Congratulations to xorxes for winning both the FvA and GvI 1v1 tournaments, as well as VillageIdiot for placing third in the Nexus Diplomacy tournament!

Finished: 09 PM Wed 18 Jul 12 UTC
I Buttered My Butt
5 minutes /phase
Pot: 350 D - Autumn, 1909, Finished
Classic, Anonymous players, Survivors-Win Scoring
1 excused missed turn
Game won by CSteinhardt (9040 D (B))
18 Jul 12 UTC Evidently, not.
18 Jul 12 UTC Good game all -- well played. See you all soon, I hope.
18 Jul 12 UTC so who is russia?
18 Jul 12 UTC Good game all. Jacob, if you'd like, you're welcome to post an EoG in the forums. Now that we see who all of the players are, I'll note that this is in fact not the first game England has ever played.
18 Jul 12 UTC I want to know why england and russia have finished games but have none logged in their profile.
18 Jul 12 UTC Russia's some poor sod who's never done better than a "survive" in his first 8 games thusfar.
18 Jul 12 UTC I'm confused, then, because I see several in their profiles.
18 Jul 12 UTC You're on the wrong page, Italy. Go back to page 1.
18 Jul 12 UTC If you look at one profile, and go to page 3, when you look at another profile you'll start on page 3. If they haven't played that many games, it looks like it's blank. Stupid system.
18 Jul 12 UTC what the hell. why was i on page 5 of 1?
18 Jul 12 UTC ooooh got it.
18 Jul 12 UTC That would explain it.
18 Jul 12 UTC yup
18 Jul 12 UTC Anyway, to further answer your question:

I know this might shock you, but occasionally in Diplomacy I've found that when a player says "tell me what moves to make and I'll make them", they're not actually telling the complete truth.
18 Jul 12 UTC Do we want an EoG? Looks like it would only be the four of us, at most. Really all I want is a chance to vent at being too trusting in Spring 02 :D
18 Jul 12 UTC Lying? In Diplomacy? Surely you jest!
18 Jul 12 UTC Jacob seemed to want an EoG to yell at me because he thought I unfairly took advantage of a weak player in England, I think.
18 Jul 12 UTC And he also felt that it was unethical for me to ally myself with a small power rather than killing it.
18 Jul 12 UTC I disagree with him on both counts, but I told him that if he wanted to make his case in an EoG, I'd respond.
18 Jul 12 UTC we can EoG if you want. i don't need one. it just didn't sit well with me.
18 Jul 12 UTC Cool. I'd be interested in hearing some of the press that went on early-game. My own role was mostly that of Nazi Sympathizer, but I'd post if there was a thread.
18 Jul 12 UTC What happened with England? I wasn't privy to this part of the private messaging. Never heard a single word from England, nor sent one.
18 Jul 12 UTC England told me he was a noob and germany was feeding him orders but then germany stabbed him so he wanted me to give him orders. it seems an unfair advantage to me.
18 Jul 12 UTC Sounds at first blush like a sloppy info-gathering technique. "Tell me what to do" --> get orders from them --> use those orders to deduce their plans. The fact that he then turned to Italy, that's a bit more genuine.
18 Jul 12 UTC compounded with the obvious clusterfuck that was going on up there. i mean, SOMEONE should have been weakened. but no one once, hence my feelings of frustration after England's disclosure.
18 Jul 12 UTC Well Germany, Russia, and I managed to completely shut down England during 1901. In 1902, Germany stabbed me but didn't destroy me, and so there was an uneasy balance there for a while with me trying to fight off you and England while he had a knife stuck in my gut.
18 Jul 12 UTC it just doesnt sit well with me. i mean, whats the difference between basically controlling a weak-minded player and just having a friend playing next to you and feeding him orders. you have more units at your disposal immediately.
18 Jul 12 UTC True. But I guess -- if I'm Austria and you're Turkey, and we discuss all our moves, what's the difference? The problem here isn't that one person was giving move ideas to another, it's that England blindly followed them. That's his fault, more than CSs I feel, and it happens whenever people of unequal skill play next to each other.
18 Jul 12 UTC Jacob, the difference is that with a friend playing next to you, the friend is not attempting to get the best result they can for themselves. England was attempting to get the best result possible, and simply didn't end up attaining a good result.
18 Jul 12 UTC And, frankly, I'm not sure what you'd have me to. I worked out a deal with England, he failed to follow through, then he basically comes to me and says "OK, I screwed up, tell me what to order". Let's say I believe that he'll follow through. What exactly would you have me do? Declare war? I mean, the correct play was for me to work with him, all the more so if he was likely to be ineffective.
18 Jul 12 UTC to a degree sure, but for me that is another level. Germany drug him along, even strategically ordering bounces between them so that no one would suspect. when england comes to me, having not talked to anyone else in the game as per everyone else's account, and says that germany has been giving him his orders but germany just turned and he wants me to tell him what to do, then that just seems like a line that shouldnt be crossed. ive had people approach me in games and say 'ive never played' or this and that, and so i take them out. thats how they learn and it forces me to use my time and units to do so. germany basically started with extra units, didnt need to expend time or units to gain more.
18 Jul 12 UTC CS, I do have one question for you -- Spring 02, I had considered that you might do exactly what you did. My counter was that I'd convoy Port -> Gascony, so I could protect against Pied or Burgundy, or still retreat to Spain if I were wrong. What do you think you'd have done, had I convoyed like that?
18 Jul 12 UTC like i said, i think the solution is to let them die. we're obviously going to have to disagree there it seems and that's fine. im just voicing my frustration with this kind of situation.
18 Jul 12 UTC Jacob, I actually wasn't aware that England was talking to nobody else. I had no problem getting him to reply to me, so I assumed that others were talking to him as well. I think you'd assume the same.

@JM: I would definitely have taken Belgium. I think I would then have supposed Italy into Marseilles to avoid your getting a third army on the board. However, England wasn't really that communicative, so I also might have taken that as a sign that England leaked the stab and just ordered a power-3 Bur - Bel, then tried to get Russia to help with NTH.
18 Jul 12 UTC Your frustration is certainly valid, Jacob. I think that, were I in CS's position, I probably would have tried giving him suggestions, and either assumed he was talking to other people as well or flat-out told him to. Getting multiple viewpoints and making alliances is how the game works. It sounds like a rotten situation all around though.
18 Jul 12 UTC Jacob, I think we do just disagree here. When I see a weakened player on the board, whether because of skill or because they're simply down to a small number of units, my first thought is whether there is anything more beneficial that can happen besides just seeing them die. Clearly as Germany, my thinking from the outset is that I want to work with one of E/F against the other, then likely turn on my partner at some point. Often which one to work with is a decision that's made for me, because only one of them is willing to be a strong ally, but if I am fortunate enough to have the choice, doesn't it make sense to pick the one that's likely to be easier to turn on later?
18 Jul 12 UTC The other thing is that I really don't think he is a much of a noob as you're making him out to be. I see a 13-center result in his previous game, similarly PPSC and a 5-minute deadlines live game. And when we did fight a war, he made a couple of reasonable sets of orders in a losing battle -- the only major mistake IMO was keeping two fleets instead of fleet/army. So, I think you might have been a bit taken in by the combination of my making moves that were hard for you to understand and his giving you a good sales pitch.
18 Jul 12 UTC if they are both players, sure. i just can't wrap my head around a noob who wants direction not cooperation as a player. i look at them as a CD, not a tool at my disposal. i weak player, sure. but for me there is a line between a naive, weak player and someone who is just asking for anyone who will listen to tell them what to do (and actually doing it). i think that's the rub for me; at some point you had to see that without your instruction he was worthless and that's the point where it seems tactless to me. but agree to disagree i suppose.
18 Jul 12 UTC And, to be fair, there were a lot of strange moves played in the game. I definitely found myself every turn thinking that playing as passively as I was had to be a mistake, yet given my read on how the game was likely to proceed if I stayed passive, that I should stay passive. If I were playing this over again, I would definitely have played it much differently.
18 Jul 12 UTC i might be overselling it, but i think you're underselling it. you're forgetting you chose to go against france based on this intel. had you went directly at him and builts the fleets to do so, it would have been over in no time.
18 Jul 12 UTC also, to be fair this is coupled with frustration that turkey CDed and basically fucked the game for me. austria had no resistance, and thus was had no where to go but through me. i haven't played a game in who knows how long without a CD. it's becoming intolerable.
18 Jul 12 UTC Jacob, he spent two years not doing what I told him to do, then two years doing so, then the remainder of the game not doing so. But moreover, I actually think your plan is doing him a disservice. Are you really telling me that the proper thing for experienced players to do is to quickly eliminate anybody new to the game, then play it out amongst themselves? Because that strikes me as a horrible way to increase the number of people interested in playing Diplomacy.
18 Jul 12 UTC Alright guys -- I think I've gotta call it a night. Regardless of the ethics, I had a fun time. Hope to play against both of you again soon. G'night!
18 Jul 12 UTC Oh, and Jacob, I finally figured out why you buttered your butt -- cuz you (and I) bent over and took it this game >.<
18 Jul 12 UTC Rather, I feel that as an experienced player, it's my job especially when in a game with newer players to play my best, and to give them a good idea of how a strong player approaches the game.

As for the Turkish CD, I would have been happy to draw/cancel at that point, but there was no interest, and I clearly didn't benefit from it. But, at the risk of getting you more upset with me, I'd suggest that you probably didn't respond very well to it, and that this is actually a good situation for you to learn from as far as improving your play. I don't want to get you upset, but I'm happy to elaborate if you'd like.
18 Jul 12 UTC feel free
18 Jul 12 UTC Basically, you were correct that the Turkish CD was going to mean a vacuum. At that point, you now had two choices:

1) Fight for French centers against all of the available French units, let Austria fight for Turkey against no opposition, and be completely out of position as Austria gets builds if he wants to stab you.

2) Offer France a peace in which he can try to retake Paris, turn around and take your share of Turkey, since you have the fleets and Austria doesn't. If Austria complains, you can always fight a war with him on an even footing. Would France have made peace? Almost certainly -- he made peace with me for the same reason, he was dead if he fought two enemies. I suspect he was asking you for peace, too.

Which is better? Neither is great, because 1) involves your being completely out of position and 2) involves your turning around and losing time. So, what I'd do is to see how I can change the board around to make 1) reasonable, and choose 2) if that failed. How would 1) be reasonable? Essentially, if somebody else was putting pressure on Austria. So, you might come to me and tell me that you understood I wasn't putting pressure on France, but you were going to leave France and let him come after me unless I attacked Austria immediately. I would have had to say yes, because having France and Austria split up by us is better than my being on the defensive against France with no help against Austria. Alternatively, if I said no, you could have asked Russia the same question. After all, Russia surely wasn't happy with all of that Austria growth.
18 Jul 12 UTC To summarize, the key point was that if you wanted to continue the attack against France, you needed either me or Russia to attack Austria, and either you needed to make that happen, or you needed to make peace and deal with Turkey and/or directly with Austria. By not doing so, you gave me the opportunity to let you fail to make headway in France and strike a deal with Austria instead, and that's ultimately what killed you.
18 Jul 12 UTC But the problem is that Austria was the only person who hadn't made me nervous. Obviously the position did but I had to risk it to gain any ground. You sure as hell weren't helping against France, so from my perspective what was to be gained by threatening to leave France alone if you didn't fight Austria. You asked me in the game, does it look like I'm fighting France. And the answer was no, it didn't. You took Paris and then sat idly by. Therefore, I had no reason to think that you were specifically working against France. By deduction, I assumed you would simply help France come after me instead, which I'm confident you would have. I don't think you would have risked attacked an 8 or 9-SC Austria when you could have come after a 4 or 5-SC Italy. Also of note is that Russia either wouldn't talk to me or wouldn't make sense. This ("Autumn, 1903: Oh how silly they are") was the response I got from Russia when i addressed your attack on him in Sweden, and he didn't respond to anything else from me until 1905. So did I assume Austria would roll me at some point, yes; and while I see where you're coming from and that makes sense in theory, in this particular oddball of a game I don't think anything would have changed the outcome for me.
18 Jul 12 UTC Well, I see there was some gripe about my role in the game. I quickly learned that I was outmatched in this game. Germany/Russia were the first to talk with me and I decided I would trust Germany. After i screwed up and missed my turn, knowing that Germany was a veteran player that he would no longer trust me as a legitimate ally. At that point I was content to learn from Germany and work together although I knew he would destroy me eventually. If others were chatting with me I may have been convinced to do something else. Anyways I had fun and learned some techniques.

Start Backward Open large map Forward End

CSteinhardt (9040 D (B))
Won. Bet: 50 D, won: 186 D
18 supply-centers, 15 units
Survived. Bet: 50 D, won: 145 D
14 supply-centers, 13 units
jmbostwick (2570 D)
Survived. Bet: 50 D, won: 11 D
1 supply-centers, 1 units
jacobcfries (777 D)
Survived. Bet: 50 D, won: 11 D
1 supply-centers, 1 units
whaskell (100 D)
Resigned. Bet: 50 D
0 supply-centers, 1 units
Fizzleborp (100 D)
Resigned. Bet: 50 D
0 supply-centers, 3 units
Gen. Lee (7688 D (B))
Defeated. Bet: 50 D
Civil Disorders
Fizzleborp (100 D)Russia (Autumn, 1908) with 3 centres.
whaskell (100 D)Turkey (Spring, 1903) with 4 centres.
Archive: Orders - Maps - Messages