Sorry for the late EOG - I have had a busy week.

While we certainly all share responsibility for allowing Frank to reach the solo, much of it is mine. I will lay out my thinking on playing Diplomacy in general and Denmark in this game in particular.

I am an alliance player. By that, I mean that I tend to pick an ally fairly early on in the game and try to stick with them for the vast bulk of the game. I am very happy to draw under such circumstances, but I also think that being part of a firm alliance is the best way to get close enough to win. However, doing so also enables the ally to get close enough to win. That is always the risk. I am a player who considers that a victory by another player equates to my own elimination, so I am never happy when another player wins. But I am willing to take that risk in pursuit of my own victory or place in a draw.

On to this particular game.

I found Denmark very challenging. At the outset, I knew that it was going to be difficult to expand. So I decided to ally with both Sweden and Britain if that were possible. I had played in two games with Frank previously and we were enemies for most of both of them. However, I felt that I knew his style a little and thought that when he proposed a North Sea DMZ right from the start that he was probably on the level. Sweden seemed keen, and with our obvious target as Russia, we started hammering away. In vain, unfortunately. I had intended to stick with both Britain and Sweden for the long haul, intending to build in northern Germany and looking to see where I could go once on five or six pieces. But we got stuck. I think that this was due to a bit of bad luck and some good play by Nathan more than horrible play by Kurt and I. But the result was the same. With Frank growing in leaps and bounds, being stuck on two pieces was not tenable. So I stabbed Kurt.

Kurt mentioned that I then proceeded to show him how attacking Russia was done. He forgets that I had a huge advantage here: I was now in a position to gain strategic surprise on Russia when I attacked him immediately after eliminating Sweden. This strategic surprise was the key to taking him down in the north, and it was something that our alliance was never going to be able to pull off.

My diplomatic goals need to be mentioned here. I was now trying to gain control of the north-east, playing on people's fear of Britain and Austria while at the same time using the expectation that at some point I was bound to attack Frank. As Jorge has mentioned, I went to the well once to often with this last one. . Having Britain and Austria remain at loggerheads while not making too much headway was key here. To that end, I committed myself to using my DPs to supporting Austria where possible, while trying to use information from one against the other. I also wanted Turkey to be fighting both powers (if possible) but to at least look vulnerable enough in the med to keep tempting Frank that way rather than northwards into my holdings.

To this end, I pushed Turkey to send forces my way. This was to my advantage, as I felt that I could win against the small number of armies that he would have available. And taking all the centres down to Crimea was a part of my victory plan. And it would keep Frank's eyes fixed on the med.

I always felt that the three powers most likely to win the game were Austria, Frank and me, in that order, by the way, simply because my fight with Frank was inevitable and that it would likely be a stalemate early on. If Austria had the nerve to hold on, he could perhaps sweep up the Spanish centres and Marseilles, creating enough momentum to brush the Polish/Turkish alliance aside. But victory is always difficult and I obviously misjudged the situation.

I was never worried about a British stab on me leading to victory. I felt that I could not hold Copenhagen or Christania, but that Britain would have a tough time heading further in. And I was sure that Austria would be able to take advantage of such a war. Thus, I felt secure in taking risks - risks that I needed to take, given my very slow start, in order to get anywhere near the totals of those in the lead.

On the fake and real stabs and their reversals by Frank, I think that he should not have bothered with these. I was happy to go along with the fake one, as it slowed him down. And I was relatively ready for the second one, in that if I was him I would have attacked either me or Turkey really hard - all those fleets were going to waste hanging around British waters. However, given that he won the game, I cannot really criticise him.

I had terrible diplomatic relations with both Prussia and Turkey. For that, I am truly sorry. I made errors in both relationships, reading into emails things that were never intended.

Frank and I had a very good relationship, but we never got to cooperate tactically, which is a shame, I think. I prefer alliances in which the tactical fits easily, and this relationship was much too distance in many respects.

Jorge and I had many good conversations, and I hope that he forgives me for my continued assurances regarding my impending - any moment now! - attack on Britain. Jorge and I were each other's best hope for victory, and, while never cooperating, we helped each over many years.

It is very difficult playing a two-centre power. I have now played three of them, however, and I think that they all have potential. Things have to go right, of course, but they do for the four-centre powers, too. I think that Austria is the most challenging power, personally. In my opinion, Jorge played extremely well to not collapse as I have seen Austria do in previous games.

Congratulations again to Frank. He played very well, but I - like my sometimes alter ego, Anonymous (I didn't post all the anonymous messages, but I did post a few ), do not think that he was sufficiently challenged here; certainly not by me. Next time, I will try to ensure that he has to work harder for his victories.

David








ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn

-----Original Message-----
From: Robert Stein [mailto:smileyrob68(at)gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, 10 June 2009 11:19
To: Warren Ball
Cc: Jorge Saralegui; Mark; Nick Higgins; frankmartin(at)surewest.net; to jeffrey kase; nathanbalbright(at)yahoo.com; davidchegould(at)bigpond.com; Gould, David (DPS); kelly058(at)verizon.net; isaac.zinner(at)gmail.com; VonPowell(at)aol.com; Chris Dziedzic; 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
Subject: Re: Ambition & Empire 090205 / DC240: Players & Powers


I guess it is about time I write an EOG and add my two cents to the discussion, particularly as it seems my decision to retreat to Ion in the second to last game year triggered Jorge and his vassal Isaac giving Frank the final centers needed for a solo victory. But before getting into all of that, I'd like to thank Nick for mastering this game and inviting me to play. It's my second game of A&E. I played Denmark once a while ago when the some of the rules and map were a bit different. I like the game, and look forward to playing again. I also wish to congratulate Frank on a game well played, and a deserved victory, even if I don't like how the game ended.

At the beginning of the game I tried my best to negotiate demilitarized buffer zones with my three closest neighbors. Austria and Russia were willing to do this; Spain was not. The refusal of Spain to demilitarize Wes was a major factor in determining my opening. I sincerely wanted a demilitarized Wes so that I could feel free to move north without fear of attack through the Ion. Had Isaac agreed to the demilitarized zone, I am positive I would have ordered Con-Bla rather than Con-Ion and tried to make Cri rather than Tun my third build center. But I felt Isaac had made it clear that the African centers were a high priority and I knew that if I didn't move towards Tun immediately, I'd soon see Spanish fleets threatening Con. Though I wouldn't be able to exploit the Russian move north and impending conflict with Sweden I knew was coming, at least that knowledge gave me confidence that I could move to the med without worrying about Russia attacking me.

In the first winter I received a letter from Jorge that really set the tone for the whole game, the letter demanding I either agree to support him to TWS that fall or allow him to build a fleet so that he could take it himself. Yes I had agreed in the build up to the first turn to eventually support him to Tws so long as he take it with an army and not develop any navy at all. I never expected him to call in that marker in the second year, and the fact that he did, and wouldn't back off his demands let me know that he was looking at me much more as a target than as an ally. Jorge wrote in his EOG that I reacted as I did because I was "understandably unhappy over how well I was doing under our agreement" That is not entirely the case. I reacted as I did because he was making a demand that completely tied my hands and prevented me from doing anything that turn other than helping him. In fact in the letter making the demand he wrote how my convoy to Tunis put me in good position to "take a turn off." I wrote Jorge "If you needed Two Sicilies this year, I would have no problem supporting you there. But you do not. You can easily gain four other supply centers [Bav, Swi, Tus, Pap the neutrals Jorge had "stacked in reserve"] while letting The Two Sicilies remain neutral. In either scenario you propose, either by directly supporting you to The Two Sicilies or by covering Con should you occupy Adr, I have to expend at least one unit in order to ensure you can take Two Sicilies, a center you do not need. Yet I only have three units, and cannot possibly take another center if I have to use at least one to help you take The Two Sicilies while at the same time worrying about an attack from Spain. Please explain to me how this scenario, which sees you take possibly five centers this year, but limits me to zero while exposing me to an attack from Spain, constitutes you cooperating with me? If you were truly cooperative, you would recognize that the conditions that would have allowed me to commit to supporting you to The Two Sicilies simply do not exist, while the condition that now causes me to think that an Austrian fleet would be a great threat to Turkey, namely that you have already showed yourself to be allied with Spain, a power that refuses to negotiate any type of peace agreement with Turkey, does." I even wrote with a plan that would see me take Alg in 1764, build F Tun that winter which could then do the job of F Ion in defending Wes so that I would be able to support him to Tws in 1765, but I also made it clear that if Austria built a fleet, there would be war between Austria and Turkey. Yet Jorge replied that since I could not commit to supporting him to Tws in 1764 he was building that fleet, and build it he did. The war between Austria and Turkey had nothing to do with my unhappiness over Jorge's success, and it certainly was never about rallying to Frank's pleas to stop an Austrian solo; it was always and only about Jorge's decision to build a fleet, to occupy Tws with a fleet, and to keep a fleet within easy striking distance of Con and Tun.

But yes soon thereafter Frank began trying to build an anti-Austrian coalition. As I was already committed to fighting Austria, and would rather fight with allies than alone, why wouldn't I join? So I joined with Britain and Spain in a coalition to fight Austria in Germany and the med, although I thought both Britain and Spain seemed at least as interested in fighting France as Austria. After a bit, I came to doubt the sincerity of Isaac's commitment to fight Austria at all, a doubt which given Jorge's EOG seems to have been valid. Thus when in preparing for S 1766 I heard from Frank that he was planning on stabbing France, I pitched the idea that he stab Spain instead, and use France to do it by convoying Bre-Por. Frank agreed to do so, so long as I agreed to side with him when he eventually stabbed France. If Isaac had been less transparently pro-Austrian, I may have just let Frank stab Mike and tried to proceed with the BST alliance against Jorge. But between the perceived disloyalty of Spain to that alliance and the knowledge that long-term France would be more able to counter-balance Britain than a Spain who was neglecting Mid, I not only supported the BF stab of Spain, I was its architect.

Nevertheless after it happened I received a letter from Jorge about how I had been the one most disadvantaged by that stab, and an offer to end our war and join an alliance with Austria and Spain against Britain and France. Had I at all believed that Spain and Austria had ever stopped being allies, maybe I would have bought this pitch, but as it was i believed this was just another attempt by Austria and Spain to manipulate me to their, I mean Austria's, advantage. So there never was a "stab" of Austria. During that year in which I "negotiated" with Austria and Spain, I never stopped being loyal to Britain and France. If Austria wanted to manipulate me by acting as my ally, I wasn't above doing the same thing to him. Maybe in the fall of that year I had a moment where I actually considered going through with the attack on Britain and France, but I stuck with them for a few reasons. First Austria's insistence on a set of tactics that put his fleet in Wes without leaving me any units to defend my African centers made me fear that all he wanted to do was steal those centers. Perhaps more fundamental though was Isaac's absence from the negotiations, and the realization that Spain and Austria were indeed "intermarried" with Isaac ceding all power to negotiate and probably even make orders to Jorge. On the other hand, even if I didn't agree with everything Mike or Frank did, at least we were an alliance of three independent agents who could work things out through negotiation. The decision to stick with BF over AS was as much, if not more, pro-Mike and anti-Isaac than it was pro-Frank and anti-Jorge. Although I would be dishonest if I said there was not some degree of pro-Frank and anti-Jorge. Working with Frank felt much more like being part of a coalition, working with Jorge felt like being under the control of a dictator. Once Jorge made a suggestion, you could write letters until your hands fell off but there was never any give and take, at least as he dealt with me. I also detected a condescending attitude towards me that shines through in his EOG. He's the only one who sees the "big picture." Really, maybe the picture is just different depending on which seat you are sitting in, but with Jorge, if you don't see the picture as he demands you see it, there is something questionable or laughable about the way you play the game.

Meanwhile in the east, when I saw the Polish army in Boh I wrote offering to support him into Bud. Though there had been no real relationship between the two of us prior to that, I felt putting Poland in Bud, and denying Jorge his build center closest to Con could only be a good thing. And from that point on, Matt was truest, closest ally I had. Around this time Denmark had successfully stabbed Sweden, and was beginning to move on both Prussia and Russia. David wrote proposing a three way alliance amongst Denmark, Poland, and Turkey that when originally proposed would have seen Poland come to control War, Kie, and Mos. I really liked the idea of this alliance. It would have allowed us to pressure both Britain and Austria, and Poland would have been a not insignificant buffer between Denmark and me. Unfortunately David never intended such an alliance but merely sold it to set up his "stab" of me in F1768. I wonder if David had it to do over again if he might actually go through with the DPT alliance. Of course David's is not the stab that hurt. All David did was not give the promised support from Stp for Kaz- Mos (held at the time by Prussia). But if David had not offered that support, I likely would have given the same order he himself gave, Kaz S Russian Army Nov-Mos. But David did make the offer, and I made the order, not really expecting it succeed as David had already shown himself to be unable to tell me a single truth so far in the game, but knowing Kaz-Mos couldn't hurt me either.

No the stab that hurt that fall was Mike taking Brc. I felt I had been in Mike's corner so many times I had lost track. It seemed a seasonal occurrence that I dissuaded Frank from stabbing Mike, I had engineered his convoy to Iberia, and I hadn't attacked Mad when Austria expected me to. Yes Frank did finally stab Mike; I couldn't restrain him any longer, but had Mike not stabbed me, I would have used my army in Brc to help him against Britain, but after being stabbed, I couldn't turn around and help Mike the next year. Still here is where I made the one move I would probably take back, and that is the decision to retreat to Gas. I should have disbanded that army and kept both armies in the east rather than disbanding Zap. But when I suggested to Frank that I might do this, he asked me to keep the army in France and promised to get it into a supply center the next year. Also I had to concede that there was slight possibility that David could construe my armies in Zap and Kaz as threatening and I didn't want to give any him any added incentive to continue concentrating on eastern europe rather than moving against Britain. I knew that though Britain hadn't stabbed me yet, it was only a matter of time, and I really tried my best to secure a friendly relationship with Denmark that would have allowed us to counter-Britain, without taking our thumb off Austria, but no matter what I did, David kept coming further and further south through both Nov and Bal.

Then in 1769 the British stab came. I wasn't furious about the stab, as Frank wrote in his EOG. I was furious about this press Frank submitted with the stab: "England to Turkey: Robert, it came down to your unwillingness to let me help.
All information I had this year is that you will be losing the Western
Med, which cripples your defense of North Africa. Assuming that Jorge would continue to press, and that he has easy builds for the taking in Budapest,
Savoy, etc, I needed to side with somebody who could help me stop an
Austrian solo. I don't plan on taking any Turkish centers (after Paris, which I needed to shore that front), but my fleets are heading through Gibraltar, if they can."

Every line of that press was BS. I only lost Wes because I let myself lose Wes in order to move into position to finally take Tws. Yes I knew in so doing I would be giving an African center to Spain, and yes I knew Spain was Austria's vassal, but though Wes borders three centers, the Spanish fleet could only take one, and Spain couldn't build. By surrounding Tws, I was going to be able to destroy the Austrian fleet, ending any future chance of Austria growing in the med. Sure Spain could take centers, but Austria couldn't. Destroying that fleet was a severe blow to any remnants of a solo threat Austria presented, but yet i was stabbed because I was unable to help stop an Austrian solo? Furthermore, there were no easy builds for the taking in Budapest as my army in Cro could defend it almost indefinitely. The only reason I even had an army in France in general or Paris in particular was at Frank's request, and subsequent to Mike's stab, I was only going to use it to help Britain. And both he and I knew that next spring he would order Mid-Mor not Mid-Gib. Frank you stabbed me to steal a center and make your final push for a solo. I respect that. I don't respect you trying to sugar-coat it with disinformation and false"reasons." I had been a loyal ally from the second game year; I was owed an honest stab.

And that brings us to my retreat. Yes I knew Frank would try for Mor, and I gather that I didn't retreat to Mor was to some amusing and signals my failure to see the "big picture." I just think I saw the picture differently. For starters, if Austria had really wanted me to remain in position to move to Mor next spring, perhaps he should not have ordered the Spanish fleets to dislodge me from Wes. If you are the reason someone has to retreat, it's not right to demand they retreat away from you. But my decision was not based on a simple decision to intentionally not do whatever it was Austria demanded. I reasoned that the Spanish fleet in Wes could just as easily defend Mor as I could, and I was better off finally securing the Ion and doing whatever I could to encourage David and Frank to finally fight one another. This is the letter I wrote Jorge in response to his demand I retreat to Tunis: "Denmark wants me to attack Britain. Britain wants me to attack Denmark. I am sure each feels if I attack the other they will be free to solo. Given I don't have the resources to fight both, I am thinking right now my best strategy may be to attack neither and force them to attack one another if they want to slow the other's progress. Of course that doesn't mean I will just let them take centers. As I told Denmark, my highest priority at this time is ensuring Warsaw remains Polish, Kiev Russian and Moscow is returned to Russia. As for stopping Britain, Isaac is welcome to move to Mor. As long as he blocks Britain from Mor, and doesn't instead try to steal Alg from me, Britain isn't going to get very far in the med." I never heard from Jorge again.

Yes I continued to attack "Austria," but this wasn't so much attacking Austria as attacking Austrian naval presence in the med. Yes I took Tws, and in so doing destroyed that fleet, which had been a game-long objective. Yes I took Pap, but contrary to what Jorge may have thought, Pap was a neutral, not an Austrian center/fleet. None of that in any way had to stop the Spanish fleets from defending Mor or the Austrian armies from defending Baw. Look the final map. There is now a stable border between myself and Jorge. Our units are positioned so that neither of us needs to worry about losing another supply center to the other. This is a line that Austria could have held from his side with 4 armies (Tus/Ven/Vie and one of Boh/Tyr/Bav) That would have given him three armies to fight Britain in Germany, four if he didn't cede Baw but instead built another army in Mil. The alternative was to "retreat" to Mor and build in Ank leaving Tun/Ion/Con completely undefended. No thanks. Austria could well have seen Pap and Tws come under Turkish control allowing us to create a stable, secure border between us while still telling Spain to defend Mor and doing his best to see that neither Britain or Denmark made any further gains. That is what I was doing. That would have been playing for a draw. But my guess is that once Jorge saw he was going to lose the fleet, and with it any chance to solo, he decided to lose rather than accept a draw. Not a choice I would have made, but that was his. We did all make mistakes. We all contributed to Frank's solo. We all are losers, Jorge and David no less than Kurt and Mark. But only two of us, actually only one of us, actively supported Frank into the final centers needed for victory rather than continue working for a draw with players who may not agree on the best way to achieve that draw and and may not do everything demanded of them, and it wasn't me.

Robert







On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 9:36 AM, Warren Ball <warren_k_ball(at)yahoo.com ([email]warren_k_ball(at)yahoo.com[/email])> wrote:
[quote:3b98004bab] Well, I wasn't privy to the emails obviously but I saw the moves. I find it very hard to believe that anyone offered France a worse deal than being repeatedly stabbed. I don't agree w/him allying w/Britain after the 1st stab but I understand that he felt that Britain offered him the best deal he could get. You may have felt the deals you offered were better but France obviously didn't or he would've accepted them.

I also doubt that merely Austria & France could have stopped the solo alone, especially when other countries were hitting them. Everyone shared in the loss no matter how many sc's they had and everyone should've worked together to stop the solo. Britain didn't gain 10 sc's in the final turn. Everyone could have saw it coming.

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

[quote:3b98004bab]
From: Jorge Saralegui <jmsaralegui(at)gmail.com ([email]jmsaralegui(at)gmail.com[/email])>
Subject: Re: Ambition & Empire 090205 / DC240: Players & Powers

To: "Warren Ball" <warren_k_ball(at)yahoo.com ([email]warren_k_ball(at)yahoo.com[/email])>
Cc: "Mark" <mdemagogue(at)gmail.com ([email]mdemagogue(at)gmail.com[/email])>, "Nick Higgins" <congressofvienna1814(at)yahoo.com ([email]congressofvienna1814(at)yahoo.com[/email])>, frankmartin(at)surewest.net ([email]frankmartin(at)surewest.net[/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, 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> wrote:
[quote:3b98004bab] 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> wrote:

[quote:3b98004bab]
From: Mark <mdemagogue(at)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Ambition & Empire 090205 / DC240: Players & Powers

To: "Jorge Saralegui" <jmsaralegui(at)gmail.com>
Cc: "Nick Higgins" <congressofvienna1814(at)yahoo.com>, frankmartin(at)surewest.net, "Warren Ball" <warren_k_ball(at)yahoo.com>, "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, 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:3b98004bab] 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:3b98004bab]
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

.

[/quote:3b98004bab]


[/quote:3b98004bab]
[/quote:3b98004bab]





[/quote:3b98004bab]
[/quote:3b98004bab]

[/quote:3b98004bab]