From: Jorge Saralegui <jmsaralegui(at)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Ambition & Empire 090205 / DC240: Players & Powers
To: "Warren Ball" <warren_k_ball(at)yahoo.com>
Cc: "Mark" <mdemagogue(at)gmail.com>, "Nick Higgins" <congressofvienna1814(at)yahoo.com>, frankmartin(at)surewest.net, "to jeffrey kase" <jeffreykase(at)yahoo.com>, nathanbalbright(at)yahoo.com, davidchegould(at)bigpond.com, David.Gould(at)aph.gov.au, kelly058(at)verizon.net, smileyrob68(at)gmail.com, isaac.zinner(at)gmail.com, VonPowell(at)aol.com, "Chris Dziedzic" <dipping_chris(at)yahoo.com>, toosauto(at)gmail.com, dc240(at)diplomaticcorp.com, stevelytton(at)hotmail.com, c.p.mcinerney(at)gmail.com, karsten.nitsch(at)gmx.de, former.trout(at)gmail.com, Sturmkraehe(at)comcast.net, "Michael Norton" <mjn82(at)yahoo.com>
Date: Tuesday, June 9, 2009, 11:22 AM

Warren,

Most of your observations are on the money, but you're wrong on two points.


First, Spain never went back to Britain after multiple stabs. After the French convoy stab, he "intermarried" with Austria and worked in tandem with me for the rest of the game. It was only five years later, at my request (and trust me, solely to end a game that no longer mattered to him) that he supported Britain into Brc in exchange for support into Alg. That hardly constitutes "going back for more stabs."


Second, France didn't say that no one else offered him any sort of deal (although I can see why you misread his EOG that way). I offered him two separate deals - one in winter 1763 and another, better one in 1768 - that France accepted. France explained why he chose to break those deals: a better offer the first time around, (undeserved) mistrust the second.


In my opinion, a sustained effort by France against Britain in tandem with Austria could have stopped the solo. However, France was in the difficult position of trying not to thrive, but just survive, from the first turn on. If anyone deserves to be cut slack for taking his eyes off the British ball, it's him.


Jorge




On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 8:00 AM, Warren Ball <warren_k_ball(at)yahoo.com ([email]warren_k_ball(at)yahoo.com[/email])> wrote:
[quote:c6822369a9] Alas, where there is a solo, there is also finger pointing. So & so #1 didn't communicate, so & so #2 played bad tactics that allowed the solo, etc.

As I pointed out b4 the EoG's, Frank won because of 2 reasons. (1) he is the most experienced player in the variant (2) he stabbed people whose "retaliation" was then going back for MORE stabs, over & over. Let me now add a 3rd- Frank's tactics were indeed exemplary.

France was the player who kept going back for more stabs (followed by Spain). But he made clear in his EoG, y he did that. Nobody else was going to give him any kind of deal, so he stuck w/Frank after the initial stab. I don't agree w/that kind of thinking (I always go after the stabber) but I understand. This is a game of alliances & if you're not going to give somebody something reasonable, he's not gonna ally w/u.

So it's easy to criticize France but nobody offered him anything & France was never in position to stop the solo. What happened to all the players who couldn't temporarily put their conflicts on hold, to stop the solo? Everyone else lost, when England won.

So b4 pointing fingers at any individual player, all the other players should stop & think what THEY could have done, to stop the solo.

--- On Tue, 6/9/09, Mark <mdemagogue(at)gmail.com ([email]mdemagogue(at)gmail.com[/email])> wrote:

[quote:c6822369a9]
From: Mark <mdemagogue(at)gmail.com ([email]mdemagogue(at)gmail.com[/email])>
Subject: Re: Ambition & Empire 090205 / DC240: Players & Powers

To: "Jorge Saralegui" <jmsaralegui(at)gmail.com ([email]jmsaralegui(at)gmail.com[/email])>
Cc: "Nick Higgins" <congressofvienna1814(at)yahoo.com ([email]congressofvienna1814(at)yahoo.com[/email])>, frankmartin(at)surewest.net ([email]frankmartin(at)surewest.net[/email]), "Warren Ball" <warren_k_ball(at)yahoo.com ([email]warren_k_ball(at)yahoo.com[/email])>, "to jeffrey kase" <jeffreykase(at)yahoo.com ([email]jeffreykase(at)yahoo.com[/email])>, nathanbalbright(at)yahoo.com ([email]nathanbalbright(at)yahoo.com[/email]), davidchegould(at)bigpond.com ([email]davidchegould(at)bigpond.com[/email]), David.Gould(at)aph.gov.au ([email]David.Gould(at)aph.gov.au[/email]), kelly058(at)verizon.net ([email]kelly058(at)verizon.net[/email]), smileyrob68(at)gmail.com ([email]smileyrob68(at)gmail.com[/email]), isaac.zinner(at)gmail.com ([email]isaac.zinner(at)gmail.com[/email]), VonPowell(at)aol.com ([email]VonPowell(at)aol.com[/email]), "Chris Dziedzic" <dipping_chris(at)yahoo.com ([email]dipping_chris(at)yahoo.com[/email])>, toosauto(at)gmail.com ([email]toosauto(at)gmail.com[/email]), dc240(at)diplomaticcorp.com ([email]dc240(at)diplomaticcorp.com[/email]), stevelytton(at)hotmail.com ([email]stevelytton(at)hotmail.com[/email]), c.p.mcinerney(at)gmail.com ([email]c.p.mcinerney(at)gmail.com[/email]), karsten.nitsch(at)gmx.de ([email]karsten.nitsch(at)gmx.de[/email]), former.trout(at)gmail.com ([email]former.trout(at)gmail.com[/email]), Sturmkraehe(at)comcast.net ([email]Sturmkraehe(at)comcast.net[/email]), "Michael Norton" <mjn82(at)yahoo.com ([email]mjn82(at)yahoo.com[/email])>
Date: Tuesday, June 9, 2009, 12:46 AM

Since I've been assailed as an uncommunicative player it's time to correct that impression.

In response to Poland, I initially attempted to communicate with you but received no response. I'll forward the emails I sent asking what the army in Lusatia was going to do in fall of 63 to which I got no response. Communication between us at that point would have been vital, as you could have gained a third center in the center instead of holing up in my roach motel. The only other communication I received from you was a truce after you took an SC from me. That truce had no terms, except "that you weren't giving up any of your conquests" and didn't outine any expectations for a working relationship. Don't waste my email space with drivel like that.

There was no substantial attempt by Russia to establish communication, nor, after year one was there much of a point, given that all of your forces were attempting to stop sweden in the north. At that point non existant plans for courland seemed rather pointless. Given that my forces were similarly disposed there wasn't much use in us communicating.

As for Jorge, yeah, I miscued on that move. Also, I'm only human, and I got a little irritated at how your strategies always seemed to benefit everyone else you were in a working relationship with but me, Frank referred to that as "austrian diplomacy" and that was the blowback. In retrospect, it was a mistake, but I didn't really gain much from allying with you did I?

Overall, I was displeased with my choice of power, and how I played the game, but I was not at all surprised by the outcome given that Denmark and Turkey were doing everything they could do to make sure that Britain soloed. I'm not entirely sure why Turkey and Denmark fell for the lame threat construction (OMG AUSTRIA IS GOING TO SOLO) even though he was clearly on the defensive after plateuing at 8 centers, but we all can't be as smart as I am.

As an afterword, it was kind of hard, for me at least, to tell what spaces on the map bordered which (particularly Dre and Lus), and for that matter which units were where.


On Mon, Jun 8, 2009 at 8:55 PM, Jorge Saralegui <jmsaralegui(at)gmail.com> wrote:

[quote:c6822369a9] I would like to thank the academy… I have never made more of an effort, had worse results, or enjoyed a game more than I did this one (well, except for the time I came back from the dead to eliminate board leader Ray Bruce). That is meant to be a high compliment to Jeff and Baron, whose variant is currently my favorite version of Diplomacy, bar none. It’s an even bigger compliment to Nick, who managed this game expertly, offered entertaining public commentary, and engaged in a running dialogue with me that provided welcome A&E history as well as circumspect commentary on my orders (which I explained in detail). Finally I appreciated the dedication of all the players, which resulted in no NMR’s (technically, anyway!) and considered play by just about all.
My game could be divided into two phases. Let’s call the first one:
Why I failed to solo
This was my first time playing A&E. Austria’s advantage was obviously biggest at the start, and I mapped out a strategy to solo in as little as four years. The key was destroying France, which would give me enough access to the central neutrals that I would only need to pick up a center or two from a northern power in order to quickly and inoffensively win. I allied with Britain and Spain, offering them all of the French spoils. My intent was to give each of them exctly what they wanted, while growing faster than either of them could. I made a deal with Turkey that gave me TwS in exchange for not building any fleets, neutrality pacts with Prussia and Poland, and encouraged Denmark and Sweden to ally. 1763 played out like it did on my chalkboard, permanently crippling France.
1764 brought first war with Turkey, who was understandably unhappy over how well I was doing under our agreement, and then with Britain, who made peace with France in order to stop me. My mistake here was to agree to help France survive, with only a vague sense of how that would help me. But the bottom line was that I was still in good shape for a solo, due mainly to the neutrals I had stacked up in reserve.
1765 was my year of frustration. Spain had joined with Britain and Turkey against me and France, but I convinced Spain (correctly) that he would ultimately be sandwiched by Britain and Turkey. We agreed that he would help France (who remained unaware of these plans) and that he could position himself to take Africa by seemingly moving in on me. This could have resulted in a sweep of the Med. Unfortunately, we miscommunicated on an order, and had to wait another year to try again. That chance would never come.
At the same time, I thought I had allied with Prussia, whose uncommunicativeness had left him isolated and in trouble. Thus, when Poland and Turkey made a move on Bud in the spring, I retreated to the west, counting on Prussia to cut any attack on Bud. That fall I orchestrated a complicated set of orders that would have given me a third fleet against Turkey, and victory in the SE while keeping Britain at bay. Only one thing went wrong: Prussia stabbed me, costing me Bud. For no reason, no gain – we were back to cooperating vaguely from then on – and only because of one of several dubious last-minute deadline extensions requested to finalize stabs this game. Those are the breaks, and that was the end of my controlling my own destiny.
Why I couldn’t stop Britain from soloing Having conceded my sprint, I told France – just stabbed by Britain – to retreat into Dre (my SC). The very next turn – spring of 1766 – France joined Britain’s stab of Spain. Ironically, this killed my plan to restore France, and of course did France no good. I rolled with the punch and approached Turkey about allying against the stabbing corner power who had now tied for the lead. After extremely long negotiations, Turkey agreed, if I disbanded one of my fleets. This was fine with me, since my goal was to stop Britain in his tracks. I executed a switch with Spain where he took two of my Italian centers, and we convoyed one of my armies to Spain. If I wasn’t going to solo, then neither was Britain.
Or so I thought. In spring of 1767, Turkey stabbed me. Given our absurdly long negotiations, and how sloppily the stab was executed, I believed his denial. So he stabbed me again in the fall. Imagine my embarrassment. I was essentially no worse off than before, but Spain had been reduced to reliable adjunct status. And Turkey probably felt that he had elevated himself into Contender status, since he was tied for the lead with Britain at 8, while resurgent Denmark and I were at 7.
A word about Contender #3: After David patiently and expertly stabbed his way to viability, I encouraged him to ally with Prussia against Britain, but he chose to stab Prussia and add to his center count. I feel that this is where an excellent, even exemplary, game was lost: Denmark didn’t have the nerve to take on Britain under reasonable conditions, and rationalized it by staying close as he worked with Britain for his own gain while counting on me to slow down the Brits.
And count on me he could. In 1768 I decided not to do the obvious – regroup by retaking Bud or my loaned-out Italian centers – and stay focused on the big picture. I kept applying as much pressure as possible on Britain, and counterattacked Turkey with what was left. Of tremendous help was the game-long DP support I had, which I attributed to diligence, verifiable straightforwardness, and the fact that I needed them to stay afloat in the Med while I tried to stop Britain. I convinced France to rejoin me, and helped him take Brc from Turkey. But to our frustration, we failed to also retake Mar from Britain when Spain couldn’t be reached to change his orders. An effort to go for HeW instead fell short when Britain switched his orders at the last moment. By the end of the year Turkey had lost his gains and I controlled Italy once again, but I had made no progress in slowing Britain.
That winter I built an army instead of a fleet to once again convince Turkey to stop the British solo. But Turkey continued to pressure me in the spring of 1769, and Britain stabbed Denmark, seemingly giving him the game. Surprisingly Britain shifted gears in the fall and spared Denmark to stab Turkey. He would have paid for it had France not lied to me about where he was moving, sparing Britain from losing HeW. France told me he thought I had tipped off Britain about our attack the prior turn – something so nutty that I could explain it only by the fact that France stabbed (and was stabbed by Britain) so often that he saw only subterfuge behind every move. The only thing that could have surprised me more was Turkey refusing yet another offer on my part to stop a 12-dot Britain. Two years after stabbing me in favor of Britain, Britain was up four, I was up one, and he was down two. But to the amusement of all my correspondents, Turkey continued to ignore the big picture, abandoning Mor in order to keep the pressure on me.
A word about Contender #2: Frank stabbed even more frequently than Denmark, with the downside of being board leader, and made it worse by laughing about it in his press (which I found useful because it sometimes revealed that he was allied with someone I hadn’t suspected). I had no doubt that it would all come back to haunt him, if I just stayed the course and played to stop Britain. It took me until almost the end of the game to give him the credit he deserved. His tactical game was flawless; the worst that I could say is that he should have finished off Denmark rather than shifting south, and there’s no way to call that a clear error. Early on he correctly convinced the board that I was a threat to solo. And he played Denmark and Turkey expertly after that, using very different piano keys, so that neither ever did anything to stop him. (I don’t think anyone played France – he played himself.) With as much effort and example as I put into my diplomacy, Frank did a better job – an amazing job - where it counted.
1770 dawned with Denmark making his annual promise that this year he really, really was going to attack Britain, Turkey loading both barrels for Austria, and France on Britain’s side for good. Forget soloing – there was nobody viable willing to stop Britain and play for a draw. I could either accept that, or continue fighting a 360-degree holding action that would possibly give the game to Denmark. I had zero reason to do that for David; his unwillingness to move out from under Britain’s wing, and the constant double-dealing that required, finally came back to bite him. I let Denmark and Turkey know that I would be adopting their strategy. Two turns after the finger was pulled from the dike, Britain had a solo.


Jorge


On Mon, Jun 8, 2009 at 3:00 PM, Michael Norton <mjn82(at)yahoo.com> wrote:
[quote:c6822369a9]
Congratulations Frank,

You definitely the deserved the victory!

Well, I asked for France and certainly made an early game mistake in my dipping. It was minimal the first turn as I was not only busy, but truly wanted a season to get a feel for the players. Big mistake. I had agreements in place with AH and Spain and a non-commital response from England that I thought would be sufficient.

I response I got a three way effort to dissemble France that quickly paired me to two centers. I quickly tried to craft another border agreement with Isaac and support from Austria to help fend off Frank. Isaac, once again violated the agreement immediately and that was pretty much the last time I had any real dipping with Spain.

Too survive I had to walk a fine line between AH and B, managing to get back to 3 centers, but it became obvious Jorge would never provide any help against Spain and I became convinced that S and A were very tight. I also flt A was never going to let me grow beyond 3 centers and that he telegraphed my last stab of Frank that should have brought me to 4 or possibly 5 centers. So I through my lot in with Frank, my goal being to help him solo as possible while surviving at the end of the game.

My most satisfying moment was the attack on Spain netting Barcelona and Madrid and evicting Isaac from Iberia.

So in retrospect, I should have pursued Austria or Britain aggressively early in the game. But i did have great fun playing with both of them.

I did think it was humorous that I got a complaint from a neighbor about being trustworthy when they had already stabbed me in the first year of the game. After a stab, all bets are off.

Enjoyed playing with all of you.

Mike

.