Some people play the game for the strategy, some the diplomacy, and some to argue with every statement they don't agree with. Well, guess it takes all kinds to construct a demand curve!
All I gotta say Eric, is that in your 30 years and hundred or so games (including tournaments!), one would think you'd be able to make a better showing than a 4 center England when France goes down early on in the game...
On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 5:04 PM, dip.power.915(at)gmail.com <dip.power.915(at)gmail.com> wrote:
> From: "Andrew Tanner" <amtrating(at)gmail.com>
> Of course, it didn't much matter, as England's
> vendetta against Germany stemming from some > drama early in the game kept the two of them
> battling it out even as Russia took centers from > both of them.
I had no vendetta against Germany. Germany attacked England three times, so he may have had a vendetta against England, but that is for David to explain.
> This vendetta led him to sabotage any and all
> attempts to form a line in the north,
Also not true. You proposed lines that were flawed, and which placed undue risk on EG. I offered counter-proposals to address these issues, but was dismissed with personal attacks like the one above.
> he wanted Germany to be eliminated before the
> end of the game.
And again untrue. The only one who proposed eliminating Germany was Italy. I wanted him to remove a Fleet so that he couldn't attack me for a fourth time, if Russia pulled back, but I never called for his elimination.
> He refused to even risk a single center and
> threatened to throw the game to Russia if he
> failed to get his way.
I don't know how many games you've stalemated, Andrew, but over the last 30 years, I've probably been involved in more than 100, and a fair number of those have been tournament games, so let me give you some insight into my thinking, if you can let go of your misconceived ideas about my motivation here.
When a large Power is stalemated, especially in a tournament game, he typically tells the larger Powers on the other side that he won't vote for the Draw unless they eliminate some of the smaller Powers. In this case Rick told me that he wanted Austria, and hopefully Germany, eliminated. This is done to improve the game score, and because it often creates new solo opportunities as the to-be-eliminated Powers try to punish those who are whittling them. Given Germany's frequent and strategically unwise attacks on England, I had to be concerned that he would try to attack me again if Russia pulled back, so I felt I needed a build, and for Germany to disband a Fleet, to have a secure place in the draw. I tried to explain this to you but you came back with this paranoid vendetta nonsense.
> A fairly well known stalemate line runs
> northwest from the Ionian Sea through Greece
> and Trieste, then on up through Munich, Kiel, and > the North/Norwegian Seas. With Russia having
> only 2 fleets up north, the truth of it is that
> England probably could have held Denmark and
> gone on the offensive at the same time while
> Germany and Italy held the line.
All true.
> The calculation is pretty simple: Germany needs
> 5 units to hold Mun and Kie assuming
> Den-Nth-Nwg are in allied hands,
Not quite that simple; Germany needs A Mun, A Ruh, and A Bur, to hold Mun, and two Units to hold Kiel. Your plan to keep F Gas instead of A Mar, to take Bre and have Germany disband A Bre was seriously flawed, either due to incompetence, or intentionally to weaken Germany.
> 6 are needed to hold Den-Skag-Nth-Nwg.
> Collectively, we had the necessary units on
> hand.
But your refusal to give me a build so that I wasn't dependent on questionable German and suspicious Italian support left me feeling I would hold the line only until Russia pulled his Fleets back to Finland and St. Petersburg, at which point I would be stabbed and eliminated. That may not have been your plan, but it seemed a more likely reason for your absolute unwillingness to consider my point of view, and your unjustified character assassination than simple incompetence.
Thanks,
Eric.
