Congrats to Russia and well played.


 


I bear (hah! pun) some of the French disdain for other players not resisting, especially early, but the power vacuum of no England definitely put Russia in the power position.


 


(I know I benefitted from such a vacuum in last year's tourney, but from Italy)


 


I was sensitive to early bullish emails from Italy and Germany, and didn't see much future in a three-way alliance where I got assurances of cooperation for one front, but likely would bear the brunt of the typical three-way with Russia/Turkey. Would the I/G/A alliance have made a difference? Unlikely.


 


I expected no problems with Germany, but obviously opened myself up to a Russian stab. Italian name-calling and intransigence spelt the doom of any coordination, and Turkey never provided sure arrangements for suitable defense, and thus the center crumbled.


 


I shared Max's puzzlement of Germany obliviousness to the Russian Solo, and also took note of the amazing disintegration of Turkey.


 


All told, a fun game, a fast game and one for many what-ifs, most obviously, what if England actually entered the tournament to play the game in the first place?!?


 


Not sure if this rises to the level of consideration for future Winter Blitzes, but there are definite dynamic issues with a player not involved. Substitutions may be difficult in a tourney, but there's a vast difference between players playing mystifyingly, or even players who drop out due to horrible positions of their own inabilities, and a player AWOL from day one.


 


Any thought of sanctions against someone who never puts in a set of orders?


 


Looking forward to Round 2!


Joe Babinsack