Congratulations to xorxes for winning the 2018 Gunboat Tournament!
The Boston Massacre tournament is from June 21-23. Get information, pricing, and a special offer here.

Finished: 03 PM Sun 12 Dec 10 UTC
Private World Cup Finals Public Press
1 days, 12 hours /phase
Pot: 140 D - Spring, 1907, Finished
Classic, Public messaging only, Anonymous players, Draw-Size Scoring
1 excused missed turn
Game drawn
07 Dec 10 UTC Spring, 1906: All you said in Autumn 1901 was a single sentence: Do you want to talk about the future of Belgium? That is it. The next time Belgium was brought up was by me in 1903. You have no claim that you disputed my control of Belgium.
07 Dec 10 UTC Spring, 1906: France can you please confirm you will not move to Ionian sea. That would be most disturbing for relation between our nations?

Regarding France-Germany dispute Turkey will stay neutral just like other members of Eastern alliance. Eastern alliance should act as a single entity in foreign decision that could have global impact.
07 Dec 10 UTC Spring, 1906: Germany; At no point did the Russian empire acknowledge a permanant state of ownership regarding Sweden and Norway - rather, Russian military forces would fully support German forces in the position they were in. This was said with the understanding of an eventual shift of ownership of at least some part of the SC's in Scandanavia (which had been agreed to) and *not* with the understanding that this would never now occur.

However; as stated earlier this phase, Russia has no requirement for Norway and/or Sweden at the present moment; the Czar enjoys peace with his neighbours and thinks only to maintain border security. The Czar would not wish to weaken the German empire's position by redistrubuting SC's at this point in time; but fair is fair, and equal distribution of centres would be expected in the future. Scandanvia is clearly a means to meet this expectation - as Germany can not offer other centres to Russia without great risk!

Furthermore - the suggestion that the fleet in St Petersburg would be useful to the German empire is still a suggestion, and open to discussion. It should not be taken as a promise, but indicating that the Russian forces stationed there are willing (and still are willing) to discuss how we may work together in a way beneficial to the German forces in the north.

And in simple terms, to be clear; Russia does not desire current ownership of Norway/Sweden, but it does expect a fair distrubtion of centres by Germany as the game progresses, and views Norway/Sweden to potentially solve this problem. Secondly Russia is willing to negotiate how the Russian forces may be deployed defensively for assistance with the German empire.
07 Dec 10 UTC Autumn, 1906: Austria requests that the kind Sultan orders Naples to support a move into Rome from Apulia. We thank the Turkish people in advance.
07 Dec 10 UTC Autumn, 1906: Request have been granted, admiral that is commanding Ottoman forces in Naples are supporting advance of Austrian troops into Rome.
07 Dec 10 UTC Autumn, 1906: Thank you, dear friend!
07 Dec 10 UTC Autumn, 1906: We, the French empire, are willing to promise Russia all of Scandinavia including Denmark as well as Berlin if he were to join our side against annexation of territory for no reason. Further, we are willing to promise Austria Munich and Turkey Tunis. We have no real desire for personal gain; we just wish to see treachery punished.
08 Dec 10 UTC Autumn, 1906: “no real desire for personal gain” – May I remind all players that this is a world cup game. Honor is vital and indispensible to be successful in any public press game, but by no means can any claim that a Great Power here isn’t looking out for itself be given any credit. France craves personal gain. And would France really put itself in a position that it could not resist an Eastern invasion (once I am supposedly eliminated) by freely granting all the territories it claims it will?

France: The points you missed:
But do you then claim that your offer was automatically retracted with the passing of a season? That is a rather odd interpretation.

I do not demand goodwill, but only honesty, consistency and conditions for the maintenance of peace. By this latter demand I mean, above all, the balance between the five peaceful Great Powers.

The neutrality of Minor Powers is beside the point. Denmark, for instance was still neutral when seized by the English state, but the international community gave unanimous and unsolicited support for a German Belgium. If anything, it neutral states by their very definition are disputed unless there is a consensus to any other interpretation.

Commit to being an ally of Russia? If Russia requests neutrality, I will respect its request. Of course I would like Russia to assist me in the present conflict you insist on having, but I'm not going to force it to intervene.

Being a central power is a perfectly good excuse for occupying more territory. That’s why you offered Bel or Edi in the first place. Annexing, no, but I wouldn't say that I have done that per se.

This is the first thing I said about 1901, and why I brought it up: "Your claim that my delayed response to your original offer automatically gives you the right to demand as you please is made all the sillier when you realize that I was requesting a negotiation of Belgium's fate as early as Fall 1901! You entirely ignored this request. By your logic I have all the right in the world to assume that your utter non-response necessarily allows me to claim Belgium as my own without any debate."

Russia: You really should protested my appreciation towards you in Fall 1905. That would have let me know I had misinterpreted you. That said, the North Germanic Empire is fully aware of its obligation to provide the Russian Empire with some sort of territorial compensation for the damage inflicted by the English, and will do so as soon as it is able.

Could the White Sea Flotilla be supported to the Norwegian Sea?
08 Dec 10 UTC Autumn, 1906: Germany - at the time, I had no reason to protest; I had no inclination that you would withold Norway from Russia indefinetely.

Russia's concerns are primarily that of his relationship with Austria and Turkey; whilst the Czar could take decisive action on behalf of either side in this conflict, he would not choose willingly to do so should it antagonise Austria and/or Turkey.

Would Austria/Turkey choose to maintain their alliance with Russia should the Czar formally support either Germany or France in the coming war? And would Austria/Turkey have an opinion on which side Russia should support?

If there is no problem here with Austria/Turkey, Russia will formally alliances as to this conflict (in the spirit of an honest, open and cooperative game).
08 Dec 10 UTC Autumn, 1906: Turkey is very interested in Russian suggestion. Eastern alliance proved to be stable and benefited all members equally. It would be wise to act as one in foreign relations to powers outside the alliance. If other members support idea that members of the eastern sphere act as one to all other powers, and every member of the sphere have equal share of political and military power now and in future gains - Turkey will support that agreement too. Besides wise leadership, and mutual trust great importance lies in equilibrium of military power. Most stable alliance is one in which all allied states have equal share of military might, territory size and political influence.
08 Dec 10 UTC Autumn, 1906: I will try to address every single one of Germany's sentences as that seems to be what he expects, although he certainly does not do the same in return.

I have no real desire for personal gain. This is true. My teammates were Italy in the first gunboat game, Italy in the standard game where England and France are sweeping the board, and Germany in the standard game where Germany is dead. We cannot win the world cup. It is over. I would simply like to see honesty and straightforwardness win over manipulation.

When an offer stipulates "If you build a specific way this season, I will do this specific thing" and you do not build that specific way, then yes, obviously the offer is retracted. That is how offers work.

As you have seen in my offer of the split of your territory, I am perfectly comfortable with restoring balance to the game. I have offered to give up Tunis and take almost none of the gains of your territory and instead give them to the Eastern bloc.

I assume that you mean "German Denmark," not "German Belgium," as the latter would be an outright lie. Your control of Denmark was only approved once it was made clear that England was not a friend of peaceful nations. Your takeover of Belgium has not been approved by the international community.

I offered you Belgium because I like to reward my allies and because I wanted to make clear that if you did not build any more fleets, I was with you for the remainder of the game. You did not do so and thus did not make the same gesture.

I need you to rewrite your point about 1901, as I have already addressed it as far as I can tell. Your claim that you were requesting a negotiation of Belgium's fate as early as Fall 1901, and I have directly quoted what you said in 1901 and addressed it. As to the "utter non-response" silliness, do I really need to go back through the chat history to point out all of the times I asked you to not ignore an issue? I did not blame you for this, as it is easy to miss someone else's question. You failed to follow up, adn as far as I could tell, my capture and then your subsequesnt support hold of me in Belgium seemed to settle the issue completely.

You are currently able to give Russia Norway. That is abundantly clear. The fleet in Sweden does not help you tactically against me. You are choosing not to give Russia Norway. That is simply a fact.
09 Dec 10 UTC Autumn, 1906: France: And how is it possible for me to let Russia into Norway when I need fleets to occupy both Norway and the Norwegian Sea? I will reply to your other points when it is more sane for me to do so, as now I am spending way too much time on this site during my last week of classes.

Austria-Hungary and Turkey: My friends, our relations have remained friendly all game. I would urge you both to lobby in support of us Germans who have consistently allied with and supported the Eastern Triple. Berlin is your friend. May it remain so.

Russia: If France still insists on war, I am willing to automatically cede Norway. Without discussion as soon as Edinburgh falls under Russian administration. If favorable conditions are given prior to this, I will also cede Norway. But I assume you will not move Bar-Nwg in the end?
09 Dec 10 UTC Autumn, 1906: I like Russia's idea of the Eastern Triple acting as a block. We have a good bordering position in relation to each other and can certainly distribute tasks well in case of a bigger war coming up.
09 Dec 10 UTC Autumn, 1906: We both know you don't need a fleet in Norway, Germany.
09 Dec 10 UTC Autumn, 1906: Without sufficient time to discuss things with Austria and Turkey (as to a clear direction) and unwilling to support either nation against other for this turn (though a decision will be made in time for everyone next turn), Barents will be moving to Norwegian in the hope that a bounce will be achieved this turn no matter what.
09 Dec 10 UTC Autumn, 1906: I made the absolute stupidest moves imaginable to loose Belgium!
09 Dec 10 UTC Autumn, 1906: Austria: My offer stands to support you to Munich.
09 Dec 10 UTC Autumn, 1906: Good idea, Czar!
Sorry, Italy. I had to pick a side in our fight with Turkey, and Turkey seemed much less inclined to do sneaky stuff.
09 Dec 10 UTC Autumn, 1906: Blah
09 Dec 10 UTC Autumn, 1906: *Not "our", "your" (fight with Turkey)!
09 Dec 10 UTC Autumn, 1906: I believe the Eastern Block must now make a decision based on very objective criteria. This is the World Cup, after all!
So allow me to make a list of Pros and Cons for our options.

Supporting France:
- It's easier. Germany is surrounded and couldn't find a corner.
- It's faster. Germany couldn't resist for long.
- France made a reasonable offer of SCs for each of the Eastern powers (whose small inequality concerns we could correct between ourselves without much trouble, I believe).
- France would still be the biggest power and would then face a trio that would have to arrange moves in public while his own moves wouldn't need to be revealed.
- Turkey would be out of the main action, which might be a cause for boredom and temptation!

Supporting Germany:
- No need for much shifting, we're already in position to at least make a decent stalemate line.
- Every power would have a part in the action.
- Most likely, not much progress would be made. Again, we'd have to make our moves public, while France could keep them secret.
- Germany is already bigger than us, and would be more likely to make gains at first than any of us.

The third way - a five way draw!:
- Not much of an effort for anyone, just wait for the end of this turn, then click on the Draw button.
- All the survivors have played well enough at some point to be deserving of a result.
- Less risks for everyone.
- Less fun.
- Less points.
09 Dec 10 UTC Autumn, 1906: great review Austria, Turkey will think through all 3 proposals and vote for one. Should we make decision on majority of votes or it will require all 3 members to agree?
09 Dec 10 UTC Autumn, 1906: Just to be clear, I am stalemated in the south, and when you have Munich, Austria, (and I cannot gain further without your help), you can easily set up a stalemate line with Munich.

When Germany is gone, my hope would be a 4 way draw. I would not hope to fight at all.
10 Dec 10 UTC Autumn, 1906: France: I'll still reply eventually.

Eastern Triple:

Supporting France:
- The Imperial Navy is much larger than its neigbours' flotillas. It definitely can reach a corner of the board.
- As a seasoned Diplomacy player, I definitely can hold out for long.
- France is offering only to annex two SC's, as far as I remember. Is that realistic? Doesn't that show that France is planning to sweep the board?
- France would still be the biggest power and would then face a trio that would have to arrange moves in public while his own moves wouldn't need to be revealed. -- Yep, and France could easily grab more than its declared share when it stabs.
- Turkey would be out of the main action, which might be a cause for boredom and temptation! -- Yep. And if troops are stationed along the Turkish border so that there is no temptation, I definitley have enough resources at my disposal to hold out indefinitley.

Supporting Germany:
- No need for much shifting, we're already in position to at least make a decent stalemate line. -- I would propose the following division of French SC's:
N. Germanic E.: Bel, Lon, Par, Lvp
Russia: Nwy*(currently a North Germanic SC), Edi
A-H: Mar, Spa
Turkey: Tun, Por, (Bre)
This balanced distribution allows for the members of the Eastern Triple to expand equally, as requested. (If you are unwilling to assign Bre to Turkey for reasons of balance, I could take it. A-H and Turkey can also divide up their lands as they see fit. I am also willing to switch Bre for Par.) The distribution also gives me the fair share of SC's I require to ward off an Eastern attempt to invade me while I am surrounded, while still making it impossible for me to try and claim victory In addition, the short borders between us at the end of the distribution (and in the process of acquiring) make stabs highly unlikely
- Every power would have a part in the action. -- And hence stabs are unlikely
- Most likely, not much progress would be made. Again, we'd have to make our moves public, while France could keep them secret. -- On the contrary, there is absolutely no stalemate line France could find:
- Germany is already bigger than us, and would be more likely to make gains at first than any of us. -- I see the first gains as Edi for Russia and Tun for Turkey. And unless you will offically incorparate me into your alliance, I need a few extra SC's.

The third way - a five way draw!: I am in favor of letting this game play out a bit while waiting to see how my teammates fare in other games before drawing, but of course will draw if there is a concensus to do so

I will also tell you that the key to your alliance is the large military prescence in the Balkans. Without this presecne, your alliance will be held together by nothing more than air. Because declaring war on me requires much of this presence to be withdrawn, I strongly advise the Eastern Alliance not to move against me if it is interested in its own preservation. I have continuously actively worked towards the stability of the South-Eastern region of the board, as well as for the Eastern Alliance as a whole. Please accept this warning as part of that volume of work, and not as a plea.
10 Dec 10 UTC Autumn, 1906: neigbours' --> neighbors'
definitley --> definitely
indefinitley --> indefinitely
offically --> officially
incorparate --> incorporate
concensus --> consensus
prescence --> presence
presence --> presence
10 Dec 10 UTC Autumn, 1906: Wow, look at that. I would fail a spelling bee badly.
10 Dec 10 UTC Autumn, 1906: The important points in what Germany is saying are the following:
I have no stalemate line. If you all agree to attack me, I will die. Period. I am not a solo threat. Especially since I am promising Tunis to Tureky, which I will hand over immediately after the honorable Eastern triple commits to the eradication of the conniving Germany.

Second, Germany has made it clear that he has no trust in alliances from the get-go, from his constant allusions to stabs and belief that his aggression is rationalized by such a disbelief in alliances. I guarantee you that once I am gone (which I would be if you so chose to eliminate me) he will try to stir up hostilities to "ensure his survival." I will do nothing of the sort. This is my last game on this site, my team is completely knocked out of the World cup as I have said above, and I would simply like to see a game resolved in a way that leaves a good taste in my mouth for my very last game.

If you so wish that we have a 5 way draw instead, i have voted for it.
10 Dec 10 UTC Autumn, 1906: I would like to point out that Turkey will not do any action that will endanger relations in eastern triple. I am certain the same is with Austria and Russia. Germany tried to imply that in the case of triple side itself with France, Turkey will stab his allies. This will not happen. Turkey will stay and defend his friends until the last Turkish soldier lives. If relations between eastern triple and Germany deteriorate Turkey will evacuate all units from the border of his allies. Centers can be redistributed among triple members on such a way that every member of alliance have even share.
Eastern alliance is democratic in his nature so what majority of members decide we all follow.
10 Dec 10 UTC Autumn, 1906: I'll cast my vote after the end of the turn.
10 Dec 10 UTC Autumn, 1906: Firstly, once France is eliminated, I will draw. There is no reason to ensure my survival (and stirring up hostilities doesn't help me survive anyway), because the game will end. If the game doesn't . . .

Secondly, I do trust alliances. I just believe that their viability requires a lot of active work, as I have tried to illustrate. You can't just submit to blind trust; you must implement techniques (as an alliance) to make conflict impossible.

Thirdly, my last post was a reply to each of Austria-Hungary's points in its analysis. No summary needs to be made of what I said. Any summary given is pointless because it does not even remotely serve my original purpose. The only concept I found important enough to mention outside of Austria-Hungary's structure is the need for a military occupation of the Balkans, which I also consider my most "important point".
10 Dec 10 UTC Autumn, 1906: Those points were to France's comments.
10 Dec 10 UTC Autumn, 1906: "Centers can be redistributed among triple members on such a way that every member of alliance have even share."
Turkey: And where will you get these centers? Don't you see that Austria-Hungary and Russia may not feel comfortable with you entering Ser and Rum? I don't question your loyalty, Turkey. But as I said, alliances should be worked so that they make their collapse impossible. That's exactly what an alliance means, that its preservation beneficial to all parties. Proceeding with my plan, you will gain good foot-holes in the West. I don't see why you should prefer the East.

Please also note that I gave plenty of other reasons for supporting me in my struggle besides the one you noticed. Make sure you make a complete analysis of the situation.
10 Dec 10 UTC Autumn, 1906: I want to make clear that if my fellows of the Eastern Triple vote together for a different decision, I'll support their decision democratically.
10 Dec 10 UTC Autumn, 1906: The Czar has listened to the arguments from both Germany and France, and whilst agreeing to follow the concensus of the Triple, will vote for supporting Germany.

The Czar's reasoning primarily comes down to thus; the alliance Austria, Turkey and Russia hold is paramount to our success as a group thus far. Even should Germany attempt to move against us, we would prevail - and moving as a unified group now shows that would be the case.

Secondly, but related, is that the original proposition of our alliance involved an offer to Germany to support us in our move westward against France/England/Italy, and it would be honourable to support this.

I believe the strongest case for fighting against Germany would be simply that he is surrounded already, and presumably would be easy to defeat. But as France has himself admitted, France cannot survive an incursion against the four of us.

The debate between Germany-France has been interesting regarding their individual positions on the situation in Belgium - and though the Czar does not condone taking territory by force if war has not been officiated, the Czar does respect the German position on the board and their need for survival - and France surely would have pressed against him either way.
10 Dec 10 UTC Autumn, 1906: Russia: Yes, the creator of the Eastern hegemony would most certainly not want to be brutally murdered by it. :-)
10 Dec 10 UTC Autumn, 1906: And by 'it' I mean my creation, of course.
11 Dec 10 UTC Autumn, 1906: Russia, I am deeply disappointed by your decision. There is no tactical reason for such a decision, as Germany has agreed. It is simply a choice to support Germany over me.
11 Dec 10 UTC Autumn, 1906: Second, i do not believe that Germany is some honorary member of the eastern triple. What he did was try to convince all of you to keep Greece neutral, thus weakening your total alliance. This was manipulation, not diplomatic aid.
11 Dec 10 UTC Autumn, 1906: France: History was not Russia's primary reason for its decision.

And perhaps unfortunately, I did much more than just advocate for a neutral Greece. As for Greece, I'm actually glad now that they didn't follow my advice. With a neutral Greece, the units currently in the Balkans wouldn't need to be there.
11 Dec 10 UTC Autumn, 1906: France, either choice would involve choosing one over the other - it isn't personal, but necessary. Both choices tactically make sense - neither nation would survive our choice, and we would be successful with either choice - thus whilst the overall strategy is obviously important, and there are pros and cons, the decision ultimately comes down to both the metagame, and maintaining the alliance we have. Attacking France over Germany allows us to move westwards together with no tension/unit activity near our own boarders. And it also follows up with our previously agreed plan. There are no such benefits regarding attacking Germany.

With this in mind however, it is completely up to Austria and Turkey would they would prefer - and I will support them either way.
11 Dec 10 UTC My vote is for the five-way draw. Although I like to play to the end and have fun with it, this is a tournament game and I have responsabilities with respect to my teammates, so I have to do what I believe to be the best for my team. But if Turkey wants to eliminate France I'll join the bandwagon.
11 Dec 10 UTC Surely though it would be best for your team to get as many points as you can though - a guaranteed 4 way is better than a 5 way in this regard? But again, happy either way.
11 Dec 10 UTC Turkey have similar attitude like Austria. My vote goes to 5wd. In the case that is not satisfactory to others I think helping France is better option.
11 Dec 10 UTC So be it then
12 Dec 10 UTC Agreed. Only Germany left to vote for draw.
12 Dec 10 UTC Then a draw it is.
12 Dec 10 UTC Good game, all!
12 Dec 10 UTC France: If I had aksed you to turn around and destroy the Eastern Triple by my side, woild you have done it?
12 Dec 10 UTC Not if you had 4 fleets I wouldn't have.
13 Dec 10 UTC Ha ha, well I guess that's a good point. What about if I had disbanded one of them?

Start Backward Open large map Forward End

mikeconroy (0 D X)
Drawn. Bet: 20 D, won: 28 D
10 supply-centers, 10 units
JECE (1322 D)
Drawn. Bet: 20 D, won: 28 D
7 supply-centers, 7 units
JesusPetry (104 D)
Drawn. Bet: 20 D, won: 28 D
6 supply-centers, 6 units
Dejan0707 (1504 D)
Drawn. Bet: 20 D, won: 28 D
6 supply-centers, 6 units
jasoncollins (186 D)
Drawn. Bet: 20 D, won: 28 D
5 supply-centers, 5 units
Sendler (418 D)
Defeated. Bet: 20 D
BigZombieDude (1188 D)
Defeated. Bet: 20 D
Archive: Orders - Maps - Messages