End of game statement Turkey:
 
This was my first game on DC but I played about 90 games on German sides. I was very happy to play Turkey. Because Turkey is a country that in the beginning needs no close ally so I was sure that I could play it well in a foreign language.
 
The start was a bit strange. Archer offered Austria and me an Eastern triple. I didn`t believed him and I decided to ally with Austria and to attack Russia from the start. Archer took it very good and offered me an alliance again when I would only take Sev and Rum and leave Mos and War to him. This was really good agreement and so I accepted it. The start of the west was very confuse. There was no clear leading alliance. E/F came out 1902, I think.
 
I became more and more worried about my first ally Austria. The moves were played like a Trieste treaty. So I said that to Jason and Alfred. Alfred said yes there was such a treaty declared and Jason said no. So I expected an attack on me from Austria and negotiated very hard with Italy. Italy and I found a solution and so we attacked Austria together and it was the typical Austrian first-out. At this point everybody warned me because Italy became so strong but I think the Turkish position was as good as the Italian position. One center less is not so unusual for an early Turkey. I decided to push further on with Italy as my main ally and Russia as my junior partner.
 
But then the point came that Italy didn`t answer anymore because of private reasons. I thought it was to dangerous to play with a silent ally and attacked him. The stab beated him very hard and made me to the leader. The situation was now: good working E/F-alliance with small I against big T with small R/G. In this situation I expected a 3-way-draw because the stalemate was safe and talked to Jake and Simon about that. Now France attacked Italy to end the game and because of that England attacked France. I think it was well played from France but a mistake from England. E/F was as strong as T and the French actions had forced me in a 3-way-draw but after the English stab there was a real possibility for a Turkish solo victory. France and Italy declared to help me to win. Russia was still my ally.
 
Then Archer went out of the game and this was the moment were everything changed. Mike came in as a good player and I had no possibility to convince him to work against England like Archer did. France declared that he is now against me. Italy declared that he is now neutral. All because of the change in Russia that rescued the English position. I would be very interested how the game had ended with Archer.
 
Under this circumstances I played for a 3-way-draw. If I look at the end position the logical result is a E/F/T-draw. England can take Russia out very easily. There is no danger for a Turkish solo victory but Simon signaled me that he wouldn`t do that so I accepted the draw. I again don`t understand Englands point of view. Was it a gap of courage? Was it not having the diplomatic control alone? Maybe you can explain it to me, Simon. If I had played England I had taken Russia out.
 
All in all it was a very interesting game and definitly not my last one on DC. Thanky to everybody especially to Warren for GMing.
 
Lucas

Gesendet: Montag, 07. April 2014 um 15:09 Uhr

Von: "Jacob Walters"

An: "Warren Fleming"

Cc: "amn(at)benenden.kent.sch.uk" , "jakobworldpeace(at)bluewin.ch" , "jason4747(at)hotmail.com" , "lucasmayer1(at)gmx.de" , "slangers(at)me.com" , "dc463(at)diplomaticcorp.com" , "Mike Hoffman"

Betreff: Re: DC 463, Game Over

This was a fun, frustrating and also interesting game.  I had an alliance with England and good relations with Italy.  IF we had been able to subdue Germany more quickly who knows how this might have turned out - I swear Germany had esp or hacked into our computers because he seemed to know our every strategy and countered them all quite nicely.  By the time Germany was conquered a stalemate had set in - and with that frustration comes the usual disagreement as to how to proceed.  I made a grab for Italian centers which caused England to attack me.  Around that same time Archer 

(Russia) lost interest or got too busy to play and that hurt us all.  Had Russia declared for someone or some strategy things might have been different. Mike's stepping in to play Russia was great, he was a voice of reason and breathed some new life into the game.  Too bad he is a Mets fan!     I thought everyone played well, Simon stabbed me twice but did so politely and always stayed in touch.  Lucas took advantage of his opportunities and might have gotten the win had he been bolder. Thanks to everyone - especially our esteemed game master Warren.  Well done.
 
Jake

 
On Sat, Apr 5, 2014 at 7:34 PM, Warren Fleming wrote:

It seems just in time, as interest in this game has clearly waned.  The four way draw has passed.  Italy has managed a survival.

 

End of game statements are welcome of course.  I always enjoy reading them.

 

Well played all of you.

 

Cheers,

 

Warren

 

 

-----------------------------------

Ownership:

England:   Belgium, Denmark, Holland, Kiel, Liverpool, London,

           Norway, Paris, Portugal, Sweden.

France:    Brest, Marseilles, Munich, Spain, Tunis, Venice.

Italy:     Naples, Rome.

Russia:    Berlin, Edinburgh, Moscow, St Petersburg, Warsaw.

Turkey:    Ankara, Budapest, Bulgaria, Constantinople, Greece,

           Rumania, Serbia, Sevastopol, Smyrna, Trieste, Vienna.

Adjustments:

Austria:   Supp  0 Unit  0 Build  0

England:   Supp 10 Unit 10 Build  0

France:    Supp  6 Unit  6 Build  0

Germany:   Supp  0 Unit  0 Build  0

Italy:     Supp  2 Unit  2 Build  0

Russia:    Supp  5 Unit  5 Build  0

Turkey:    Supp 11 Unit 11 Build  0