dc190 - A retrospective
Its finally over. The Mexicans rejoice, while their petty tirant fumes. I coulda been a contender.
Mexico is a hard position in the original map. NAm and Mexico are natural early enemies. China, SAm, and Europe are just close enought to consider taking an easy piece for themselves. Reminds me of WAf and Persia with no southern/northern wall to back up to.
Knowing that NAm was the natural expansion zone (and that he wasn't saying much on the diplomatic channel), I started the game talking to my other neighbors. SAm agreed to go our own ways, while China agreed to send forces to overwealm NAm. WAf and Europe decided to play on their side of the ocean and I was happy to let them (little did I know Europe'd be ganged so early).
A 3 way alliance of C/M/SAm emerged and we jointly decided to move on Oceania (although conspitionous absent were the Chinese - something that bothered me at the time, but makes more sense in retrospect). (Frank - sorry to have ticked you off with my negotiation style, hopefully I can do better next time) (Andrew is an absolutely great ally).
The joint C/M American conquest continued for a couple years with China taking ALA and VAN while Mexico liberated WPG and ILL (as I recall). The redeployment of Russian troops came right as China deployed additional (and unrequested) troops to the America campaign. An urgent plea went forth to concede centers to help counter the Russian advance. Here's where China/Mexico split happened - from my POV the way to handle Russia was to return the army and let me finish off NAm. China's was to build his way to protection. China teamed with NAm and stabbed.
Thus, the dark times. I pulled back from an Oceania conquest, tried to finish off NAm while holding China steady, waiting for the Russias to force him to retreat out of the Americas. The loss of HON in the stab lead to the loss of an Atlantic fleet which let WAf wander toward my east coast. My over-reaction to that let NAm stay around longer and led to a WAf/Mex shooting war in FLA and PAR. For their own reasons, SAm and Russia decided not to wander in to NAm. During this time there was nothing I could do to prevent it but try to make it a quagmire. Their leaving me alone at this time left me in the game.
Eventually China removed the forces from America, and I finished off NAm and restarted the Oceania-SAm/Mexican fleet war. I also decide to move east to Europe, but with China down and WAf fighting SAf, Persia turned his focus to Europe at the same time I did. Dumb on my part, I was content to bounce around there rather than taking gains in WAf. WAf and I fought Persia on two fronts, but this turned to my own quagmire that eventually stalled (mostly due to Russia's neutrality). Eventually, WAf turned sides (either through a miscommunication or Persia's diplomatic skills) and The race for Africa was on.
So who's the non-draw voter(s)? I was one of them. For several reasons. Mike's a great guy, great player (e.g. his playing Oceania and I against each other so well) and a wonderful GM, but I wanted China eliminated for the stab and whatever deal he struck with Persia to keep himself alive. Petty yes, but Persia knew this requirement several, several turns before.
Second reason, I wanted to solo. I wasn't going to attack Russia or SAm unless it'd win me the game, but I was one of the larger countries so we'd see what happens.
Third reason, I wanted a SAm/Russia/Mexico draw. Nothing against Ian, he played a great game especially considering getting beaten on early on and Persia's rough opening position, but I didn't think he could hold his SCs if SAm and I got started, especially since Russia was holding. And given reason 2, it gets me that much closer. I would have loved to finish this one out - especially considering whatever the surprise he had for me in the Indian and the ones I had for him (VAN->asia move coming next turn, fleet moving to MOR to start a conquest in to the MED). Any chance of getting the moves released to see where we'd be?
Fourth reason, I wanted a SC on all the continents. Why? It amused me. I wasn't going to hold the draw up for this one or make tactical cruddy moves, but it was in the back of my head.
Dinner guests just arrived, so I don't have time to really discuss the new map, but a few quick thoughts: Michael - thanks for being a great GM. Good map and interesting start. I'm tempted to say leave Mexico as is. The East/West just doesn't do it for me.
Thanks to all, sorry for the delay, looking forward to the next game with you all!
Scott
---
On Fri, Jun 19, 2009 at 8:01 AM, Ian <iangb_2000(at)yahoo.co.uk ([email]iangb_2000(at)yahoo.co.uk[/email])> wrote:
[quote:738162c51b]
I enjoyed this game a lot – we had a great GM and a dedicated set of players all of whom stuck with the game through to the end (or their end) – no frustrations from dropouts and replacements, nor from NMRs – the reminders and flexibility that our GM deployed are a model example of diplomatic GM-ing, particularly appropriate to a longer larger game…
Andrew’s comments on the map and the sea spaces are interesting – I’m a sucker for maps and attach again the ‘alternative’ version that I worked up at the beginning. You can see from this that, unlike standard Dip, very few of the sea spaces in this game are ‘commanding’ ones that allow rapid movement and influence multiple land spaces (think MAO, NTH or ION in vanilla). Indeed most are really no “larger” in impact than the land spaces, but there are a few exceptions that represent key strategic spots in this game – ATL, PAC, SCS, and to a lesser extent IND & COC.
Most of the nations start facing three or four neighbours – Persia faces six, so it was pretty clear that I’d have to come out talking….and the talking pretty quickly changed the outline plan I’d got in my head from looking at the map.
Since Persia would always be at risk with a strong Russia still in the game (sooner or later Russia would have to look south, I reckoned&hellip
, my original thinking was
A) Find someone to team up with against Russia,
B) Make sure the two Africans fell out, and
C) Make sure Oceania was worrying about his nautical neighbours (Sth Am/Sth Af) - who are actually much nearer than it seems – and so also get them interested in thinking about him.
B &C worked out fine but plan A came to grief when China didn’t bite on my early suggestions of a move on Russia (I was lucky these didn’t get used against me..), Europe proved hard to deal with (I respect the role-playing style but it does make it more difficult to build alliances particularly if you’re the only one doing it) - and he looked likely to be attacked by W Af early on anyhow - and Russia turned out to be the best of all my neighbours to deal with.
So I found myself working with Russia and W Af against Europe. Aware that if Europe was the starter I would make a tasty main course, I was still looking to put together some alliance against Russia after, particularly as Hamish didn’t at that stage seem too keen on moving together against China. But with Ian being pulled back by African affairs, and North America going down across the Atlantic, this was starting to look more difficult – China was my only potential ally, but Mike is the kind of capable player who is good to deal with but never easy to trust. Even so I proved too trusting, or naive - moving too many units westward and so Mike took advantage with his stab. Without allies I didn’t think the stab made sense – the early gains he made were too small – but it soon became clear he had help on the horizon from both Oceania and South Af, and at that point I did think the odds were in his favour.
For a few turns I hung in the balance – Mike was pretty confident he would win through whatever Russia did, whereas I started to think that with Hamish’s help and some gameplay I’d stand a chance of pulling through – thankfully Hamish proved up for the challenge and from that point on the two of us had a great working relationship. I really had to pull out all the stops against China – including avoiding being distracted by those units he got behind my lines, leaving them until after we had overrun China’s home base – and I wasn’t going to give up on my share of the spoils.
This did mean that Hamish grew much faster than I did – and was good about not taking all his builds. Quite possibly had Russia been ruthless and turned on me at the point China was more or less out we might be looking at a 3-way Rus/Mex/Sth Am finish, but on the other hand having an ally to his south did give Russia the freedom to expand out across the top of the map, and turning on me would clearly have risked a Mex/Sth Am walkover.
So my survival was secure and I was enjoying my position ‘in the middle’ – as well as talking to the others in the ‘big four’ I had a good deal going with Ian taking out St Af and then keeping him alive, worked out a deal with China (probably a couple of turns later than would have been ideal for both of us, but with him sacrificing even his home centres in order to hold units sitting in mine, peace was never going to be easy), and for the next turn I even had a little surprise for Mexico worked out with Frank. So I’d have been very happy for the game to continue – but with Russia stepping back from expansion and no prospect of Russia himself not being there at the end, it was pretty obvious that a four-way was the best I could hope for and I voted for all the draw proposals, without exception.
If I’d have been playing China or Oceania – and probably even West Africa – I’d have voted against until my elimination, so cannot criticise if they did indeed exercise the veto, but since both Mexico and South Am were pushing forward until game end, there are clearly other possibilities, so unless someone wishes to come clean, I guess we shall never know…?
Thanks again guys, it was a great game - a whole year almost exactly from start to finish!!
Ian
[/quote:738162c51b]
