A pretty fair response. In reply to a couple small things...

1. By "hostile" I meant that in that game I found your reaction to the "stab" (I took a neutral SC that you think I promised you -- I still maintain I didn't promise) completely out of proportion to the level of the crime. Having played with you again, I now think it more likely that you sometimes ratchet up the intensity of your language as another negotiating tactic.

2. I remember using the "Mike's the one we have to watch" ploy on Fredrik and Lee, but not to your face. Could you have heard it from them, maybe? Anyway, that really was just a tactic on my part to get them to side with me. My choice to go after Finland was, as I said, based purely on my tactical analysis. If you had been in Poland I would have tried the same plan with you as my partner.

3. Regarding the end of the game, of course you took the solo. The question is what was Fredrik playing for? The absolute best result he could get was a draw, and he could have had the draw many years earlier? How did he let you convince him to keep playing when it only served Finland's interests and not Sweden's? Regardless of the wisdom of the Polish strategy (which is Lee's to remark on) it was a completely obvious the result would be (probably) a Finnish solo or (maybe) a draw if you decided not to stab. Since the draw was offered many game year's previously, why would Sweden keep playing?

The last few years felt like a mother cat (that's you, Mike) teaching her kitten (Sweden) how to torture small prey.


From: Michael Sims <mike(at)southwall.com>
To: C Morse <camorse22(at)yahoo.com>; Former Trout <former.trout(at)gmail.com>; dc191 <DC191(at)diplomaticcorp.com>
Cc: Fredrik Blom <blom.fredrik(at)gmail.com>; Lee Taylor <leewarrentaylor(at)yahoo.co.uk>; Steve Lytton <stevelytton(at)hotmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2009 12:35:33 PM
Subject: dc191 Finland EGS


Hi all,
Finland's perspective here.

When I heard Trout was going to run this variant, I was one of the first to jump in. I've seen this one around for some time, and loved the waterways and tactical play that it affords. The key to a 4-player game tho is you need 4 that are really going to diplome hard and openly to make it interesting, since it's such a small base of players to work with. In this game, that broke down...

Chris said, "I got the better of him in that game, and he was pretty hostile about it". I don't know where this came from... I enjoyed our CotA game, in which yeah you did get the better of me, but I was not hostile about it, at least no more than for any other stab. And besides, I try to take it as a challenge to work with someone that's stabbed me in the past. What really happened, which Chris did admit about 4 turns into the game, is that he'd pegged me as the player to beat, and he'd intended to attack me from the get go, irrelevant of what negotiations had transpired. This was astonishing news, cuz the player that I really tried to work with and wanted to team up with the most, was never even seriously considering working with me! And then you complain in your EGS about the lack of creativity in the game, but I think a lot of that lack of creativity came from your own preconditions you brought about attacking me.

Other than that tho, the recount below is pretty accurate. I spent the early part of the game discussing with Chris how we considered each other to be the favorite in the game, and that we should team up and dominate the board, but something Chris was saying just wasn't sounding quite right. Maybe it's how he'd argue and argue about a point, and then he'd give in, and just say ok, or whatever, but I guessed right on probly 3 or 4 occasions that he was about to stab me, and I ordered the perfect defense. Then we'd rinse, and repeat. This was the sum of the early game! It wasn't very interesting, and I didn't really have the chance to consider a move against Sweden (like Chris wanted) cuz I was always busy countering his offensives. Maybe that's what tipped off your intentions Chris, was that you wanted me to go at Poland so hard, yet you weren't willing to give me any space. It was basically "ok I know I stabbed you, but now go hit Poland and I'll stop". Yeah right.

So anyways, most of the game was a slog between Chris and myself, and I was somewhat powerless to change the course to anything more productive. In fact, I am still unsure just how this game went from Chris being in Helsingfors and on the attack, to me pushing him clear back to the corner, when Lee never even stabbed him! All I can attribute it to, is that I got a TON of lucky guesses against Chris, and I'm sure he'd agree w that. Almost every move where there was some 50/50 gamble, I got it right, and before I knew it, Chris was beaten back.

On the other side of the map was Fredrik, and he was the wildcard in the game, for not having known any of Chris, Lee, or myself from past acquaintances. Fortunately for me he got in a war with Poland early, and I avoided a couple of his centers when I could have stabbed him, and that was enough to form a Sweden-Finland alliance. The other two players were basically attacking us, then in the next breath asking us to attack each other, which was obviously not going to happen. Then for the 2nd half of the game, it got easier (to answer your question, Chris) to stay together, since Poland and Russia had abandoned the game. Russia didn't write me a single mail for the latter half, and all Poland would write was about how he was going to try to throw the game and how awful Fredrik was playing. Well I have to say if that's your attitude toward any player, then it's no surprise they don't work with you!

I most enjoyed the tactical play with Fredrik of trying to figure out how to claim Malmo, KAT, SBA, etc, and that part was a lot of fun, and I'm glad Malmo did fall on the final turn. We had the advantage in position, controlling the center of the board, and we just leveraged that, advancing slowly. This is where I think Lee and Chris caved in, for instead of doing some sort of controlled retreat, they chose to hand me center after center, a sure path to a loss. I guess they absolutely did not want to see a Fin-Swe draw, but I'd have to ask - why? At least then you don't outright hand someone a win, and if you do stick it out, then there is a chance once you're down to 2 or 3 centers, that the other powers will eventually go to war and lock up, with your remaining centers creating a balance and preventing a win. That didn't happen, Lee just diverted all his forces to the west, abandoning the solid stalemate line he had in Europe. I have to think if Lee had maybe returned Malmo to its former owner willingly, Fredrik may have been more open to building some troops in the north, or if nothing else, he would have had a couple extra that could have prevented such a move by me. By Poland refusing to give up Malmo, Fredrik basically had to keep on fighting in that arena, putting his forces way out of the action.

Yeah Lee's premonition was right, I did raise a point about players in another game passing up a clear and unstoppable win, and so I couldn't pass up the chance to put the game to rest... So I did. I mean that's the goal of the game, it's right there in the book, to try to get the majority of the centers. So I don't feel bad about it, and I suppose Fredrik would agree it's the thing to do. I don't think Fredrik was wrong to stay allied with me for so long, since he had little alternative. He could work with the players that were berating him all game, but that would have provided little enjoyment to anyone but Chris and Lee... and working with players who have lost interest is never any fun. As for a 2-way draw, it could have happened, if things had developed more balanced, or if Fredrik had pushed for me to vacate NBA, or if Lee had conceded Malmo sooner, but once Lee threw his cards into the kill-Sweden-at-all-costs boat, it was pretty much over. Perhaps the fact that Lee was willing to do that, suggests Fredrik was right to not switch sides?

Anyways it was a fun game, frustrating at times, but overall a great tactical map. I would recommend it to others to try, but you have to enter it w/o a 2-on-2 alliance mindset, and keep your options open and fluid. Trout's storylines were a blast, I loved reading about Christmas Turkey Trout, Through the Looking Glass Trout, and all his other personae, and particularly following the antics of our friends Watson and Holmes and how their stories followed the results of the game were hilarious. I looked forward to every adjudication both to see how Chris would try to stab me this time, and how Trout would tie that into the story.

-mike
Finland