Hello Everyone (On WiFi at the moment),

First, I would like to thank Michael for GMing, and I would like to congratulate Amazon, Oceania, Persia, and Quebec on their 4-way draw.

Second, I would like to thank everyone for a good game.

In my opinion, I screwed up in hindsight based on two major compounding mistakes. First, I didn't communicate as much as I should have during the build phase in the opening of the game, and I was overly hopeful. Second, I largely fought the last war. To clarify, I believed that Russia was my biggest and most immediate threat, so I based my strategy on slow expansion and growth and tactically on defenses. To accomplish these, I sought for peaceful relations with Quebec and Sahara diplomatically and through physical influence. With Quebec, I set the ground work to DMZ Atlantic through friendly diplomatic relations and built A Fra instead of F Fra, and I mostly kept my naval builds in Dub, Lon, and Sto. To my understanding, the tactical strategy was a eastern defensive pivot. Essentially, the pivot shifts the units into defensive positions designed to impale/halt an offensive from the east; the main exception was F Sto and making Oslo neutral. I was hoping that if European-Russo didn't end up in an immediate war; I could create more flexibility. For the sake of simplicity, the advantage is that defensive pivots offer strong defenses, but the disadvantages are not very flexible and ineffective pointed in the wrong direction. To be blunt, when Quebec rather than Russia proved to be anti-European, I was in very poor position to do much. In my opinion, I made a very poor showing here as I largely had difficulty adapting to the situational and map dynamic's progression through the game. Quebec did a nice job keeping me on my toes, and I suspect my usefulness played a factor in Persia's alliance here.

I apologize for being brief, but things are rather hectic and have forgotten much of what happened.

The map suggestions that I would make are:
A). I think that combining Elbe and Poland would be beneficial as the neutral zone between Europe and Russia would remain, but it also speeds up both defenses and offensive options here.
B). The Antarctic should mirror the Arctic.
C).
"2. 'S' denotes a strait. Armies may cross straits without a convoy. In
addition, if both centers on either side of a strait are occupied, a
fleet wishing to go through the strait must have permission of one of
the occupying units (A Ethiopia Permit F Red Sea - Arabian Sea). A unit
is considered to occupy a center if it begins and ends its movement in
that center. Permission does not constitute an order (so the same unit
can support another unit)."

This should also extend to units wishing to move from Somalia and Yemen should also have permission of a unit in the Red Sea or Arabian Sea.

from Sean

Again, I apologize for my EOG being so brief, but I don't remember much with how hectic things have been.



Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2012 13:10:30 -0700
Subject: DC399 Oceania EGS
From: amtrating(at)gmail.com
To: jerome777(at)ymail.com
CC: mjn82(at)yahoo.com; gino.karczewski(at)gmail.com; alwayshunted(at)hotmail.com; worldwidegm(at)gmail.com; maxatrest(at)yahoo.co.uk; nick.s.powell(at)gmail.com; sean_o_donnell(at)hotmail.com; timothyl.crosby(at)gmail.com; dc399(at)diplomaticcorp.com; dougray30(at)yahoo.com

Hey all, EGS as promised:

Well, this has been my second game on the worldwide variant, and have to say Mike that I feel like you've done a great job opening up the possibilities on this version.  My opening strategy was very different than when I played Amazon/South America before.  The Arctic opening influenced my moves even though I was at the other side of the map, because it immediately had half the players immediately concerned about the space. 


I immediately felt like Congo,Amazon, and Oceania were part of a triple that needed to go to 2 as soon as possible.  If 2 of us took out the third, and then stayed well away from one another's home centers, we'd forge a 2-way alliance with each of us becoming effectively corner powers.  Of the two, Jerome in Amazon seemed the most on board, and willing to discuss moves.  My success in this game is almost entirely due to his good faith and willingness to collaborate while resisting the urge to stab when I was vulnerable.  For example, when Mexico pushed southwest, had Amazon joined in with a couple strong moves I'd have lost all my southern centers.  He did not, and I was able to slowly and surely expand.


We decided on a strategy of containing Mexico while cooperating in Africa to eliminate our opposition there.  I negotiated peaceful relations with both Persia and China, and Amazon helped me push Mexico back to the eastern Pacific while I helped Jerome take some Congoese centers.  When I was in a good enough position, I attacked and seized some African centers for myself, and Congo was eliminated as a threat.  At this point, my attention turned to the Pacific.  I moved to establish a stalemate with Persia and went after Gino's China.


My choice of targets at this point was pretty much chosen by who was most willing to actively discuss moves.  I was concerned about a stab from Amazon, but he had been honest so far and I figured it would take some time to set up an effective stab, so I'd have some indications.  China had taken what of Russia he wanted, and it appeared that Persia was planning to stab him.  Mexico was stalemated, but too far to garner any gains too quickly.  So pretty much by process of elimination I chose to move on China.  Slow going, but I made progress, and kept pace with Amazon.


From there things proceeded fairly mechanically.  Quebec's apparent path to growth through Europe and Sahara began to worry Amazon and I; we feared he might be able to run for a solo by saving Mexico's centers for last.  We decided to jointly go after Mexico to prevent this, and bolster our own position.  And so the both of us marched North, collecting centers as we went.  It was a long slog through China's naturally strong defenses, but I managed to do some damage and force some key disbands.  Pretty much the same story in North America. 


Then the endgame - a Persia/Quebec was suspected, and I proposed a 3 way draw excluding Persia to try and make it look like Quebec was planning to stab Persia with our help.  Whether that had any effect or not, about that time Persia and Quebec started to get hostile around their borders.  I made some key moves to surround Persia and lock his armies into place, then planned to push into the Arctic to outflank him.  I think Amazon planned the same for Quebec.  We both supported a 4 way draw publicly, and I know I at least voted for it each time it came up, but planned to keep improving our respective positions until it passed or we were strong enough for force a 2-way draw. 


Probably the main reason we didn't push for a 2 way draw was concern that the other would make faster progress and solo.  We'd spoken before about racing to a solo without attacking one another, and though I was becoming sorely tempted by the thought of snagging some of his centers after I had turned Persia's flank, I preferred to avoid the risk and walk away as the joint SC leader in a 4-way draw.


Great game you guys, and thanks Mike for GMing!

Now map comments:

I really like how this map is shaping up.  I still feel like Oceania is too hard to attack, and exploited that throughout the game.  I calculated that with 7 units and one ally I could make myself safe indefinitely.  11-12 units and no ally would make me effectively impregnable to attack if I had the right centers.  The relatively few mid-ocean spaces makes stalemates fairly easy, as was seen in the Atlantic and Indian.  As a predominantly naval power (unless I wanted to bring down a joint China-Persia assault, armies in Bangkok and Jakarta were not a good idea till later) Oceania can fairly easily make any attack unprofitable to the medium term. 


Contrast this with Russia, who - especially with Arctic open - isn't safe anywhere.  The geography of a worldwide map makes Oceania a very safe position.  Amazon is likewise very safe.  The map does a great job of allowing corner type powers avenues of expansion against neighbors who usually have more fronts to worry about.


Now Congo's performance in both games I've played has been surprising to me, largely because both Congos have been skilled players.  I wonder if there isn't a sort of psychological bias at work - Congo could be as much of a corner power as Oceania or Amazon, either of which could be the odd man out in the southern triple.  But its almost as if being in the perceived center of a 2D map makes Congo like Austria to a juggernaut in standard Dip - a concentration of inviting, easily surrounded centers that seems to get attacked early because gains outweigh risks in a lot of cases.


Part of the problem, I feel, is that Amazon and Oceania don't have a lot of incentive to go after one another.  Accessible primarily through 1 sea lane, a stab either way probably makes one center change hands.  A possible solution, in my opinion, would be to create an Antarctic space as a counterpart to the Arctic.  If such a space could border Melbourne, Jo-Burg, and Buenos Aires, it could make an early stab more likely, and raise some tension - just as Arctic does for the northern powers. 


Making China a little more naval oriented might also help.  If Bangkok became a neutral center and was exchanged for Borneo or Singapore, that could make Oceania more compact and thus a better target for China early on. 


Another possibility might perhaps be the addition of several neutrals SCs in key places that aren't able to be claimed by any power until after the initial builds.  Maybe one per player, but always located right between 2 of them.


Just my ideas here - the map is going great and another playtest might lead to a completely different result.  I'd be happy to participate - and be in a different part of the map.  Might have totally different opinions if I'd drawn Europe or Russia!


Andrew

  

On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 3:05 PM, Jerome Payne <jerome777(at)ymail.com> wrote:

Hi everyone,

I'll send a proper EGS tomorrow, but in the meantime I just wanted to say 'congrats' to my fellow draw-sharers, 'well done' to Mike and Warren for surviving, 'unlucky' to Sean, Nick and Doug, and a big 'thank you' to Mike for GMing the game so well.


More tomorrow.


Jerome


Sent from my BlackBerry® smartphoneFrom: Michael Norton <mjn82(at)yahoo.com>
Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2012 10:17:53 -0700 (PDT)To: Gino Karczewski<gino.karczewski(at)gmail.com>; Warren Fleming<alwayshunted(at)hotmail.com>
ReplyTo: Michael Norton <mjn82(at)yahoo.com>
Cc: Michael Penner<worldwidegm(at)gmail.com>; amtrating(at)gmail.com<amtrating(at)gmail.com>; jerome777(at)ymail.com<jerome777(at)ymail.com>; maxatrest(at)yahoo.co.uk<maxatrest(at)yahoo.co.uk>; nick.s.powell(at)gmail.com<nick.s.powell(at)gmail.com>; sean_o_donnell(at)hotmail.com<sean_o_donnell(at)hotmail.com>; timothyl.crosby(at)gmail.com<timothyl.crosby(at)gmail.com>; dc399(at)diplomaticcorp.com<dc399(at)diplomaticcorp.com>; dougray30(at)yahoo.com<dougray30(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: DC399 - Spring 2010
Congrats to you guys.  Espeically Max!  Although I have less territory than when I started,  Egypt's a great place to retire and rule with all the creature comforts.  I love the Med! 
 Mike

From: Gino Karczewski <gino.karczewski(at)gmail.com>

To: Warren Fleming <alwayshunted(at)hotmail.com>
Cc: Michael Penner <worldwidegm(at)gmail.com>; amtrating(at)gmail.com; jerome777(at)ymail.com; maxatrest(at)yahoo.co.uk; mjn82(at)yahoo.com; nick.s.powell(at)gmail.com; sean_o_donnell(at)hotmail.com; timothyl.crosby(at)gmail.com; dc399(at)diplomaticcorp.com; dougray30(at)yahoo.com

Sent: Saturday, June 23, 2012 11:13 AM
Subject: Re: DC399 - Spring 2010


Congrats to all from the Chinese Empire, currently struggling for control of the under-earth with the Mole people...

On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 12:09 PM, Warren Fleming <alwayshunted(at)hotmail.com> wrote:




Congrats guys.  Whew!

Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2012 10:42:47 -0500
Subject: DC399 - Spring 2010

From: worldwidegm(at)gmail.com
To: amtrating(at)gmail.com; gino.karczewski(at)gmail.com; jerome777(at)ymail.com; Maxatrest(at)yahoo.co.uk; mjn82(at)yahoo.com; nick.s.powell(at)gmail.com; sean_o_donnell(at)hotmail.com; timothyl.crosby(at)gmail.com; alwayshunted(at)hotmail.com; dc399(at)diplomaticcorp.com; dougray30(at)yahoo.com



...and that's all, folks.

After a number of attempts, the PQAO draw has passed and the game is over.  I can think of a few players who would rather have seen the game end earlier, but it was not to be.  Congratulations to Andrew, Jerome, Max and Tim on prevailing to the end.  Congrats as well to Warren and Michael for their survivals.  It's tough being under attack for the whole game, so thanks for sticking with us.



The selfish part of me wanted to see this game keep going, as I wanted to see Persia and Quebec go at it over the Europe/Russia border, giving the map a good test.  But, I also see that if they did that Ociania and Amazon had enough control over the oceans to make their lives miserable.  I really thought a 2-way was in the cards.  But that is not to be.



I'd love to hear your comments both about the game and the map.  I continue to tweak and test to try to make it better.

mvp




--
Gino Karczewski
765 Amsterdam Avenue #10-J
New York, NY 10025
917-434-9008 Mobile
646-807-4702 Fax