But not so in the DCI. It
entirely changed the game and, I think, lent it a blood-thirsty cast. I
would not have stabbed Jorge had not the individual title been on the
line. Not even remotely. Joe might not have stabbed Jorge either, for
that matter.
As you may have guessed already, before I played at DC, I played at
the now-defunct DW. And DipWorld had a different scoring system than DC
uses. It was:
Player Score = # of Centers + Points for place
where 1st = 48; 2nd = 24; 3rd = 12; etc. [Note: Solo = 96, and everybody
else gets zero]. In DW, placement really mattered for the top-three
finishers. But survival in a draw was not much of a motivator for
fourth or fifth place runners up. In fact, the only end-game scenarios
were 'Solo' and DIAS (as there was no scoring distinction between
finishing in the drawing coalition versus outside it). I am not arguing
that one system is better than another. They just have different
incentives, and different incentives beget different styles of play.
THE PLAYERS
DCI 274 is probably the best game of Dip I've had the honor to play in
anywhere. The quality of the opposition was high, and that quality
showed in the high level of communication which unfurled... immediately
the game began. There was none of this sounding out personalities in
order to see who were the communicative ones, who had interesting ideas,
and who could be relied upon. It was obvious (and a wee bit
intimidating) that everybody was going to be communicative, clever, and
reliable (in a no-NMR way). If you pause to reflect on this for a
moment, it will strike you how uncommon it is for every player to be
attentive and insightful in a game. I remember it gave me a rush when I
first realized it. There would be no weak link / obvious target.
Conversely, I wasn't going to be able to advance myself by out-talking
my neighbors.
In fairness, Jorge was the communications exemplar, striking up a
conversation with me and maintaining it through all the roller-coaster
turns of the game. It was unusual to have running conversations with
all my immediate neighbors... plus Jorge. At points in the early- and
mid-game, I was sure that our conversation was not being used to my
advantage... but one expects that in Diplomacy.
The rest of this EoG is a rough chronological order of the game
organized by the player who dominated the Turkish game experience. Each
section focuses both on strategy and a personality (or two). Frank,
Garry, Matt, Max -- I'm sorry, but I hardly knew ya. I don't have
stories to share about you.
-- DREW
If I had it all to do over again, I would stab Drew again. Because he
wrote such funny press after the stab. "Sometimes I think about having
you executed just to see the expression on your face." (Season 2,
"Black Adder". Yup. I would.
But why stab Drew in the first place? On one hand, Nigel and I had
a good plan. We were going to re-enact a Juggernaut... just with more
players on the board than in Standard Dip. If anything, we hoped that
the existence of Balkans would make it harder to organize a resistance
(all the more testimony to Dan, Mikael, and Drew for actually doing it).
Nigel gained my early trust by keeping the plan simple; he effectively
conveyed his buy-in.
On the other hand, Drew's emails read a bit scattered and
occasionally incoherent. There were good ideas to be had, but I didn't
like sifting for them. Meanwhile, he had to coordinate a tricky ABT
alliance. Plus, although my preference was to head north in an ABT,
Drew's plans always tended to have me heading south toward Italy. Yes,
the ABT alliance had merits and could've worked, but too many teeth were
being pulled in the process.
And then I did something uncharacteristically Zen-like brilliant
for me: I let it be. Somehow, I knew the ABT wasn't going to work. It
couldn't. All I did was help the joints to creak a little more by
emphasizing a couple of difficulties with the alliance in my ABT press.
And that's when a beautiful thing happened. It all just fell apart.
Naturally, gracefully, of its own accord. The day of the first
deadline, Dan wrote me a "I am beginning to wish we weren't in this ABT
alliance" email. I replied with: "Funny you should mention it, because
I have a perfectly smashing ART stab entirely diagrammed through
W1901... It just happens to be laying on my desk".
Drew worked hard at making the ABT work in spite of the natural
antipathy between Balkans and Turkey. But, as I said, I'd stab him
again just to receive his comical emails. In fact, next time I play
Drew, I'm going to stab him all over again.
-- MIKAEL
Mikael was unavoidable unendurable destiny for me much of the game.
Alone of my neighbors, he didn't write much at the outset (this
changed). In the midgame, to Dan's glee, Mikael and I seemed locked in
an inextricable naval conflict, wherein I vs. T was the natural tension.
And later, when we finally found grounds for cooperation, we wound up
scuttling it over a miscommunication. Much has been written about Dan
and his sharpened dagger in this game... but the sad confession is that
his treachery would not have been possible but for Mikael's and my
willingness to allow Dan to play us off against each other.
I still look back at Winter 1901 and think I was screwed no matter
what I did (how often is Winter 1901 really all that crucial of a
season?!? But that's part of why this was a great game...). If I built
an army, then Nigel would've known I was coming after him... and with
the already-manifest ABI scrum, I knew that nobody was going to come aid
me in a battle with Nigel. So, I did the more 'neutral' thing and built
a fleet in Smyrna... which Mikael immediately and correctly recognized
as a warlike intent toward Italy. Even then, I had hopes that ABI would
be unable to unite in order to stop Nigel and I in our tracks (after
all, Mikael had just bludgeoned Dan, hadn't he?). But Mikael proved me
wrong on the board, just as I had dared him to do. And he didn't just
stop at ABI; he and Jorge combined to make it ABGIN.
If it hadn't been for Dan's mercurial nature, I would not have
survived Mikael's onslaught.
In total, I found Mikael to be a frustrating opponent -- which is
to say that he did his job vis-a-vis my Turkey. I would like to think
that he and I could make good allies if our countries weren't so
geographically at odds with each other.
-- DAN
Dan wins my vote for Personality of the Game Award, given to the player
who most indelibly leaves his imprint on the game. Surely, no single
player so influenced the flow of this game as did Dan. Jorge ran a good
second, though. All in all, I admire Dan's tenacity and immensely
enjoyed his role in the game. Thank you ever so much, Dan.
Jorge had warned me from Day 1 that Dan is cut-throat. A wee bit
of an understatement. Dan was perfidious. He stabbed. And betrayed.
And he tortured small, furry animals. I think I dubbed him the
Stab-O-Matic. And that appellation worked well for my interests, for in
truth, all of the talk about Dan's dagger-happy tendencies was only so
much propaganda. Oh, let me be clear: Dan was a villain. But that's
okay in Dip, so long as it works for you... which it did up to a point.
While there's been a lot of talk about Dan's stabs, I think we have
chosen to be silent on the bigger story... the story that shines some
redemption on Dan's actions. The storyline with Dan isn't that he
stabbed a lot. The storyline is that, in spite of stabbing so often,
Dan still persuaded some of the best players in DC to ally with him time
and time again. And this reveals incredible diplomatic skill. It also
shows an uncommon temperament that respects the fluidity of diplomatic
relations and does not treat any stab or alliance (by or against him) as
final. Most people hold a grudge after a stab, but Dan repeatedly was
right back on the phone dreaming up another cunning plan. As I noted
above: after a certain time, the fault is no longer Dan's for stabbing
us; it is ours for giving him so many opportunities to stab.
But, obviously, in the end, Dan's treachery backfired on him. But
was this because of the number of his stabs? Or the *quality* of his
stabs?. I think some of his stabs were not good stabs or were not
pressed relentlessly until the victim lay gasping near-lifeless in his
last SC. An example. Dan tried to eliminate Drew in Fall 1902 but made
two crucial errors. First, he didn't forewarn his other, more important
ally Mikael (and the stab attempt dealt collateral positional damage to
Mikael, so it risked scuttling the alliance). Second, he attempted the
stab via a tactically risky (nay, foolish) support from Budapest which
not only was likely to be cut, but actually got dislodged.
And then he patched it all up again with Drew and Mikael! I was
floored and flabbergasted. And awed.
But Dan's chief mistake (in my humblest of omniscient opinions) was
his first real stab of Mikael in Spring 1904(?). That was an alliance
that (from my throne in Turkey) seemed a force to be reckoned with. It
was the alliance that had a good chance to lay the golden egg.
Ultimately, as an aside, it was this stab that allowed me to survive in
the corner and to build the third fleet with which to establish my
Turkish Stonewall. It is with perfect 20-20 hindsight that I say Dan
should have stayed in the AI alliance until my corner position had been
shattered. Perfect hindsight... but I think it was my insight at the
time, too.
In the end, Dan left too many of his victims still standing. And
somewhere around 1906/1907, I think he was heard reciting more
Shakespeare: "Now is the winter of our discontent made glorious summer
by this Duke of Austria; and all the clouds that lowered upon our house
in the deep bosom of the ocean buried. Now are our brows bound with
victorious wreaths." Little did he realize how much the world scorns
hump-backed villains.
-- NIGEL
I don't have a lot of stories to tell about Nigel. Fidelity is not
often the stuff of great Dip stories. But, with all due obsequiousness
to other players... Nigel is the guy from this game I would most likely
ally with again. As I mentioned earlier, his straight-forward,
uncomplicated style worked very well by me.
For the most part, thanks to the ABGIN, Nigel and I were allies
both in a bind, unable to directly aid each other. By 1906, I had
established the Turkish Stonewall: F EMed, F Aegean, F Constantinople.
It was every Turkish turtle's dream, utterly unassailable except via
Armenia. And I relied on Nigel to defend that to his death (which was
impending). I could exaggerate and say I was using him as a human
shield... it's certainly more colorful... but, there was really nothing
more I could have done for him. My thought was that I could hold this
position until the cavalry arrived from the West, which ought to come
before Nigel's last stand, God rest his soul.
An ordinary player would made a last stand in Sevastapol and died
like a loyal soldier. But Nigel surprised me and caused me sleepless
nights. He dealt and double-dealt with his AI oppressors, thus
extricating a rebirth from a mere one center. It was an extraordinary
feat. But it came at the cost of letting enemies into Armenia. My
nightmare of poison-fanged Austrian hump-backed villains was coming
true. Surely, my end had arrived.
But then, in 1907, the cavalry arrived. Dan was given a beat-down.
And the Austrian orcs in Armenia disbanded. And then began the Glory
Years. The acme of Russo-Turkish relations.
In spite of some friction around 1909, Nigel and I functioned as
one nation, each tending to the other's resurrection and focusing on our
mutual goal: a DIAS ASAP. When Joe stabbed Jorge, we expanded to become
an NRT trio. And all was well. Jorge has already told the story of how
he and I chose to spurn Austrian alliance (and Russian elimination) in
1910, so I won't dwell on it. But I was pleased with the maneuver.
Very pleased. It was reflective of something I later told Joe: I could
stab Nigel, but then'd I'd have to start looking over my shoulder for
angels with flaming swords; for I was sure such despicable treachery
against my most loyal ally -- an ally with whom I had developed an
unusual and special tight-knit bond -- would not go unpunished by
Heaven.
And yet all good things do pass. Alas, Nigel's interest in the
game eventually dissipated. He had formerly been an active participant
in our NRT round tables, but he lapsed into just chiming in on Friday
mornings about six or so hours before the deadline. Still, in the end,
he owned a share of the draw.
-- JORGE
I have already written of Jorge's superb communication. There is no
greater virtue in Diplomacy than frequent, well-written press, and Jorge
seemed determined to out-press everybody. It worked on me, and I was
content to see him do well for so much of the game.
As I mentioned, Jorge and I talked early about how to play Norway.
My previous experience said that Norway was a great defensive position
which rightly had to prioritize naval supremacy and try to reach
Gibraltar. Toward that end, I thought England and Lowlands had to be
his primary targets, followed by France and Spain. Germany had to be
kept fleet-light. And Russia should make for a strategic ally (this
last opinion also coincided with my Turkish alliance with Russia).
Jorge took my advice and then made up his own mind. Still, by Spring
1905, he had far exceeded the objectives I had discussed. He had fleets
in NAt and Iri plus a weaker German ally who could absorb Austrian
aggression for awhile. Which is why it didn't see his betrayal of Max
coming. I thought it a mistake at the time, but I really cannot
second-guess him when his bigger problem was an EF alliance that he
needed to split however he could.
So, to return to my semi-narrative here... Nigel and I rebounded
from Dan's yoke -- all thanks to the success of the FN(+IRT) alliance
against Dan. But there can be too much of a good thing. Joe and Jorge
made great gains with help from both Nigel and me. But they were also
both exerting carbon-to-diamond pressure directly on us. There was talk
at the time of what form the draw would take. I was insisting upon a
share of the draw (reckoning that, being in the far corner, they
couldn't easily eliminate me without risking a solo by one or the other;
plus, 35 centers cannot be evenly divided between two players). Joe and
Jorge were sticking with a 2-way.
In particular, I remember a specific exchange with Jorge. In 1909,
Nigel had convoyed an army to Ankara (whereas I had expected a fleet).
And while it didn't make sense for him to stab me, I was quite skittish
all the same. I wrote to Jorge and asked for an unenforceable promise:
if Nigel screws me over, please take Sevastopol from him. Since I
wasn't really expecting a stab from Nigel, and since the request
couldn't be enforced anyway, I didn't put much stock in it. But Jorge's
response was uncharacteristically cold and aloof: "The problem is that
you are on record as being against that draw I'm seeking. At this point
Nigs is my muscle on you to vote Yes." It chilled me. Maybe I should
be afraid of Nigel! Not because Nigel would stab me, but because Jorge
would force him into it! I cannot exactly say why this one brief email
had such an effect on me, but it did. It clearly reminded me the
bottom-line Diplomacy truth: in spite of a lovely
running correspondence, no neighbor is wholly my friend. We are
competitors each seeking individual glory.
I'm going to park Jorge by the curb for a minute and write more
about him later. But first...
-- JOE
Joe entered my life in 1908. He rode a white stallion and drove my
Italian and Austrian nemeses before him like chaff before the wind.
Orphan children strewed rose petals before his feet and gratefully sang
his name with hosannas.
The agreement by Joe and Jorge to unite against Austria provided
desperately needed short-term relief. I started to envision a 4-way
FNRT draw (or any draw that included me!). But, conquerors are
conquerors, and in spite of a Fall 1908 agreement for Joe to take Greece
(with my support) and then hand it over to me, Joe found reasons to
reconsider the agreement before the end of 1909. This was about the
time when Jorge rebuffed my request for a safeguard against Nigel, and I
wasn't so much loving either of my FN liberators.
However, in the meanwhile, Joe and I had started a running
conversation about the game-end scenarios. It had begun in the lead-up
to Spring 1908, as I was laying clear my Turkish goals, and I mentioned
to Joe: "Provided you mind your border with Jorge properly, I think you
are in the stronger position in FN. Much stronger." I don't think Joe
had seriously entertained the thought of himself as having the upper
hand until that point.
I don't know what impact the Spring 1908 adjudication had on Joe's
thoughts, but it seemed significant to me at the time. On that
adjudication -- before Joe and I had much of a chance to follow up on my
comment -- Joe opened himself up terribly vulnerably to Jorge while
Jorge simultaneously moved two armies adjacent to Munich. Belgium and
Munich were indefensible if Jorge hearkened to the Dagger's Call. With
his seizure of Warsaw from Dan, he'd have a 13-8 lead in SCs versus Joe.
I was 105% certain that Jorge would strike. I said as much to Joe. The
irony, of course, is that Jorge was a true ally. Yet, after this
incident, I wonder if Joe wasn't more struck by his brief peril than by
his ally's good graces.
It didn't hurt that Joe and I started to discuss that most
compelling of things: the scoring system and cost-benefit analysis. If
Jorge had gone for the stab, his best case scenario was a solo. The DCI
Crown via a solo -- that would be something to tell his grandchildren
about! If not, had Jorge's solo bid fallen short thanks to an unwieldy
AFIRT alliance (in which IT would have been of no help), then Jorge
still stood a very good chance of claiming the DCI Crown with 15 or 16
centers. If AFIRT managed to hurl him backward (which was certainly
possible, though 5-way alliances are not so easy to hold together), the
odds remained exceedingly good that Jorge would retain a part in a
game-ending 3-way draw. And that's the reality of the scoring system:
there is often not a huge risk associated with taking a big gamble, but
there are great rewards. Obviously, Jorge analyzed the board and
decided the solo bid was not a gamble he wished to attempt.
But later, Joe would face much the same gamble. The scoring system,
the cost-benefit analysis, and his irritation with Jorge all helped him
choose the road Jorge had not taken.
In Fall 1909, Joe seized Greece in spite of me. He stabbed Mikael
for both Rome and Venice. And Nigel convoyed an army to Ankara when I
was expecting his fleet. I thought, "This is it. Joe is finally going
for the solo -- he'll fortify his line against Jorge and out-race him to
18 centers by gobbling up Balkan and Turkish dots." Joe blandly told me
that I knew his reason for depriving me of Greece, but I brushed it off
as a thin veil for his underlying motive, and I told him so in a letter
that we both referenced several times later in the game:
"> You know the reason of course.
I do, but it's not the one you name. The real reason is: you are
embracing the path eschewed by Jorge. Guts, glory, and a solo bid. You
have deftly wielded the Dagger Known As Dan to thwart your foes and to
quickly sweep up a couple of builds. The Russian convoy is a nice
touch, too. Of course, Dan won't long remain reliable, but you don't
expect him to. You may just have enough to push onward to victory.
Excelsior!
Good luck to you on your bid. Personally, I was disappointed in
Jorge for not taking the gamble. What you are doing is more in the
Spirit of the Game."
Poetic, eh? Patriotic. Gets the blood coursing through the arteries.
I'd come a long way rhetorically from the utterly frustrated letter I
wrote to Mikael back in October:
"I see Naples
I see France
I see Mikael's
Underpants."
Yes, my emails had come a long way. Whereas Mikael never replied to my
poem, Joe really heard my Siren's Song.
But I don't want to claim credit for Joe's courage. If I have
dwelled upon his motives, it's because I tend to overanalyze things, not
because I feel I authored his decision. I did, it seems, help screw his
courage to the sticking place (which puts me into yet another
Shakespeare play...). But the ambition was Joe's. He made up his own
mind, and he wore his boldness rightly as his own. And eventually, by
the time Birnam Wood marched on high Dunsinane, he faced his fate with
all the ferocity of a real MacBeth. He ultimately failed, but I
confess... I was proud of him. He honored the Spirit of the Game.
[And, I'll note, he lost nothing score-wise for his venture... he still
finished with a share of the draw].
-- JOE & JORGE
I am not going to comment on The Feud beyond the following three points.
(1) I happily did not suffer friction from either Joe nor Jorge that
would at all suggest that either was capable of the nastiness that
erupted. (2) It was Joe who breached protocol by publicly flaming
Jorge. This happens occasionally in Diplomacy (I blushingly remember
the last time I did it some years ago as a powerless Italian...). Joe
eventually apologized, which is all I could ask, but it was quite a
flaming. (3) Genies do not return to their bottles; it was The Feud and
its lingering resentments (and Joe's willingness to cede centers to my
fleets) that made my Crown even remotely possible. We all know that,
had calmer heads prevailed, I would never have had even a glimmer of
hope.
But at the outset, there was no Feud. There was just a stab. And
a solo bid. And a really nasty piece of work that Jorge and I
perpetrated against Dan (by which I reckoned that all of my scores with
the Stab-O-Matic had now been repaid).
And then followed the second Golden Era. Not only did Jorge now
*need* Nigel and me, but we all needed each other if we were to prevent
a French solo. That we would form a 3-way alliance was predictable.
But the alliance that we did form was... extraordinary. I cannot say I
have ever enjoyed a more tightly knit alliance. It was a thing of
beauty and perhaps of grace. Not only were all moves an open book, but
all moves benefited from three brains instead of one. This may sound
cliche, but I think it was crucial. It was the union of our minds
rather than our collection of units that stopped Joe. For several
years, all three of us enthusiastically joined in the drawing and
refining of battle plans. And particularly in 1914, we just plain
out-thought the French, because we had three times the available time to
consider all the alternatives.
I must here sheepishly admit that this alliance would have been
impossible without the tone of Jorge's leadership. Yes, Jorge was in
some sense ultimately looking out for his own welfare (after all, his
goal was to recapture the elusive DCI Crown). But I do believe that we
reached beyond mere self-interest and achieved a team concept, wherein
ownership of centers was not jealously guarded, and one nation's
positioning was routinely subverted to the position of the team. And
again, it was usually Jorge who sacrificed.
It took me a very long time in this game to understand Jorge to the
extent that I now do. But I do believe that he is of a different
character than Joe... or myself. It's hard to quantify. I want to say
that he's an Alliance Player... but he did do treacherous things to
Frank, Nigel, and especially Max. Still, when I look at all the pieces:
extensive communication, team-oriented alliance, choosing an FN draw
over a solo bid, not wanting to push the NRT toward a solo... Jorge
played the game differently. At least in my experience of him. He
played for himself and his own success as we all do, but at the same
time, he didn't. And therein is an irony. Because his style brought
him success but arguably deprived him of the Crown, as he instead
over-trusted two players who are of a different character.
The NRT survived three setbacks, as Jorge noted in his EGS. The
first was intentional, the other two not. First, in Autumn 1912, I
disbanded my fleet in Naples. And, yes, I did this intentionally to
breathe life back into Joe. A distant corner of my mind was, believe it
or not, already thinking of how to 'get back into the game', in spite of
having only five centers. I kept quiet on that. But much more than my
re-emergence, as incredulous as this will sound to Jorge, I really was
worried about Jorge. At the time, Nigel and I were having discussions
of "So, once we stop Joe, how are we going to stop Jorge? Or will it be
out of the frying pan and into the fire?" The fact that I worried about
Jorge showed that I did not understand either him nor Joe yet. On one
hand, I seriously believed that Joe might disband northern units
(opposing Jorge) instead of southern units (opposing me). I did not
know the depth of their underlying
antipathy (which only surfaced publicly that very season). On the
other hand, I didn't realize that Jorge really would stop once he had
reached supply center parity with Joe. I thought it very realistic that
Jorge might continue to steam along in the north and continue for a solo
bid. Unless I gave Joe a cushion in the south. So, I disbanded my
fleet in Naples, and I made my allies very cross. And I extended the
game.
The other two setbacks were both accidents. Nigel's NMR was a
brutal, awfully timed debacle, and it resurrected chances for Joe's two
eastern units. The same season, I misordered a fleet (honestly, I
thought it was in Aegean...), leaving Ionian unfortunately empty (a much
smaller debacle). But again... such were the turns of fortune that both
helped extend the game long enough for me to get back into it.
-- ADAM (or "How I Came to Steal a Victory"
This was the best game of Diplomacy I've ever had the honor to play in.
All but the last two years. No, I'm not being self-disparaging. After
1914, the game had played out. Joe's solo bid was finis, barring a
Norwegian NMR. He lost his relish for the game. Nigel detached. Jorge
sought only to restore his advantage in SCs so that he could have the
Crown. People were ready for the game to end. And I walked to victory
partly on the eggshells of apathy. But first, Joe had one favor to
repay...
I wrote to Joe after F1914 saying that I had totally screwed up my
chances of winning. I had made the mistake of submitting the best
moves. Tactically, they were the very best. But strategically... I
should really have submitted orders that would extend the game and lead
to me having to convoy units into Trieste and Venice. Now, I would be
unable to catch up to Jorge.
It must have been a strange friendship for Joe. Here, I had urged,
coaxed, wheedled, and cajoled him until he reached out to seize victory.
Yet, all the time he was crusading, I clearly maintained that I was his
foe. I was a friend who was really an enemy. An enemy who cheered him
on as a friend. Oooh, such a frenemy was I...
Intermittently along the way, Joe had been offering me deals. Stab
Nigel. Let's form a two-way against Jorge. But what balance could
there really be when he outnumbered me by six centers? In 1915, Joe
started offering me a solo (even though he still outnumbered me by
four). I frankly didn't believe him, because again, I didn't understand
the psychology at play (and I didn't have the armies to procure the
Balkans). For Joe to help me to solo, he'd have to send armies into
Tyrolia and Vienna. Then, he'd both outnumber me and control the center
of the map. It seemed yet another effort to split the NRT and revive
his solo bid. I thought Joe was still playing to win. But it appears
he was just playing to avenge himself on Jorge.
Conversely, I worried that if I shattered the crystal luminance
that was NRT, Jorge would give Joe the solo rather than allow my
treachery to succeed. Jorge had been pretty disapproving when I
disbanded F Naples -- it had almost scuttled our alliance. And often,
traitors are more hated than enemies. An ill-aimed stab might, I
wrongly thought, make Jorge like me even less than Joe. So, I turned
Joe's offer down.
And it's here that Joe repaid my favor. He hounded me. Guts and
Glory! Solo! It was his turn to play Lady MacBeth whilst I played a
balking MacBeth. We generated a stack of email, all while Jorge and
Nigel were turning the lights out in the storefront. He begged and
pleaded. He delivered an ultimatum. He publicly announced his intent
to vote for a draw. He did everything I had done to/for him in
encouraging him to stab Jorge in the first place. It was a favor
dutifully repaid.
Still, many things had to happen in that last year-plus to make a
winner out of me. Probably the key thing was: Nigel and Jorge couldn't
suspect me. Which they should have. Not because I behaved
suspiciously, but simply because my SC count was catching up, and
Diplomacy players should know to exercise caution. There were really
only two things that could stop Jorge from winning: (1) Joe's obstinacy
and (2) a Turkish grab for power. Well, Joe finally and sincerely
announced his surrender in late 1915. So, the only threat left was me.
And I am pretty sure that the circa 1912 versions of Jorge and Nigel
would never have let me sneak into a victory. But by 1915... it was
time to pack up the suitcases.
In Fall 1915, I openly took Serbia while Nigel chose not to take
Bulgaria in exchange. That was the first last step. (It also showed
how oblivious Nigel was about my emerging Caesar-like ambition). It
gave me a second build and an army in the Balkans. In Winter 1915,
Jorge suggested I build two armies. I didn't have to be told twice!
(But had he and Nigel insisted upon a fleet... there probably would have
been no stab). In Spring 1916, Joe was muttering into my ear: "Come on
kid! You can do it! Give'em a jab with your left and a hook with your
right! You're the champ, kid! You're the champ! I'm behind you all
the way!" I essentially told Joe that I might stab, but he'd have to
hand over the keys to the French army. He did. That was essential for
my success. (And later, he didn't complain when my orders for him cost
him two disbands and the loss of Holland). Then Nigel announced his
intention to symbolically re-occupy St. Petersburg
and Sevastopol. I was probably going to stab anyway, but that was the
last domino. [Again, if Nigel or Jorge had stopped to analyze the
threat from Turkey, they might have insisted on the very
un-alliance-like move of F Bla-Con/Bul... probably without informing
which destination Nigel would choose... and since we all expected the
draw to pass that season, it shouldn't matter. But that could've maybe
been enough to stop me from stabbing, too].
PATIENCE
In the late-game and post-game, I have read some praise for Patience.
Yes, it is a virtue that worked admirably to my advantage all throughout
the game. It worked way back in Spring 1901 when I waited for Drew's
ABT alliance to fall apart. In mid-game, it enabled me to construct the
Turkish Stonewall. And in the end, it enabled me to revive from 3
stinkin' centers to claim an undeserved Crown. Yes, Patience is a
very... how do I say this?... overrated virtue. It works very well for
Turkey. It brought me a win in this game, so I'm certainly not going to
snarl and spit at it. But I'd rather play Austria. I'd rather author
my own success. For, as we all know, this game belonged to Dan, Jorge,
and Joe. If anyone 'deserved' to win, it was one of them. I was but
the beneficiary of their struggles.
PSYCHOLOGY / PHILOSOPHY / CLOSING THOUGHTS
"It's what Jeeves would call the psychology of the individual." - P.G.
Wodehouse
Why did I coach Joe forward to stab Jorge? Why did I stab Jorge? Why
*didn't* Jorge stab? I cannot wholly say.
I think my counsel to Joe went far beyond my own desire to survive
(which surely was aided by his stab). I had a deeper motive of which I
was not fully aware. Something psychological. Something which was
certainly linked to the opposing psychology that led Jorge to pass on a
solo bid. It's what I referred to in my email to Joe as The Spirit of
the Game (which sounds horrendously pompous, but it's the name I used,
so we're stuck with it).
Almost by definition, The Spirit of the Game is my a personal
interpretation. Each player approaches the game with his own sense of
The Spirit.
My sense of The Spirit is related to the famous Herm Edwards quote:
"You play to win the game". There are many other motivators (like a
great alliance or sportsmanship), but winning is the first goal. In a
game like the DCI or a tournament, where a title is on the line, I prize
winning even more highly.
Also, given the draw-based scoring system, where the rewards for
valor often outweigh the risk, fortune favors the bold. [I reiterate
here: in the end, Joe didn't lose much on his score by trying for the
solo; he still figured in the draw].
When I saw Joe acquiescing to a 2-way FN draw sans the DCI Crown, I
confess it didn't feel right. Jorge was playing a dangerous game to
keep SC parity so tight but to reserve the Crown for his own. The Crown
is lying there! Duncan sleeps in thy castle this night! Reach out and
seize it! Thou shall'st be more than man! My maternal instinct (my
Lady MacBeth maternal instinct) stirred:
"Wouldst thou have that
Which thou esteem'st the ornament of life,
And live a coward in thine own esteem,
Letting 'I dare not' wait upon 'I would'"?
Joe dared. And let me say: he got really close. Just because he fell
short does not mean he shouldn't have tried.
But what of Jorge? He did not stab Joe in a similar position. Did
he violate The Spirit of the Game? Ultimately, upon great reflection, I
would say that he did not. He chose a different, more subtle path
toward victory. It was a calculation that didn't pan out. Neither Joe
nor I cooperated far enough to allow him his hard-earned victory. But
like Joe, Jorge came really close to winning. His calculation fell
short, but it was worth the try.
And yet... during the game and even now, I did feel that Jorge
chose not to _seize_ victory. He tried to corral it and nurture it
rather than act brashly. As you can tell: I thought brash action was
called for. Nigel can confirm that, around 1912, facing the prospects
of a Jorge Crown vs. a Joe Crown, my preference was: (a) whichever one
gets us a draw; followed by (b) Joe, because he opted for Guts and
Glory.
In the recently ended DC 285 (Ancient Med), I settled for a 2-way
Egyptian-Persian draw with Mike Hoffman. I thought I had a slight
inside track for the solo (so did he). But we settled on a draw,
because the odds were close, and because we had a really good alliance
we didn't want to shatter. The alliance was more valuable than the win.
If the DCI were just another club game, I wouldn't have stabbed at
the end. I would barely have even considered it. I had a really good
alliance that I didn't enjoy shattering. A superb alliance. The type
where a stab isn't just a betrayal of my allies... it's almost a
betrayal of sportsmanship. Plus, I felt like a scum bag for stabbing at
a time when everybody else was just ready to be done with the game. If
Joe hadn't been Lady MacBeth-ing me, I doubt I would've gone through
with it.
Additionally, I kept coming back to: "You play to win the game."
That was my goal at the beginning of the game. It should still be my
goal fifteen game years into it. If other people are tiring of the
game, that shouldn't change my goal. If my allies are expecting me to
restore Jorge to the lead, that shouldn't change my goal.
I have never done that before. Exploited my opponents' waning
enthusiasm for a victory. It was more a case of outlasting than of
out-thinking. In the aftermath, it doesn't feel as radiant by half as
allying and conniving my way to power. But it's a type of virtue...
Patience.
Which is not the final word you'd expect from an EoG that has so many
words about...
Your DCI Winner,
MacBeth |
| DC 298 Fall 1920: Results and a Final Disappearanc... - DrSwordopolis (May 27, 2010, 2:12 pm) |
Bye, Rob. When you actually played, you were a valiant opponent.
Best of luck in the future.
On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 8:15 AM, Garry Bledsoe <kielmarch(at)hotmail.com> wrote:
We Bid Farewell to the ChickenBristol, Rob, as a Final NMR Sees Him Sent Off by Russian ArmiesA WB Game That Will Go Into the 21st Year - UNBELIEVABLE!
Russia Edges Ever Closer to the Promised Land Sitting on 17 CentersThe Italian/Russian Orders Look Like a Cluster of Bad Guesses As EVERYTHING BOUNCES
All,Rob is eliminated and so now there are three. There were no retreats needed so we shall move to Winter (which we would do anyway). Everybody remaining makes adjustments:
France -1Italy +1
Russia +2
Let's get those in by tomorrow!
Our center count is 6, 11, 17.
Garry
England:
F Holland, no move received (*Disbanded*)
France:
A Belgium Supports A Burgundy (*Cut*)A Burgundy Supports A BelgiumF Clyde - Norwegian Sea
F English Channel - North Sea (*Fails*)A London - WalesA Picardy Supports A Belgium
F Yorkshire - Edinburgh (*Fails*)
Italy:
F Adriatic Sea - Trieste (*Bounce*)A Apulia - VeniceA Bulgaria - Serbia (*Fails*)
F Constantinople - Black Sea (*Bounce*)F Eastern Mediterranean - Smyrna (*Bounce*)
F Greece - Bulgaria(sc) (*Bounce*)F Ionian Sea - Adriatic Sea (*Fails*)F Smyrna - Constantinople (*Fails*)
A Trieste - Budapest (*Bounce*)A Venice - Piedmont
Russia: A Ankara - Smyrna (*Bounce*)A Berlin - Munich
F Edinburgh HoldA Kiel Supports A Ruhr - HollandA Livonia - Warsaw
A Munich - RuhrF North Sea - Belgium (*Fails*)A Ruhr - Holland
A Rumania - Bulgaria (*Bounce*)A Serbia - Budapest (*Bounce*)F Sevastopol - Black Sea (*Bounce*)
A St Petersburg - FinlandA Tyrolia - Trieste (*Bounce*)A Vienna - Budapest (*Bounce*)
A Warsaw - Galicia
Hotmail is redefining busy with tools for the New Busy. Get more from your inbox. See how.[Reply] |
| DC289: End of Game - trooper (May 27, 2010, 12:40 pm) |
Congratulations to those who survived, but especially to Pontus/Chochem - the Balkans certainly lived up its reputation in this one, and he managed it better than any of us.
Personally, after a disastrous start, I was delighted to have survived 1901, never mind still be there (only just, may be, but still there) in 1908!
I hope we meet up again in the future.
John
From: Mark Jefferson <markj18(at)gmail.com>
To: Rocketship <rocketship.rocketship(at)gmail.com>
Cc: Jeffrey Krauss <jeffreykrauss(at)live.com>; pontusstrimling(at)yahoo.com; john.c1arke(at)btinternet.com; diplomacy(at)jeffreyk.com; dc289(at)diplomaticcorp.com
Sent: Thursday, 27 May, 2010 15:35:03
Subject: Re: DC289: End of Game
Congrats to Pontus. Turkey seemed to sneak up in this game as the dominate nation. I guess with most of us concentrating on France and Austria it allowed Turkey to grow without too much resistance. It's a good reminder that sometimes you have to drop your agenda and tactics for the big picture.
On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 10:49 PM, Rocketship <rocketship.rocketship(at)gmail.com> wrote:
Oh yeah. Whoops. Well, after we got past the rough beginning it was good though, eh?
Matthew
On May 26, 2010, at 8:44 PM, Jeffrey Krauss wrote:
Thanks for a fun game everyone! It started out a bit rough (I find Matthew's "no NMRs" amusing given the first year and our couple of abandons ), but after we got a good set of folks playing, it was quite enjoyable!
-Jeff
> Subject: DC289: End of Game
> From: rocketship.rocketship(at)gmail.com[Reply] |
| 1648 091010: Spring 1659 Moves - charlesf (May 27, 2010, 11:16 am) |
Hallo zusammen,
the focal point of this season's action were the northern plains of Italy.
For it is there that Louis' armies suffered a crushing defeat, spelling the end
to French influence in the country of Dante and Machiavelli. Certainly Italy has
known many masters over the past decade. First the Spaniards ordered much of the
country's affairs, then the French came across the Alps much as they had done
back in 1494 and now it is the turn of the Sultan to reign over much of bella
Italia.
I'm sorry that I kept you waiting for the adjucation longer than I
anticipated. I'm afraid I simply didn't get round to having the block of time at
my home computer necessary to do the adjucation.
The Fall 1659 Moves prelims are due Monday, 31 May, 6 PM
CET.
Liebe Grüsse,
Charles
----------
PLAYERS:
AUSTRIA: Mike Hoffman <mrh(at)panix.com>
DENMARK-NORWAY: Marc
Ellinger <mellinger(at)blitzbardgett.com> (eliminated Winter
1653)
ENGLAND: Harvey Morris <hmtucaz(at)gmail.com>
FRANCE: Nigel Phillips <nephilli99(at)hotmail.com>
POLAND-LITHUANIA: Jorge
Saralegui <jmsaralegui(at)gmail.com>
RUSSIA: Mikael Johansson <m_don_j(at)hotmail.com> (eliminated Winter 1650)
SPAIN: Dirk Knemeyer <dirk(at)knemeyer.com>
SWEDEN: Matthew Kelly
<kelly058(at)verizon.net> (joined Winter 1652, eliminated Fall
165
TURKEY: Aidan
Slattery <AiSlattery(at)aol.com>
PROCLAMATIONS:
o COMMONWEALTH NAVY PATROLS THE NORTH SEA
o FRANCE TAKES BACK MARSEILLES
o POLAND'S INFLUENCE ROUND THE BALTIC SEA GROWS
FURTHER
o SPANIARDS RETURN TO ITALY
o OTTOMAN TROOPS MARCH UP THE LENGTH OF THE ITALIAN
PENINSULA
PRESS: None. 
ORDERS:
Austria:
A Bavaria Supports A Saxony
A Brandenburg Supports F
Stettin - Mecklenburg (*Void*)
A Prague Supports A Saxony
A Saxony
Supports A Brandenburg (*Cut*)
A Tyrolia Supports A Venice
A Venice
Supports A Tuscany - Lombardy
A Vienna - Trieste
England:
A Christiania Hold
F Ireland - Scotland (*Bounce*)
A
London Supports A Yorkshire (*Cut*)
F Norwegian Sea - North Sea
A
Yorkshire Supports A London (*Cut*)
France:
A Brest - Gascony (*Fails*)
F Bristol - Scotland
(*Bounce*)
A Dauphiné Supports A Paris - Marseilles
F English Channel -
London (*Fails*)
A Hesse - Saxony (*Fails*)
F Holstein(ec) Supports A
Mecklenburg
A Lombardy - Tuscany (*Disbanded*)
A Lorraine Supports A
Swabia
A Lower Saxony Supports A Mecklenburg
A Mecklenburg Supports A
Lower Saxony
A Paris - Marseilles
A Savoy Supports A Paris - Marseilles
(*Disbanded*)
F Scotland - Yorkshire (*Fails*)
A Swabia Hold
A
Switzerland Supports A Swabia
Poland-Lithuania:
F Baltic Sea - Scania
F Courland - Baltic Sea
F
Gulf of Bothnia - Stockholm(ec)
A Ingria - Riga
A Karelia - Novgorod
A
Lapland Supports A Northern Norway
A Northern Norway Hold
A Prussia -
Warsaw
F Stettin Supports A Brandenburg
A Turkestan Hold
A Warsaw -
Cracow
Spain:
F Cantabrian Sea - English Channel (*Fails*)
A Gascony -
Brest (*Fails*)
F Gulf of Lion Supports A Marseilles - Savoy
A Leon -
Aragon
A Marseilles - Savoy
F Seville Hold
F Western Mediterranean -
Morocco
Turkey:
F Adriatic Sea Hold
F Aegean Sea Hold
A Constantinople
Hold
A Greater Poland Supports A Brandenburg
F Ionian Sea Hold
F Naples
- Papal States(wc)
A Papal States - Tuscany
A Persia Hold
F Sardinia
Supports F Tyrrhenian Sea
F Sicily Supports F Tyrrhenian Sea
A Silesia
Supports A Brandenburg
A Tuscany - Lombardy
F Tyrrhenian Sea Supports F
Sardinia
PENDING RETREATS: None.
SUPPLY CENTER OWNERSHIP
(Winter 165:
Austria(7): Bavaria, Brandenburg, Prague, Saxony, Trieste, Venice,
Vienna.
England(5): Abo, Christiania, Ireland, London,
Stockholm.
France(15): Brest, Bristol, Copenhagen, Flanders, Holstein,
Lorraine, Lower Saxony, Mecklenburg, Paris, Rhineland-Westphalia, Savoy,
Scotland, Swabia, Switzerland, United Provinces.
Poland-Lithuania(11):
Courland, Cracow, Moscow, Novgorod, Prussia, Riga, Stettin, Turkestan, Vilna,
Voronezh, Warsaw.
Spain(7): Algiers, Madrid, Marseilles, Morocco,
Portugal, Seville, Tunis.
Turkey(13): Belgrade, Candia, Constantinople,
Crimea, Damascus, Moldavia, Naples, Papal States, Persia, Transylvania,
Tuscany, Ukraine, Wallachia.
DEADLINE SCHEDULE: (all orders are due NLT
6PM CET (i.e. GMT+1)...not local
time)
o Summer 1659 Retreats: 28 May
o Fall 1659 Moves: (31 May) 2 June
o Winter 1659 Retreats/Adjustments: 4
June
ORDERS MAP:
RESULTS MAP:[Reply] |
| DC289: End of Game - txurce (May 27, 2010, 10:40 am) |
| As a curious observer on the outside looking in, why didn't the survivors look at the big picture (as one of you mentioned) and contest a solo that wasn't close to being a sure thing? [Reply] |
| DC 298 Fall 1920: Results and a Final Disappearanc... - garry.bledsoe (May 27, 2010, 10:15 am) |
We Bid Farewell to the ChickenBristol, Rob, as a Final NMR Sees Him Sent Off by Russian ArmiesA WB Game That Will Go Into the 21st Year - UNBELIEVABLE!Russia Edges Ever Closer to the Promised Land Sitting on 17 CentersThe Italian/Russian Orders Look Like a Cluster of Bad Guesses As EVERYTHING BOUNCES
All,Rob is eliminated and so now there are three. There were no retreats needed so we shall move to Winter (which we would do anyway). Everybody remaining makes adjustments:
France -1Italy +1Russia +2
Let's get those in by tomorrow!
Our center count is 6, 11, 17.
Garry
England: F Holland, no move received (*Disbanded*)
France: A Belgium Supports A Burgundy (*Cut*)A Burgundy Supports A BelgiumF Clyde - Norwegian SeaF English Channel - North Sea (*Fails*)A London - WalesA Picardy Supports A BelgiumF Yorkshire - Edinburgh (*Fails*)
Italy: F Adriatic Sea - Trieste (*Bounce*)A Apulia - VeniceA Bulgaria - Serbia (*Fails*)F Constantinople - Black Sea (*Bounce*)F Eastern Mediterranean - Smyrna (*Bounce*)F Greece - Bulgaria(sc) (*Bounce*)F Ionian Sea - Adriatic Sea (*Fails*)F Smyrna - Constantinople (*Fails*)A Trieste - Budapest (*Bounce*)A Venice - Piedmont
Russia: A Ankara - Smyrna (*Bounce*)A Berlin - MunichF Edinburgh HoldA Kiel Supports A Ruhr - HollandA Livonia - WarsawA Munich - RuhrF North Sea - Belgium (*Fails*)A Ruhr - HollandA Rumania - Bulgaria (*Bounce*)A Serbia - Budapest (*Bounce*)F Sevastopol - Black Sea (*Bounce*)A St Petersburg - FinlandA Tyrolia - Trieste (*Bounce*)A Vienna - Budapest (*Bounce*)A Warsaw - Galicia
Hotmail is redefining busy with tools for the New Busy. Get more from your inbox. See how.[Reply] |
| DC 298 Fall 1920: Results and a Final Disappearance (Winter Blitz) DrSwordopolis May 27, 02:12 pm |
Bye, Rob. When you actually played, you were a valiant opponent.
Best of luck in the future.
On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 8:15 AM, Garry Bledsoe <kielmarch(at)hotmail.com> wrote:
We Bid Farewell to the ChickenBristol, Rob, as a Final NMR Sees Him Sent Off by Russian ArmiesA WB Game That Will Go Into the 21st Year - UNBELIEVABLE!
Russia Edges Ever Closer to the Promised Land Sitting on 17 CentersThe Italian/Russian Orders Look Like a Cluster of Bad Guesses As EVERYTHING BOUNCES
All,Rob is eliminated and so now there are three. There were no retreats needed so we shall move to Winter (which we would do anyway). Everybody remaining makes adjustments:
France -1Italy +1
Russia +2
Let's get those in by tomorrow!
Our center count is 6, 11, 17.
Garry
England:
F Holland, no move received (*Disbanded*)
France:
A Belgium Supports A Burgundy (*Cut*)A Burgundy Supports A BelgiumF Clyde - Norwegian Sea
F English Channel - North Sea (*Fails*)A London - WalesA Picardy Supports A Belgium
F Yorkshire - Edinburgh (*Fails*)
Italy:
F Adriatic Sea - Trieste (*Bounce*)A Apulia - VeniceA Bulgaria - Serbia (*Fails*)
F Constantinople - Black Sea (*Bounce*)F Eastern Mediterranean - Smyrna (*Bounce*)
F Greece - Bulgaria(sc) (*Bounce*)F Ionian Sea - Adriatic Sea (*Fails*)F Smyrna - Constantinople (*Fails*)
A Trieste - Budapest (*Bounce*)A Venice - Piedmont
Russia: A Ankara - Smyrna (*Bounce*)A Berlin - Munich
F Edinburgh HoldA Kiel Supports A Ruhr - HollandA Livonia - Warsaw
A Munich - RuhrF North Sea - Belgium (*Fails*)A Ruhr - Holland
A Rumania - Bulgaria (*Bounce*)A Serbia - Budapest (*Bounce*)F Sevastopol - Black Sea (*Bounce*)
A St Petersburg - FinlandA Tyrolia - Trieste (*Bounce*)A Vienna - Budapest (*Bounce*)
A Warsaw - Galicia
Hotmail is redefining busy with tools for the New Busy. Get more from your inbox. See how. |
| DC289: End of Game - DucatiRider (May 27, 2010, 9:35 am) |
Congrats to Pontus. Turkey seemed to sneak up in this game as the dominate nation. I guess with most of us concentrating on France and Austria it allowed Turkey to grow without too much resistance. It's a good reminder that sometimes you have to drop your agenda and tactics for the big picture.
On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 10:49 PM, Rocketship <rocketship.rocketship(at)gmail.com> wrote:
Oh yeah. Whoops. Well, after we got past the rough beginning it was good though, eh?
Matthew
On May 26, 2010, at 8:44 PM, Jeffrey Krauss wrote:
Thanks for a fun game everyone! It started out a bit rough (I find Matthew's "no NMRs" amusing given the first year and our couple of abandons ), but after we got a good set of folks playing, it was quite enjoyable!
-Jeff
> Subject: DC289: End of Game
> From: rocketship.rocketship(at)gmail.com[Reply] |
| DC289: End of Game (dc289) txurce May 27, 10:40 am |
| As a curious observer on the outside looking in, why didn't the survivors look at the big picture (as one of you mentioned) and contest a solo that wasn't close to being a sure thing? |
| The new forum look - dknemeyer (May 27, 2010, 9:09 am) |
| The main issue absolutely is the contrast. Peach on grey just ain't easy to read. [Reply] |
| The new forum look (Help & Suggestions) FuzzyLogic May 27, 08:58 pm |
Since we have the picture frame look what would ppl think if we went to a canvas-colored background, and black text? A lighter canvas than we have on the left side, in the currently dark frame?
Or is it as simple as a whiter font color? The peach is hard to read on the gray, agreed. It's easier to read on the charcoal. |
| The new forum look (Help & Suggestions) dknemeyer May 27, 09:37 pm |
| It would take some testing. The key is lots of contrast; the optimal is near-white on near-black or vice-versa for readability, but you don't need to be that pure. Given the aesthetic that you've established here I might suggest making the grey darker, maybe quite a bit darker, and get the font as close to white without breaking your overall colour palette as possible. That should do it. The only thing to be aware of then is whether or not those changes clash with other font/backgrounds elsewhere on the site so it no longer seems coherent. |
| DC287 - Fall 2004 - Viper (May 27, 2010, 12:58 am) |
And here they are. The slight delay brought in all the necessary orders and we're all happy... well, maybe not some of you, but me, at least. There are officially three retreats up for consideration, but I won't blame Europe if he just lets his go OTB. This brings to an end another European power. Thanks, Mark, for sticking it out right to the end. The moves:
Quebec:
F English Channel Supports F Paris
F Bermuda Triangle - Caribbean Sea
F Hudson Bay - Nunavut
F Quebec - Toronto
A Arkansas - Dallas
A Los Angeles Supports A Arkansas - Dallas
F Gulf of Mexico Supports A Arkansas - Dallas
A Chicago - Wyoming (*bounce*)
F Bogota - Panama
Mexico:
F Hokkaido Supports F Tokyo
F Tokyo Supports F Hokkaido
A Vancouver - Wyoming (*bounce*)
A Dallas Supports A Mexico City (*dislodged*)
A Mexico City Supports A Dallas
F Pacific Ocean - Honolulu (*fails*)
F Bering Sea - Anchorage
Amazon:
F Sea of Alcatraz - Honolulu
F Ascension Sea - Fortaleza (*bounce*)
F Accra - Ascension Sea (*dislodged*)
Europe:
A Frankfurt Holds (*dislodged*)
Russia:
A Yakutsk Supports F Vladivostok
F Vladivostok Supports A Yakutsk (*cut*)
A Karelia - Moscow
A Nizhniy-Novgorod Supports A Yamalia - Astana
A Yamalia - Astana (*fails*)
A Zagreb - Rome (*fails*)
F Paris Holds
F North Sea - Frankfurt
A Vienna Supports F North Sea - Frankfurt
A Bucharest - Ukraine
Sahara:
A Niger - Accra
F Tyrrhenian Sea - Algiers
F Rome Holds
F Mali - Dakar
A Lagos Supports A Niger - Accra
Congo:
A Tripoli Supports A Chad - Niger
A Chad - Niger
F Ionian Sea - Tunisia
F Aegean Sea - Ionian Sea
A Sudan - Chad
F Maputo - Nosy Barrens
A Luanda - Cameroon
F St. Helena Sea Convoys A Luanda - Cameroon
A Brasilia - Rio de Janeiro
A Amazon - Fortaleza (*bounce*)
F Rio de la Plata - Sao Paulo
Persia:
F Ankara Supports A Caucasus
A Riyadh - Baghdad
A Caucasus Supports A Astana
A Uzbekistan Supports A Astana
A Astana Holds
F Mumbai - Orissa
A Karach Supports A Delhi
A Delhi Supports F Mumbai - Orissa
F Indian Ocean - Jakarta (*fails*)
China:
A Ulaanbaatar - Vladivostok (*fails*)
A Beijing Supports A Ulaanbaatar - Vladivostok (*cut*)
F Sea of Japan Supports A Ulaanbaatar - Vladivostok
F East China Sea Supports A Beijing
F Taipei Holds
F Philippines Sea - Jayapura
Oceania:
F Shanghai Supports A Tibet - Beijing
A Tibet - Beijing (*fails*)
F Hong Kong Supports F Shanghai
F Jakarta Supports F Arafura Sea - South China Sea
F Arafura Sea - South China Sea
F Manila Holds
A Bangladesh - Tibet (*fails*)
F Fijian Sea Supports F Sea of Alcatraz - Honolulu
F Lima - Galapagos Sea
Retreats:
Mexico's A Dallas may retreat to Guadalajara or OTB
Amazon's F Accra may retreat to Gulf of Guinea or OTB
Europe's A Frankfurt may retreat to Belgium, Elbe or OTB
Next Deadline:
Autumn 2004 retreats are due on Friday, May 28, at 1pm CDT.[Reply] |
| DC289: End of Game - Rocketship (May 26, 2010, 10:49 pm) |
Oh yeah. Whoops. Well, after we got past the rough beginning it was good though, eh?
Matthew
On May 26, 2010, at 8:44 PM, Jeffrey Krauss wrote:
Thanks for a fun game everyone! It started out a bit rough (I find Matthew's "no NMRs" amusing given the first year and our couple of abandons ), but after we got a good set of folks playing, it was quite enjoyable!
-Jeff
> Subject: DC289: End of Game
> From: rocketship.rocketship(at)gmail.com[Reply] |
| DC289: End of Game - JeffreyK (May 26, 2010, 10:44 pm) |
Thanks for a fun game everyone! It started out a bit rough (I find Matthew's "no NMRs" amusing given the first year and our couple of abandons ), but after we got a good set of folks playing, it was quite enjoyable!
-Jeff
> Subject: DC289: End of Game
> From: rocketship.rocketship(at)gmail.com[Reply] |
