MY EGP stands as written since nothing changed, however Mike reminded me of one thing. I have to thank Andy again for being such a good sport, and not taking the retreat to eliminate Mike after I begged, and begged, and pleaded that he leave Mike alive. It was to my dismay that I couldn't keep Andy alive to the end as I did Mike. Once again Andy, many thanks and my apologies.
Look forward to playing you all again! Perhaps on this map - I for one thoroughly enjoyed it, and actually considered a few convoys during the course of events, so I can't agree that the lack of interior seas is a terrible hindrance...maybe if the Caribbean was a bit larger or there were island chains with multiple centers accessible to armies...but I'd rather see BC have access to a second first year neutral on the Canadian plains.
All in all a great game with great players.
Thanks,
Andrew
On Sun, Aug 17, 2008 at 8:44 PM, Michael Sims <mike(at)southwall.com ([email]mike(at)southwall.com[/email])> wrote:
Hiya folks,
Guess it's time to post an EGS.
This is a great variant… I really liked it, despite the fact that I think North America does not make for good Diplomacy because it's basically one big mass of land with oceans on either side. No seas like the Mediterranean or the Baltic makes for no convoy action, and very little fleet interaction, but the introduction of the canals leading into the great lakes made up for it… just a bit. I still think NA geography is lacking in terms of tactical strategizing, but this one is about as good as it can get.
The game started out great, which lasted for about 2 turns. Rob, Andy, and myself set out with a triple, and we sent our troops off in opposite directions. We each got 3 builds in 01! We had the jump on all our neighbors, and BC really over a barrel. That was outstanding, and we were far and away the trio to beat on the board. Of course that lasted all of about 2 turns, as right off the bat Rob got Andy to turn on me, and then began the slow downfall.
I heard later on that Rob was never interested in the triple from the start, as he considered it unworkable… I will ALWAYS consider any alliance workable in any game – and love making unlikely alliances work out, but it just wasn't meant to be this time. After the initial stab by Andy, I tried to make a 2nd go at it, for we talked it over, and a turn later, yet again… Rob and Andy moved on me.
I really guess this just wasn't my game.
In the end, I have to thank Andy for not eliminating me when he could have done so via a retreat. I take that as payback for my trust of him in the opening rounds. And of course toward the end, I was doing all I could to stay on Andrew's (BC) good side since he was my initial target, and later, my protector.
I'm sure if the draws kept getting voted down, the big 3 would have had to go pick off the remaining 1-dotters. I'm 99% sure it was Ray voting them down, as nothing else seems to make sense. This part of draw votes always sucks… it might be nice to allow public voting in some variant, but as Trout pointed out that is not standard rules, and it would have to be a posted variant of some sort to allow a public binding vote.
Congrats to the victorious three, Andrew, Lee and Bruce. Well earned. Was interesting (in a "glad it wasn't me" sort of way) to see California lose 8 sc in one turn, that's surely a record that I've witnessed.
One thing I learned from this… Rob asked me early on if I would stab Andy with him, and so I should have absolutely assumed that he was asking the same thing of Andy against me. I outright told him no, I wanted to see if the triple would work, but that is no reason to assume that the other player would see it the same. So that's what I consider my error, that I assumed that just cuz I turned down Rob's offer, that others would too. So if someone approaches you about stabbing their own alliance before it even gets off the ground, take heed! Something is probly awry in Pleasantville. Don't ignore the clues. That's what this game is all about.
Here's to seeing you all again in the next one,
-mike
