Finished: 07 PM Tue 16 Feb 16 UTC
Private ODC 2015: Round 2, Board 4
1 days, 12 hours /phase
Pot: 35 D - Spring, 1928, Finished
Classic, Anonymous players, Draw-Size Scoring
1 excused missed turn
Game drawn
26 Dec 15 UTC Spring, 1915: Why are you in such a rush to end this?.... request the game been drawn at the end of the year... you're just talking crazy. More words for effect! I'd have thought I'm well within my rights to play on. There's still quite a lot of different tactics I could try. In some ways I actually don't mind this... gives me a chance to be quite creative. I've still got a few ideas... one of which you'd really quite like.
04 Jan 16 UTC Autumn, 1916: If you all could, please make and ready orders. Assuming we're all seeing the same board, move selections should be pretty quick. I'd like to finish this game up pretty soon.
04 Jan 16 UTC Autumn, 1916: I can't see this game finishing particularly soon, as much as you'd like it to.
We all know.... if all else fails my final gambit to create something has to be to put you on the brink of a solo. But there are other ideas I'd like to try first.

Still though, I'm happy to ready orders, if others are happy to do so too.
04 Jan 16 UTC Autumn, 1916: Reaaady.
04 Jan 16 UTC Autumn, 1916: That was a tough set of orders, guys.
04 Jan 16 UTC Autumn, 1916: Geez Germany, don't exhaust yourself with all that manoeuvring.
05 Jan 16 UTC Autumn, 1916: Subtle, but masterful.
05 Jan 16 UTC Spring, 1917: No room for error
08 Jan 16 UTC Spring, 1918: It is called a stalemate line for a reason. Are we done here?
Turkey, you can retreat to Syria and I won't bite. Sorry.
08 Jan 16 UTC Spring, 1918: Drats, I almost made it to the Baltic Sea but I was thwarted by myself :(
08 Jan 16 UTC Spring, 1918: England: be patient. I think I'm entitled to try a few things before I go to my endgame strategy
09 Jan 16 UTC Spring, 1918: @Germany: I hate it when that happens!
@ Turkey: not going to happen. Please save us a painful delay.
09 Jan 16 UTC Spring, 1918: England: unless something happens soon, I'll move onto my plan b) .... and you'll get what you really want
13 Jan 16 UTC Autumn, 1919: This is getting painful. Our peanut gallery in the forum is throwing rotten tomatoes at us here. Turkey - please give up the delusion. Eliminate Italy if you want, then draw.
13 Jan 16 UTC Spring, 1920: England: stop trying to pressure this game into an early conclusion - this is really just words for effect. We all know I'm going to play on.
In fact I'm not really sure whether to believe your messages anyway... if you really want this game to end you're going a very funny way about it.
13 Jan 16 UTC Spring, 1920: By establishing a stalemate line and requesting a draw? Doesn't seem that odd to me.
14 Jan 16 UTC Spring, 1920: Given the tournament situation and my messages to you though.... you must have known that this would happen.
14 Jan 16 UTC Spring, 1920: Whether you "need" a certain result or not, Germany and I dictate the result you will get. I'm not inclined to change the agreement with Germany. So best bet is to take all the centers you can and settle for a 3-way draw.
14 Jan 16 UTC Spring, 1920: I've told you plenty of times in global as well as in our messages that I'd play on in this kind of position. So this message is nothing other than just more words for effect. Your statement that you and Germany "dictate" the result of this game is far from proven - in fact has yet to be tested properly. Although your wish to see a 3 way draw seems to be getting further away - terrible shame... very careless of me giving away Greece like that :)

As for you not being inclined to change your agreement with Germany, I bet you're not... you on 13 him on 5 SCs! At least not until I give you a proper solo shot, eh?
14 Jan 16 UTC Spring, 1920: 4-way draw, 3-way draw - it's the same to me. That "threat" has no impact, as you already know.
Undoubtedly you keep bringing up a solo with a "wink-wink, nudge-nudge" as a way to attempt to draw me off the line. I am indifferent to any moves you make.
14 Jan 16 UTC Spring, 1920: I don't want the game to run any longer than it already has, but I'm a bit curious to see if Turkey's desperate moves to grant Italy territory could backfire, with Italy eliminating him from the game. It would be amusing, but I'd hate to suffer through another ten years to get there.
21 Jan 16 UTC Autumn, 1921: Not that it matters given that I've mastered the complexity of my orders in this game, but I am travelling for the weekend and will be available for limited press only. No pause required.
28 Jan 16 UTC Spring, 1923: Italy could now force an end to this game, right? Italy could do so by creating with England a stalemate line and then sitting (three turns?) until the mods force the game. Italy almost has a stalemate line set, just got to pop that fleet in Tuscany. That is, if I understand the rules about how mods enforce draws correctly.
28 Jan 16 UTC Spring, 1923: I see a stalemate line that includes Rome and Naples but I think Turkey could stop them from setting the line if he tried.
05 Feb 16 UTC Spring, 1925: So I am pretty sure Spring 1925 makes this my longest game in game-years. It is also probably my longest game in calendar years. Anyone else setting records?
06 Feb 16 UTC Spring, 1925: Ditto
06 Feb 16 UTC Spring, 1925: Another 60 years and it'll be my birth date. We can do it!
11 Feb 16 UTC Autumn, 1926: why is this game still going?
11 Feb 16 UTC Autumn, 1926: Great question. Ask Turkey.
12 Feb 16 UTC Autumn, 1926: Moderator: (ghug): I'm turning WFO off. Continue to NMR at your own risk.
12 Feb 16 UTC Spring, 1927: Turkey's goal, both unsporting and unlikely to be successful in my opinion, appears to be playing for a NMR. Am I right about that?
12 Feb 16 UTC Spring, 1927: He could be playing for a misorder, too.
12 Feb 16 UTC Spring, 1927: Even one misorder wouldn't change things, would it? Taking Munich and Berlin wouldn't be enough to take Kiel, too. Not sure why England hasn't put a fleet in Baltic and Western Med, but doing so would ensure that it would take multiple NMRs/misorders to break the stalemate line.
12 Feb 16 UTC Spring, 1927: Well, you can probably guess why England hasn't put a fleet in Baltic.
12 Feb 16 UTC Spring, 1927: I assume at your request?
12 Feb 16 UTC Spring, 1927: Yep.
12 Feb 16 UTC Spring, 1927: Happy to put a fleet there if you want ...
13 Feb 16 UTC Spring, 1927: thank you all for your kind comments :)
I can assure you this game is set to become slightly less boring
15 Feb 16 UTC Moderator: (ghug): A stalemate had formed, centers had stopped changing hands, and the players involved had no interest in breaking the stalemate, so a draw has been forced.

Thanks to all of you for playing.
15 Feb 16 UTC I am less bored now! :D
15 Feb 16 UTC 'grats mscott
16 Feb 16 UTC thanks - good game all
16 Feb 16 UTC I have to say I'm rather disappointed that the moderator has forced a draw at this point.... you can see I'm halfway through a plan of putting England on brink of solo.

As for me being portrayed as the bogeyman for prolonging the game, I'd like to point out notable contributions of others:
1. England: If he had been willing to work with me, we'd have finished this game 10 years ago as a 2 way draw. But he prefers to drag this game out by 10 years and turn a 2 way draw into a 4 way draw. All just to keep me out the final because he's too chicken to face me.

2. Germany: he wasted about 7 years through leading me on.... promising to stab England if I do x. Then as soon as I do x, demanding y too. Now obviously this has worked out for you Stack, if all you wanted was a 4 way draw - so congrats. But the fact that the moderator has rewarded you for these tactics by artificially forcing a draw I think creates some very perverse incentives for people. It's just asking for people to adopt exactly the same tactics - which waste everybody's time.
16 Feb 16 UTC And ghug: think about point 2. and the incentives you're setting up for people in future games. If you had allowed me to follow through with my plan, then maybe it would have been 50% England solo, 50% 2 way draw. By artificially ending the game now, you're rewarding Germany for his earlier time-wasting in leading me on. You're sending out a clear message to anybody in Germany's position in future games that if you can time waste and prolong the game long enough by leading people on as Germany did here, then you will be rewarded by a draw.
Is that really the message you want to send out?
16 Feb 16 UTC TBC about point 2: honestly, I felt bad, but I realized I had negotiated a bad deal for myself. What was I to do at that point? Keep the deal, and accept a risk I thought was unacceptable, or try to make a new one? I tried to make a new one; you didn't like that; and that's the ballgame.
16 Feb 16 UTC Germany: I see - thanks for your honesty. I felt the deal we negotiated, was biased in my favour but should have been good enough for you. Here the tournament should have come to your aid as I was very unlikely to step out of line and go for a solo. Your constant renegotiation led me to question your motives. Anyway, your 3rd on my list of people I'm annoyed at.

1st place is an England who has turned down a 2 way draw in favour of a 4 way draw together with a 10+ year delay.... all just to keep me out of the final.

2nd place is ghug who ended this game prematurely despite my messages telling him I was doing stuff. Throughout, I kept ghug informed of my plans - and told him that if all else failed my final plan was to put England on brink of solo to incentivise him to stab.... I explicitly told him more than once that I would do that at the end as a "hail Mary" play if you will. For him to deny me that chance just as I had set up the position seems barmy - especially bearing in mind that I responded to all ghug's messages and was never given any specific notice of a planned end. I know being a moderator is a tough job, and I don't like to criticise since I'm sure he does a lot of good for this site. But sorry... I felt that decision was just plain wrong.
16 Feb 16 UTC Yeah, I probably should have just paid more attention from 1917 on and maybe the endgame would have been more exciting if I had pushed harder for a deal I could definitely take. I understand the renegotiation undermined my credibility so I don't blame you. Keep in mind I got burned on a bad deal for a 2-way in Board 2 (which ended around 1913 in this game I think), so I was in a pretty cautious mood going in and a bit de-motivated after that solo.
17 Feb 16 UTC Turkey - Do you honestly think I was playing specifically to keep you out of the final? That is ludicrous:

1. I had/ still have no idea who you are
2. I played to get ME in the final, as was unconcerned with whether any or all of you went there with me.
---
On strategy:
You went for a solo and failed, thanks to some quick thinking and action, and some difficult negotiations between Germany and me; once that bid failed, I was content to play to draw if you didn't give me a clear and low-risk opportunity to solo. At the end there, it was getting close. However, it took you ten years to get there and you employed Italy's survival as a pawn in a game where a) he was defeated and should have been eliminated (no offense, Italy, but it's true) and b) it made no difference to my primary goal of advancing. It did piss me off as a silly strategy, and made me Elsa willing to work with you though.
Once your solo attempt failed, if you truly wanted the 2-way draw, you should have retreated from the south and from Germany to give me a 1-year buffer; I think that's what I needed to make it happen. Anyway, Germany proved, despite early disagreements, to be the most durable and reasonable ally in the game.
---
I could have played more aggressively and stabbed Germany regardless, but it felt like I owed him more than I owed you.
17 Feb 16 UTC The Italy thing there is curious - I definitely asked jimbo to do it, not only because it seemed like a prerequisite to me making another crazy move, but because I thought it would increase the tension between you two. Wonder if he saw it the same way or would have done it if I hadn't asked.
17 Feb 16 UTC England you write:
"2. I played to get ME in the final, as was unconcerned with whether any or all of you went there with me."

I'm sorry but this is just obviously nonsense. If you worked with me, you'd have almost certainly got a 2 way draw. But even if you messed up and let me solo (and given the plan I presented, you would have had to mess up pretty bad), then you'd have been through to the final anyway as all you needed was >8 SCs.
The one path that didn't guarantee you passage to the final is the one thing you did. By holding out on me, I almost secured a deal with Germany that would have seen us work together to 2 way draw and eliminate you.

So yes, I do believe you were deliberately trying to keep me from the final because nothing else makes sense. By taking your actions you:
1. Introduced unnecessary risk for yourself.
2. Obtained a 4 way draw instead of 2 way draw.
3. Prolonged the game by 10 years.
I see no other explanation.

As for Italy, as part of the deal I struck with him, I told him that I wouldn't eliminate him just to whittle down a 4 way to a 3 way - since it made no difference to me. And I saw no reason to go back on my word here. Maybe you could argue that he's being kept alive artificially. But then to some extent, England kept Germany alive artificially too. Any normal England acting in his own self-interests would have eliminated Germany

Start Backward Open large map Forward End

Turkey
jimbobicus (133 D)
Drawn. Bet: 5 D, won: 9 D
15 supply-centers, 14 units
England
mscott (384 D (G))
Drawn. Bet: 5 D, won: 9 D
13 supply-centers, 13 units
Germany
Drawn. Bet: 5 D, won: 9 D
5 supply-centers, 5 units
Italy
Draffin (160 D)
Drawn. Bet: 5 D, won: 9 D
1 supply-centers, 1 units
France
guak (3381 D)
Defeated. Bet: 5 D
Austria
ckroberts (3548 D)
Defeated. Bet: 5 D
Russia
superchunk (4890 D)
Defeated. Bet: 5 D
Archive: Orders - Maps - Messages