@YJ: No worries. I don't take it personally - as your EOG clearly discusses the game as a situation in its own right, rather than conflating it to personal levels.

I'm surprised on your take though. I didn't think we had nearly as bad a relationship as you seem to have believed.

What 'intel' do you mean that I sold you out on? I have just checked back the message logs and do not see me doing any such thing. Surely it is possible that France or Germany played some clever diplomacy and made it seem like I had given them information?

My attitude certainly wasn't "fuck you, Russia". I had three neighbours in 1901: France, Germany, Russia. France sent me the best message and of the three, he was the one I most wanted to work with. Germany also sent me a number of warm, positive messages - although he was slower to respond to me than France was, which made me less inclined to work with him. My Spring 1901 messages from Russia, on the other hand, whilst positive, were fearful, slightly bloodthirsty, and went into some length to explain concerns about my growth if we were to ally - this didn't suggest to me that you were overly keen to form a serious partnership.

I needed to choose someone to attack and I reasoned that France and Germany seemed most concerned with finding a good ally and balancing concerns - whereas Russia seemed more self-focused.

The later situation regarding Warsaw was a simple communication error: I didn't blame you entirely, I said we were both to blame as neither of us confirmed or even discussed what my unit in Ukraine would do. You took it as a given that I would do what you expected - I should have confirmed movements with you but you could have done so as well, you never took responsibility for this and, as you say, instead decided to send me messages that can only be described as "rage". This put my back up because actually we had worked together very well in the previous turns and I had kept my word to you.

I also don't think your criticism that I lied to you is fair - we were at war twice in that game, of course I am going to lie to you if our units are fighting against each other! That is part of the game.

I was happy with my performance in this game, and I think I did pretty well to fend off both a determined stab from France and a strong attack from a resurgent Russia. I am a faithful ally and stayed true to Germany throughout the game, despite repeated attempts from Austria and Italy to have my sell out my ally for little potential reward.

Intel: I told you that both G (and I interpreted at the time France, though this may not be true, you'll have to ask him) were pushing me to open 2 north to threaten norway. Both G and F independently told me that you told them that I told you. Perhaps they can chime in as to whether that was true or not. It seems far too good of a guess to be anything but the truth to me. I was really dissappointed.

"concerns about growth"

Yeah, I guess I could be interpreted that way. I was just trying to address the issue. I really wanted to work with you, and I was sending France pro-E press to try to get him on board with you until Germany was dealt with. I really was just coming from a place of where we would go once Germany was dead and you dominated the atlantic - I felt it was being proactive, but maybe I should have waited until the situation arose?

"Warsaw"

You suggested Ukraine supporting Rum -> Gal. I agreed. That seemed pretty clear to me. Not sure what else to say.

"rage"

I'm not sure what you mean. I was raging on the inside, but I think I did a pretty good job as appearing "sulky" at worst with you. I don't rage in chat as I feel it serves no purpose (though I admit I can come across as condescending at inopportune times).

"lied to you"

Haha I'm not going to go back and count the times. It was a lot though. I guess that's just a style thing. Even when I'm at war, I won't try to mislead people about moves unless I feel there is a substantial gain, otherwise my credibility gets screwed. I guess it's just a style thing - I felt insulted and I felt after we made peace I was pretty generous allowing you to keep Warsaw temporarily. I need to figure out a way to work with people who have your mindset (and Germany's, to a lesser degree of the same) without pissing you off.

"lied to you"

OK, I reread some messages, and maybe it wasn't quite as bad as I had painted it to be. G did his fair share too, and I seem to have retroactively attributed it all to you :P

I also facepalmed at some of my own messages. I'm a bit too rigid in expecting others to conform to my playstyle - I need to learn to be more adaptive depending on my impressions of what others are expecting from me. I don't see myself becoming the "share all my moves with allies" type of player that Sarg and Zultar are, but I can find a way to work with that type.

Warsaw: I'm looking over the messages for Spring 1905 and it's very disjointed as to us actually pinning something down for it - we did not conclude a move and I certainly did not suggest supporting Rum-Gal. You suggested it but it was lost amongst a length discussion of other issues on the table. Please check over your communications for Spring 1905 and find me where it was me who suggested a movement and not you.

Lied to you: Thanks :).

Sharing moves: For me, it is appropriate that if you are working with someone you would coordinate movements together. After our rocky start, I could have been less sensitive to your reluctance to share movement details entirely. But it is a general practice for me, Zultar and I were sharing movements the whole way through the game - for me, this is also a way of confirming sincerity, especially in the early-game.

(To: You, from England) - Spring, 1905: I'm not sure of my opinion on you moving to Prussia - it seems slow and unproductive.

What about being brave and having Ukraine support Rum-Gal, Sev-Black Sea and Moscow-Sev. What do you think to that?

(To: England, from you) - Spring, 1905: OK, that'll do. Not my favorite but we'll see what happens. Support Rum -> Gal?

Now, it's true you didn't confirm again, but that seems a bit of a slim excuse, with respect. Whatever else, I did not then and do not now believe that holding Ukraine was what you thought you were supposed to be doing. It's true we did have a lot of peripheral tension going on at the time.

Still, this is an EoG and I see no reason for you to lie about it now. Perhaps you were too distracted by the rest to issue the move. I allowed for that possibility in game as well, but it just made me think you were either incompetent OR deliberately sabotaging me. Either way I felt I needed to retake warsaw and kick you out. I will note that you had a failed move on Moscow at the same time as I kicked you from ukraine - so I do have a hard time believing your intentions were noble. Perhaps you saw my boot coming?

Sharing moves: I share all moves that require coordination. For the rest, It's pretty much need-to-know. Again, I suspect this is just a difference in style. Maybe next game I'll try it your way and see if it buys me a more reliable ally - though my hesitation to share everything has not caused complaint until now.

"Whatever else, I did not then and do not now believe that holding Ukraine was what you thought you were supposed to be doing. It's true we did have a lot of peripheral tension going on at the time."

This is true. But I never said holding was what I thought it should be doing.

It just got lost amongst the chat and I genuinely forgot to set a movement order for the unit in Ukraine.

This is the truth, YJ. Even if I had a reason to lie in the game, I wouldn't lie about it here - honestly, I just forgot to order it.

I felt your boot was coming but I didn't see it coming quite so swiftly. I knew there would be a time limit to how long you could accept your home center being English-controlled and I knew the Fuck Up in Ukraine was going to tip the balance against me.

Cool, I can believe that :)

I'll get my comments up later tomorrow, I gotta be in work early and am signing off for the night

I'll certainly post one as well, but can't 100% guarantee it will be before the weekend.

I'm on vacation, but will post an EOG from my hotel one of these nights.

No EOG from Babak, thus spoke his sitter...

Ah, what the heck. Who am I kidding? I love EOGs. I guess I just won't get much sleep tonight.

A nice, high-caliber game and I draw Austria. I hate playing Austria. Might as well get down to work. I believe succeeding as A takes a hell of a lot of diplomatic work. My initial goals are to secure an alliance with R or T against the other, and most importantly to form a rock-solid alliance with Italy, which in most cases is going to mean a preference for RA vs. T. But we'll see...

S01. Negotiations go well all around. Italy appears sincere and proposes a Blue Water Lepanto. T wants me to go Bud-Rum while he does NOT contest Bla AND he gets Gre. Seriously? This makes my decision easy, I'm anti-T if I can get R on board. I offer R both Rum and support into Bul if he'll go RA vs. T. Once T is dead, the long-term scenario is that he gets all of the T centers and I get Rum and Bul. Tempting for him, but R reasonably asks how Italy fits in. I say if Italy helps out, he gets a T center (but he may not, such as if Italy moves on France). R is fine with that and we agree to DMZ Gal. My real plan is to kill T first with IR assistance, then to go after R with G assistance. AIG agree to a CPA. I feel good about Italy, time will tell with G since many German players promise CPA early out of convenience and lose interest later.

I like Italy's BWL idea, but I propose a modification (which Italy thinks is standard BWL anyway): instead of Tri-Adr, which no one will believe is a legit attack on Italy, I will move Tri-Alb. However, in the autumn I will move Alb-Ion, Bud-Ser, Ser-Gre and assume T will not contest Ser or Gre against an obvious Ser S Alb-Gre. This will set up the BWL when Italy forces me into a forward retreat into Aeg or EMed in S02. To set it up, AI agree to DMZ Ven and Tri. I also promise to never build a fleet, and we intend to destroy my one fleet when convenient so Italy can rule the Med. Press with EF is vanilla.

Things go perfectly when S01 moves process. T is in bad shape. My allies IR followed through with their promises. I can't tell what's going on with EFG yet. R asks for Bud S Ukr-Rum which is reasonable but doesn't work with my modified BWL plan. I eventually spill the secret plan to him (after conferring with Italy), which appears to buy me some good trust. S01 might even have gone too well, as people notice the favorable outcome for A and may start worrying about me more than I'd like.

A01. The BWL is set up with me in Ion. I still have the flexibility to screw Italy, such as if F built F Mar and Italy moved west. That's not my intent, though. I want to kill T. T plays conservatively in A01, bouncing in Arm. As a result, he misses out on Arm-Sev AND he doesn't advance his Con fleet into the Med. After S01 went poorly, I think T had to take a gamble there and hope he lucked out. He didn't, and now he is very vulnerable. I still don't know if G is fighting E or F or both or neither. IMO, G's value to the CPA is to be on the winning side of the EFG triangle, then kill off his first ally with Italian help while in turn helping Austria kill off Russia. This G swears he is committed to the CPA but he seems wishy-washy on the EFG dynamic. My move of Alb-Ion confuses some people, others guess it must be some kind of BWL.

Builds as expected except for A Ber. That threatens War (not that I mind, since I'm CPA-oriented). I receive R's blessing for Bud-Gal.

S02. Italy knocks me out of Ion as planned. I support R into Bul as agreed. I also advance into Boh and Gal at his request. Boh upsets G, who is frustrated he can't get one of EF to side with him against the other. There's some buzz about a possible WT. The CPA idea is waning because G is not holding up his end of the bargain. Perhaps once T is dead, I'll help R against G instead of vice versa. Italy doesn't like the idea of a IAR eastern triple.

A02. Mixed bag. F is fighting Italy, while EG are fighting R. Nobody is attacking me, which is good, while both my allies IR are being weakened. The problem is that we haven't killed T yet. I need T dead before I can turn around and choose where I'm going next. AI try a convoy to Syr and T blocks it. I stay in Boh, but don't attack G. G doesn't like me there. He seems really frustrated because he can't get make a productive alliance happen (other than the nominal CPA which is doing nothing for him plus I'm in Boh). G swears there's no WT. T swears there is, since it's his best hope of staying alive. AI priority is in keeping T bottled up. R seems grateful I'm sticking with him and helping him defend War. Meanwhile, T has changed his tune and claims I'm about to get hit by an RT, which I don't buy at all -- not that it matters, since I'm still trying to kill him. Surprise! G invades Bur, which now makes me believe that there is no WT and that G does want a CPA.

S03. F switches gears to punish G, freeing up Italy. Wait, he's attacking both EG at the same time? Seems overly aggressive, but they are definitely vulnerable. F must really trust Italy. AI are back to trying for convoys. Meanwhile, R is getting shredded by EG. And G abandons Bur, leaving Hol and Den wide open? What is going on here? R flip flops on me. Now he's siding with T, and trying to make peace with EG, who want to shift west against F. Very chaotic turn. About the only constant is me trying to kill T, a task now made more difficult by R.

A03. Fun turn, lots of fighting all over the board. I take Sev. R looks in bad shape. The War region is hotly contested. Italy gets his fleet in place for the attack on T (finally!).

S04. This is the setup turn for the ascension of AI. Italy convoys into Gre at my suggestion. I swap Sev for Rum. Now things are ready to go. Next turn, Gre will support Ser-Rum, Aeg will cut Con, and I'll save Rum by ordering a double support of Rum-Gal to counter R's anticipated double support of Gal-Rum. Also, I'll advance EMed-Syr with Ion-Syr, banking on T not bouncing in Syr.

A04. Perfect! We guessed exactly right and Italy did as promised. Except somehow, my orders were botched. I really, really swear they were properly entered but instead it's a total clusterfuck. I lose Rum, I'm down a unit from Gre, and we don't get into Syr because I didn't move there. It's a disaster for Austria, and now I'm paranoid Italy will turn on me. This botch has set back the AI effort 2+ years. But I keep fighting. I spin the botched orders to T as a deliberate move to keep him alive so that he will help me against IR. He seems to buy it, but is reluctant to move against R.

1905. T won't move against R, so I redouble my efforts to flip R instead. R agrees to renew the RA alliance and turn on EG. He offers me Rum and a chance to destroy the E unit in Ukr. Amusingly, right before deadline of A05, E contacts me and suggests I order Gal-Ukr because it will thwart R. E is really screwing with me because he thinks Gal-Ukr will expose me to concerted RE action, but really R is about to turn on him. At the last second, I tell E I agree to Gal-Ukr and I do it. Per the R plan, Gal-Ukr succeeds and the E army is destroyed. Now we're rolling and T is a dead man.

1906. Italy stabs R in Turkey. It was the AI plan all along, and R knew it was coming, but I wouldn't agree to act to stop it. Italy captures all of Turkey and we finally have gotten to the place that AI envisoned back in S01, with him owning all of T and me with no fleets. I still want Gre back, but I am in position to take it anytime. Now I just have to get Italy to throw everything at F by sea.
Since I don't get to have fleets, I want no fleets in Ionian or points east. I try to convince R to disband his Bla fleet and instead rebuild in StP. I'm pleased to see he does it, because that means he will not be able to oppose my armies. Plus, if I am to have any solo shot in this game, I'm going to need some fleet help in the north. G was supposed to get War, but botched his own order.

1907. Italy moves on F. I help out G against R. It's looking like the original CPA idea. The problem is, once F is dead, who is going to oppose E's fleets? If Italy gets that far north, he'll be a serious solo threat.

R loses his northern fleets, making him useless to me. F and R are soon to be eliminated. AI are choosing whether it will be an AIE or AIG. I'm still hoping for a solo. There's a lot of talk about EGA vs. Italy, which may give me the best solo hope. G's builds are pivotal in shaping the remainder of the game. If he builds two fleets and takes on E, then we either end AIG or I have a nice opportunity to overrun him with my armies. If he builds two armies and takes on me, then E can eat him up on the coast. If he splits one and one, he mildly offends both EA. G builds one and one with my blessing, but that apparently upsets Italy. EG want me to attack Italy straightaway, but I ask for another turn delay so I can finish off R first.

1908. I take Mos and am ready to potentially move on Italy. I want to be able to vacate Tri for a fleet build, which will be fueled by stealing Gre from Italy. I also can steal War from G with R's dying assistance. G complicates things by moving Mun-Tyr. I need to decide if I'm going after Italy now. I decide no, largely because I don't like G in Tyr. Italy supports Tri into Tyrolia while I take War. If EG are still willing to attack Italy, then I'm willing to build a fleet and go after him too. Instead, EG insist on a 4wd, and a 5wd including F if AI don't agree to the 4wd. With little choice, AI agree to the 4wd and I build two armies instead of a fleet. The remaining turns are just wrap up to finish off F.

I enjoyed this game. I had a strong, game-long alliance with Italy, lots of good communication until the last few years when I think he got RL-busy. I managed a 4wd as Austria, which is acceptable against this competition for a power I dislike playing. I would have liked a 3wd, but oh well. My botched orders in A04 really hurt me. AI should have been able to beat RT much sooner, which would have changed the game dynamic. T got the short end of the stick, since I never wavered from my original anti-T position after making that decision in S01 (although I did continue to talk to T open and kept alive the possibility I might flip). On the whole, I didn't exchange much press with F or E.

Very interesting EOG, Hanged Man! Thanks for writing it - did you write that all last night or do you write notes each turn while you play?

Last night. Usually when I do an EOG, I open three windows. One has what I'm writing, one has the message history of the game, and one is the graphic of the board each turn. Then I advance chronologically through the last two and try to recreate what I was thinking as the game progressed.

Responding to a few of YJ's points:

"Perhaps wise of Austria to secure my territories before he went after G, though at the end point I believe a more aggressive Austria may have broken through Germany." -- There was a turn or two where G was definitely undermanned and I could have rolled armies his way before killing you off. However, if I did so then I think it would have ended in a an AIE 3wd. I was still trying to play for a solo, and I knew I had no hope of dealing with E's fleets. My best chance at a solo was to get G to kill or at least occupy E, then hit G by land where my strength was. Alternately, if I had enough fuel to crank out fleets I had a chance at capturing the Turkish centers from Italy, but it would have been difficult since I would have to guess right each autumn to ensure Tri was clear for the build. If I tried attacking G and Italy both, especially when R was still alive, then they might have all banded together and killed me.

"I'd like to try again with you and realize that the better players are often the MORE trustworthy ones." -- No, just me. I'm the only trustworthy one. Everyone else is a liar.

"I was disappointed that you attacked me after I warned you about Italy, I'd like to hear why you did that?" -- We won't know until we hear Italy's EOG, but my belief was that there was not a real threat of Italy attacking me at that point. I was very worried after my botched orders in A04, but Italy had chances to nail me after that and did not act on them. AI exchanged a lot of press each turn, and I believed that his suggestion to you of IR vs. A were in furtherance of the AI agenda rather than a sincere offer. I could very well be wrong. I'm sure it crossed his mind, just as attacking Italy crossed mine, but on the whole I didn't think R's warning about Italy was all that helpful because the threat wasn't legit. For a good chunk of the game, I was playing up my fear/confusion about Italy in my press with GRT when for the most part I was confident in the AI alliance. As for the attacking R part, that was consistent with my strategy all along, although at several points I did consider going after G instead. Attacking R just seemed more likely to get me closer to a solo.

Thanks, hangman. I agree that Italy wasn't a huge threat to you after I refused (no easy progress there w/o Russian help), but I still feel his desire to pinch you was quite sincere. I guess Italy will have to answer for that, then. I felt so proud of myself at the time for having the foresight to say "no."

ROFL.

I saw the three of us painting the map Purple Red and Green. I think a RAI 3 way would have been forseeable if you HAD gone anti-G at that time, since France had sown so much distrust with E/G, and I was pumped to build fleets up north. But you were chasing the solo, I understand your motivations for not doing so.

Just wanted to say again, I really enjoyed this game - especially the friendly, fun atmosphere we all kept in global and private.

I'd definitely be up for a rematch with this group if you all fancied it. I know Babak is away though so he will most probably need a replacement. Are the rest of you interested?

I'd be up for a rematch at a later date. Although I keep compulsively hanging around this site, I'm technically on vacation and not starting any new games for a while.

Uclabb gonna chime in? Oh yeah, maybe before the weekend...

Zultar I want to hear from you too :)