I'll post mine, as short as it will be:

I was disappointed in this game. 1901 went really well. I had an English ally and Italian ally going up against the French, who believed me to be an ally. I got into Burgundy on the sly and it seemed like you (MM) bought what I was selling and I was golden.

Builds went through, and in S02, things fell apart. I'm not entirely sure what you said to Italy and England because they completely backed off. I thought it was probably the biggest mistake Italy made of the game. No offense, Santosh, but it certainly turned the tide of the game for the both of us. You had temporary momentum through 1903 but then lost everything starting 04 because you switched your focus from a French campaign to an Austrian one after the Russian and Turk were working heavily together.

I made a few mistakes and should have focused my attention on continuing to attack France instead of defending against England, but I think that stemmed from being in too many games at one time while in school. In F03, I should have supported Ruhr into Burgundy instead of back-tracking to salvage something. After France got into Ruhr, I knew it was over.

I was also irritated that Russia chose to not do anything in the north. I offered him to fight England, but he regularly refused the offer. Instead, he snagged Berlin temporarily and then England and Turkey ate him alive.

After 1903, I pretty much stopped caring when no one would face off against the E/F. This game was the capstone of a series of bad games for me which were all going on at the same time. Meh, can't win em all. I look forward to playing again. Congrats to everyone who participated in the draw.

I'm just going to wing this a bit, as usual:

1901 (spring): Italy agreed to typical DMZs, while England agreed to DMZ the English Channel. Germany seeme fairly trustworthy in pregame discussions, part of which included Germany telling me that England was going to attack the English Channel. I know Germany wants nothing more than for England and France to fight, so I expect Germany may be telling this sort of thing to England as well, even though I had no intention of attacking the English Channel in spring 1901. As the pre-game was winding down, I felt comfortable that Italy would follow through with our NAP, and the German seemed more trustworthy than England, so I decided to bounce England out of The Channel and followed through with a plan that I think I remember Germany pushing for fairly hard, which was Paris attacking Pic while Mar bounced Germany in Munich.

1901 (autumn): Okay, Italy is coming at me full force, that was a shocker, but I was confident Tyrrhenian Sea would take Tunis for a build, so I'd have a little time, very little time, to figure out EG. I needed an ally of either England or Germany, and even though England was heading my way, I didn't have a real good vibe coming from Germany. I'm not exactly sure what made me uneasy about Germany, since in the pregame I was confident he could be a good long-term ally, but something changed somewhere in here. Anyway, I felt like this was Boston F2F all over again, though perhaps I didn't know this until after autumn moves went through and I saw Germany in Burg, Italy not going for a build and attacking Lyo with his fleet, while England took the English Channel, which I'm sure he agreed not to do. Anyway, the triple team was on and I was in deep shit, the writing was on the wall and I felt all but dead, a desperation and paranoia that would not leave me the entire game, as England knows all too well. Hmmm, these are pretty crappy details, I better go re-read some of the press and try again.

1901 (spring cont.): Oh yes, that's right, England encouraged me to arrange a DMZ with Germany in Bur, and Germany told me how England was encouraging Germany to attack Bur, which made it look like England was pitting Germany and me against each other, so that's part of why I trusted Germany in the pre-game. Also, England made some comment about how France in the EC is a much bigger for England than an English fleet in the EC is to France, which told me this England didn't think England in the EC was all that big of a deal, so this further confirmed to me that England was likely lying to me and planning to attack EC in spring 1901, which he clearly did, so I was feeling good about working with Germany after spring 1901 orders went through. England also floated some nonsense my way about how he prefers to ally with France as England because Germany's fleet power is a problem, yet England said nothing of France's fleet power, and since I always consider Germany more of a land power and France a fleet power, I felt it truly was France that England feared, everything else being equal. Italy was asking me about a Western Triple, which was complete bs, Italy was clearly fishing since there was no discussion of one, but rather than thinking Italy may blitz me for fear of a WT, I assumed he was fishing and when I told him there wasn't I had hoped that would satisfy him and keep him focused in the east.

1901 (autumn cont.): Okay, now there was talk of an Eastern Triple of AIT, which made sense for Italy blitzing me (though I immediately starting telling Italy that Turkey would kill both Austria and him off in the end since Russia was falling quickly, clearly a desperate message from me, but desperate times call for desperate measures), and the obvious great power they'd want to pull in from the northwest would be England, pushing me more towards Germany. England told me he'd continue to attack me, since he was already committed, attacking EC and moving to Wales, bummer (but good to know)! My saving grace, as it turned out, was that England said things may change and that gave me the impression he may one day be an ally, so at least he didn't burn down our bridge, and I encouraged England to back off so I could deal with Italy (the portion of the Eastern Triple that was on my border). Germany claimed he was pulling in Russia to help us kill England quickly so we could counter the Eastern Triple with our own triple, which sounded good to me! I keep talking with the board and before autumn moves go through I find out that Germany is selling an EGR to England while Germany is selling me an FGR. I ask Russia what Germany is selling to him to find out where I stand and Russia says Germany is only talking to Russia about a GR, damn, that does me no good. England and I keep talking, I'm sure I told England how Germany will want to get us to attack each other, and at some point I told England how Germany told me England would attack EC, and so England and I are talking about how to get on track against Germany, however unlikely.

UGHH, I write too many in-game messages to go back through them all, I need to go back to just winging it based on the map. Regardless, after autumn moves went through I was in a world of hurt with foreign units in EC, Bur, Pie and Lyo.

1902: Austria built a fleet and I screamed bloody murder at Italy about how Austria was obviously coming to kill him, and begged him to go deal with Austria. The German move into Bur was not welcome, but I tried to not freak out and pretend I was still with Germany. I had also begged England to consider working with me, and for spring moves I decided to just give Marseilles to Italy while I support Mar to Gas and take MAO to Spain in the hopes of taking Marseilles back in the autmn. I spoke with England about orders he could submit that may hide the possibility of England working with me, though England knew he'd have to do some explaining to Germany as to why he did not attack Brest in the spring (if he would actually follow through with that). I also took Bel to Pic, so I could triple attack Brest in the autumn if need be, thus forfeiting Belgium. Italy totally shifted east, which clearly was music to my ears. Germany went through with a stab, going after Gascony, so now it was clear Germany was my mortal enemy and I'd be putting all of my eggs in England's basket, especially after he followed through with not attacking Brest in the spring. After that Germany and I started lying to each other pretty blatantly, so I offered to support England into Belgium yet I defended Brest to insure England wasn't trying to take both Belgium and Brest, risking Germany may take Paris, but the gamble paid off and I got a build!

1903: France talked me into building a fleet to defend against Italy, even though I wanted to build an army to take everything I had at Germany to kill the lying bastard! ;-) Germany took Bur to Bel in the spring, which was great for me, I finally had a bit of defense and I took my Mar fleet to Pie to bounce Italy, but Italy took everything east as agreed and, yeah, I was starting to feel a bit comfortable even with England in EC. England and I could not get Belgium back, but England took Denmark to keep Germany from a build, and in the south I had shifted into The Best Defense is a Good Offense mode, which for me meant any sort of offense, merely being in Tus and West Med would require Italy to do some work to take any of my home centers, thus allowing me to focus on attacking Germany with England.

1904: I bounce in Lyo in the south, maintaining defense, but Italy was pissed and clearly came my way. Germany took Bur back, but England supported me to Holland and I could defend Paris that autumn, so I'd get a build at Germany's expense. RT came after Italy hard, thus forcing Italy to face RT since I was at least in defense mode against Italy. Germany was down to two units, but insisted on badgering me (which is difficult for a Minnesotan to say) for the rest of his days, which wasn't a big deal, even though I did try to talk him out of it.

1905+: Not a whole lot to describe from here on out. England was a great ally, sharing builds with me, keeping us relatively equal in size, but after spring 1901 I was always a bit nervous, as well as nervous because after the first couple years England made some comment about how he wanted to race to the solo and that freaked me out, made me paranoid he'd stab me the entire game, again, partially because I was so beaten up in 1901 and I had trouble getting over it and trusting in this game. There was some question as to whether or not Turkey would stab Russia to take Russia out, but Turkey assured us he would even with his draw vote up, so I gave Turkey Rom/Nap to help that happen. Once Russis died there was a bit of drama regarding an ET two-way draw attempt and I tried to force the three-way and I'm guessing ET just decided to throw in the towel moreso than anything I said having an effect on their ultimate decison to finish things off.

Lots of rambling as usual, oops. The beginning of this game was an absolute total disaster and I'm pretty proud to have gotten out of it. England was a great ally, especially having to deal with such a paranoid France all game long.

Wow.. wasnt in this game, but what an interesting game between 01-03 especially. I think maybe the best part of the MM invitational are the EoG's :) Its like a diplomovie with co-director commentary.

I would love to read the EoG of Italy and England in this game. How did France get to turn around Italy in spring 1902? Really, wow.. Same for England and the turn around of Wales. France should have been out and done for.

Great reads and game guys, hope to see more :)

Mine's coming (England), just been busy IRL and there's a lot of press to go through since I didn't keep running notes to myself.

If any players in the game have specific questions of me, I'll do my best to answer, especially since there was just too much press for me to go through and I got pretty loose with my EoG, there really was a lot going on.

"I got into Burgundy on the sly and it seemed like you (MM) bought what I was selling and I was golden."

Tru Ninja, I don't remember any more, did I ask you to take Bur in autumn 1901 to help me defend against Italy? Seems like I did, but my memory isn't too good. Anyway, I did buy what you were selling in the pregame, and for at least half of the next phase, but at some point (once your Tru intentions became more obvious) I shifting into the mode of merely wanting you to believe that I was buying what you were selling, and it sounds like you bought that! :-P

Here goes my monster EOG statement for England. I actually did go back and match press to moves to try to recreate my thought process.

S01. G approaches me right off the bat about aggressive anti-F collaboration. I like that. I raise the possibility of an anti-G plan with F, who proposes that we limit G’s builds by attacking Bel and Hol in A01. That sounds like a bad deal for me, but I play along and see if F is willing to support Par-Bur. F is reluctant; we agree to DMZ EC but the crux of the plan is me taking a shot at Hol or Den to bounce G while F moves on Bel. Meanwhile, G is willing to go Mun-Bur if I go Lon-EC. I’m leaning toward favoring G, except F says G is leaking to him that I will violate the DMZ and go to EC. Around that time, T suggests to me and A suggests to G that Italy is interested in an EGI attack on F. Italy confirms, and that is the tipping point for me. We try it, but F bounces me in EC and bounces G in Bur. It sounds like there have been some loose lips. Italy succeeds into Pie. The rest of the board looks normal except that Sev did not move. That’s good for me, T is keeping R busy so he is weak in Scandinavia.

A01. EG agree to repeat our moves, we’re still going after F. The hot topic is the AIT triple alliance, brought up independently in my press with F and G. G proposes an EGR counter-Triple. F threatens that if I do not relent in EC, the FGR counter-Triple will eat me up. I do not believe there is an FGR counter-Triple because it makes no sense strategically, and tell F so. However, I maintain the discussion with F that I may switch sides but not yet. I have no intention of switching, but it’s good to keep open options and I may influence F’s moves to my favor. EGI all followed through on their moves against France, but Italy attacked Tri. I don’t know if it was part of a planned bounce. If not, I don’t understand Italy’s move at all since he should be focused on France and not picking a fight on a new front. By A01, I am fairly convinced that F is MadMarx. We have never played together before, but the volume and quality of press, especially compared to that of the other players, is a giveaway. However, my strong suspicion as to F’s identity did not play into my game decisions.

S02. A built a fleet in Tri. I don’t know if the instigating move was Vie-Tri or the fleet build, but one way or another things are now officially bad between Austria and Italy. I can see the writing on the wall that the EGI vs. F alliance is toast. If there ever was an AIT triple, it’s dust now. I decide to make moves that are not inconsistent with EG vs. F, but do not hurt F. EC does a meaningless support of Lon-Nth rather than attack Bre or MAO, but it does not seem to alarm G. G is still busy storming F. Italy fully abandons the attack on F to fight. Things are peaceful between me and R and I convince him to leave StP unguarded. The spring moves show RT have patched things up and are moving in on A.

A02. This is the crucial turn in the EGF dynamic. Italy and Austria are fighting, and RT is closing in on A. Without Italy’s assistance, I predict that EG will make slow progress against F. Meanwhile, I can expect a Russian build in StP and that opportunity will be closed to me if I don’t act now. I decide to switch sides and help F against G. I actually prefer EF vs. G rather than EG vs. F as a general matter, although of course each game is different. G agrees to support my army into Bel. F agrees not to fight me for Bel. In a surprise move to G, I slide my fleet from EC into Bel instead. Meanwhile, I betray R by stealing StP and convoying my army to Nor instead of Bel. This gives me two builds, I have locked down the north, have a competent ally in F who is indebted to me, and am in good position against G with momentum.

My efforts to chill out both G and R seems successful. I tell them both I was worried about a German double-cross, FG vs. E, so I went for the sure build in StP. R seems nonplussed, since he probably expected it anyway. G appears understanding, but wants me to build F Lvp. That isn’t happening of course, but I continue the dialogue with G so that he thinks we are still working together. I hatch a plan for him to force me out of Bel and dislodge me to EC, purportedly for a renewed attack on F. I use my builds for fleets in Edi and Lon, making me the uncontested naval power outside of the Med.

S03. I am playing for a solo, as I feel everyone should be. In that context, I now feel that the greatest threat to me is T. T has survived the early game and his neighbors will not be able to curb him unless action is taken immediately. I try to steer Italy that direction, but he is still interested in EGI vs. F (after he already abandoned us once!). I pitch to Italy the idea that I am allied with neither F nor G, but merely want their armies bashing together while I rule the seas. Italy is not interested in my proposal that I dominate the Atlantic and he dominate the Med.

This game starts getting a little confusing for me, because I am simultaneously playing another game as England where I am allied with France. The lines between the games blur a little bit, and it is difficult to remember what I said to which power in which game.
I know that Bel is at risk, but I’m not worried about losing it. It gives me currency for negotiation and doesn’t really hurt my strategic position. I am still actively discussing collaboration with G throughout this whole process. I offer to support him into Swe. It is designed to breach the issue of a joint attack on Swe. As I expected, the end result is G offering to support me into Swe. I hear from R that G plans to move against me. I’m still telling everyone but F that it’s EG vs. F, I just got spooked last turn. My real intent is to continue working with F in a strong alliance to sweep eastward. Since Italy won’t help me with T, I am trying to steer F against Italy but F is reluctant. I have the choice of moving Nth to Hel or Ska and do not expect a bounce in either. I choose Ska so that if G actually follows through on supporting me to Swe (which I don’t expect) then R can’t retreat to Ska and instead will retreat to Bal, undermining G. When the orders resolve, G takes Bel anyway but does not support me into Swe.

F is freaked out paranoid now. Italy leaked to him about my Bel for Swe proposal, but I can plausibly cover it up. F accuses me of double-dealing (who, me? Never!) and vaguely threatens to blacklist me. He thinks that I fabricated Italy’s desire to attack F just to weaken him (which is not true). He asks if I knew G would force me out of Bel so I retreated to EC and I say it was discussed but I did not know what G would do (true, but I was pretty sure G would try to take Bel). I try to calm F down, but he’s on alert for the rest of the game. The threat of blacklisting really ticks me off but I’ve set myself up for alliance with F and I think if I attack F now it will be FG against me. I told F earlier in the game that I respond much better to carrots than sticks. The good news is that if FG band against me now, they can’t do much because of my amassed fleets and their corresponding lack.

A03. Lots more press between EF on game philosophy, lots of me trying to chill him out. G and I still pretend that we are working together, but it’s pretty obviously a two-way lie. F says G is desperate to work with him against me. I tell GI let’s drop the pretense, I’m out to kill G. I take Den and assist F into Ruh. Meanwhile, F moves on Italy. Things are looking good. I’m trying to incite T against Italy, the sooner to bring F and T into conflict since Italy wouldn’t attack T. A asks me to persuade F to cease attacking Italy, Magic 8-Ball says: Don’t Count On It.

1904: EF beat up on G. Italy tries to spread false rumors, to no avail. R seems content to let me tap Swe each turn. I tell R he has nothing to worry about in Swe, and he sagely notes that’s what I said about StP. I’m sure he knows it is just a matter of time, but as I explain to F, if R fights me now he knows it is a losing battle. If he delays he has a chance to stabilize in the south and fend me off. I convince R to tap Ber for me, resulting in me keeping Kie. That’s a death blow for G.

1905: IT finally start fighting. F moves into position to make sure T doesn’t kill Italy too fast, while also setting himself up to hit Italy himself. EF are mopping up G. It has always been my intent to take Ber, but I ask R what his intentions are for intel and negotiation purposes. He remains silent and takes it himself. In response, I invade Swe. I was somewhat concerned about dealing with a R fleet retreated to GoB, but fortunately for me he disbanded it. EF have a lengthy discussion about whether it is better to promise your long-term ally that you will never ever stab him (the gushy BFF lie) vs. tell him you will stab him if the situation is right, but let’s never let the situation get right (the cold ominous truth). Also, F wants to build armies and I want F to build fleets. The reason is simple – I want F pushing aggressively against T with a stack of fleets, rather than settling for a stalemate line. T remains my biggest obstacle to a solo. I make it clear to F that I am not playing for a three-way EFT draw and I expect him to battle T, as I will.

1906: F moves Bre-MAO and per agreement I match it with NWG-Cly. I got burned in my other in-progress EF alliance game with a French fleet moving north and don’t want to repeat the experience. EF are cleaning up in the middle board. In A06, sure enough, here comes a rogue F fleet into EC. It’s under control because of my fleet advantage, but annoying. F attacks Italy at the same time, which I approve. EF disagree on how to approach a proposal or situation that makes one uncomfortable: do you tell your ally straight-up it makes you uncomfortable, or do you appear nonchalant and take independent steps to protect yourself just in case? I tell F that if I ever stab him, which I do not intend to do, it won’t be until like 1912 so he should stop worrying now. It’s kind of a joke, but it’s also true. I do not intend to stab him anytime soon, and if I ever do, my best estimate is 1912.

1907: EF relations are normalized. It now is 2 on 2, EF vs. RT. EF both work on T to stab R. F admits he will not attack T and he is seeking a 3-way draw. This is very upsetting to me, although I have suspected it for a while. My goal since I allied with F was to help each other grow and preserve a fair opportunity for either of us to solo. I am not looking for a draw of any kind, 2-way or 3-way. The likely result would be a 3-way draw where one of us gets significantly ahead and the other allies with a greatly diminished T to prevent the solo. Maybe it works, maybe it doesn’t and the solo succeeds. F is having none of that, which I think is a wimpy attitude at this stage of the game. This is a problem for me, as I do not expect I can take on FT by myself and if I stab F, T is in position to rush in and get a solo himself.

1908: Shifting around. EF know T is getting in position to stab R. EF have set up a static, safe situation. I am slowly picking up centers from R. I am still expecting an EFT 3-way draw, but if I can get enough armies eastward to set up and hold a stalemate line along Mos/Ukr/War, I will consider stabbing F for a solo attempt. If I were F, I would tell E to sit tight at StP and let T eat up the R centers and get to 15 or 16. That way EF are dependent on each other at 9 SC apiece and a draw is a done deal. F does not do this; I think maybe he has gotten bored with the game.

1909: The hammer falls on R. F gets nervous and sends Mar-Spa(sc). I now have three armies in the east. F asks me to waive my build from Mos, and I do so. In hindsight, I think this was a mistake by me and ultimately doomed any chance I had at a solo. I should have built A Edi and dealt with the heat from F, then convoyed the army over to get an extra unit in Russia to help with my eventual stalemate line.

1910: I gain War and am now set up for Mos/Ukr/War. I wish I had a fourth army in the east. F asks me to shift Hol-Hel, Hel-Den to keep us even on centers and give us one build each, to be used for defensive armies. If I am going to make a move on F, now is the time to do it when I have two builds. I spend a long time evaluating this situation. I bust out my physical Diplomacy set and play out many permutations. I conclude that I have insufficient armies to both hold the Mos/Ukr/War line against T and make progress against F before T can achieve the solo. My fleets could rush to MAO or convoy newly built armies, but they can’t do both and time is my enemy. I reluctantly agree to the shift with a smile. Of course I’ll do that for my ally, EF peace and equality forever. T tells me he will hold off on attacking F if I stab F, but only if I first give T Mos and War. Get real! No way.

1911: To my surprise, A didn’t knock off R last turn. R still has two centers, Vie and Bud. That means I have a little cushion of time that I was not expecting. Maybe I can still get things set up against F. T asks me not to interfere with his elimination of R. I convoy my army from Kie over to Pru so I now have four units in the east. Since I will not be convoying armies to StP, I no longer need a fleet in Bar so I move it to Nor. If I do move against F, I now anticipate that I will need Hel to help support Kie, so Nor is available to move to Nth.

Also to my surprise, F moves Bur-Ruh. What was that?! F got spooked again. He proposes we discuss orders for what happens around Kie/Ber to make sure we stay even on centers. I decline, saying the game is about to be over and we will draw. I’ve already figured out orders that make sure either we all will bounce or trade Ber for Kie. Except then I spike the odds in my favor by asking R to move Boh-Mun. The result is that I take Ber and keep Kie. I should have moved War-Sil to destroy the French army while bouncing myself in War, but unfortunately I did not think ahead enough. I didn’t really expect R to help me out, so I thought it would be a big bounce in Germany.

Oh, and by the way, I also sent two fleets into NAO and Nth. If there was a bounce in Germany, I would patch relations and back off. If I ended up +1, it gave me options. I quickly build my second army and try to cover myself in press with F. It was just a strong response to his unilateral move to Ruh. I point out that this is the third time he has made a unilateral move against me without prior discussion, whereas I have never done so against him until now. F complains that my move is bringing the house against him and is much larger in scope than his little adjustments here and there.
I tell T that if he wants to explore further, he should hold off on voting draw. Once R is eliminated, I enter draw myself so I can show F that I intend to draw. I still haven’t decided if I will attack F and by voting draw I put the decision partially in T’s hands.

1912: Here we are in 1912, right where I predicted in 1906 that I might stab F, if ever I did (one could argue I already did in 1911 by taking Ber and moving to NAO/Nth). Apparently, T tells F that I asked him to hold off on voting draw so I could attack F. Great. That kills any chance I have of a sneak attack on F. The only possibility I had of a solo was to convince F that my units were retreating and he should hold the line against T. No way that is happening now, so I want a draw.

F swears he is throwing the game to T and it’s up to me to quickly make reparations to prevent the T solo. I fully intend to do whatever F wants now to preserve the draw. It was a longshot for me to solo anyway, and I now recognize there is no chance at all. I tell F I will do whatever is necessary. As it turns out, we never find out how it plays out because T enters the final vote for the draw.

Overall, I enjoyed the game and my alliance with F. It easily could have gone differently in 1902-1903 had Italy and Turkey not started fighting. I still don’t know whose fault that was, but if Italy had still been part of EGI vs. F, then I would not have flipped. Once Italy shifted his attention east, I thought EF was in my best interests.

EF had a very productive alliance with a lot of good communication and collaboration. We had clashes in game play style on three major points. One was what you do when your ally proposes something that makes you uncomfortable. When I have a strong alliance with a good player like we did in this game, I will tell my ally and I expect my ally to tell me. I consider it part of the open communication. F preferred to steer me out of the proposed move through some tactical argument that did not explicitly show his discomfort. The result was that on a couple occasions, I decided his tactical argument was flawed and went ahead with the move whereas had he just said it made him uncomfortable I would have desisted for that reason alone.

The second point was on your general approach to your long-term ally on the subject of stab potential. IMO, everyone should be playing for solo in a WTA. F preferred to flood me with “I love you, you’re the bestest, I will defend you with my life” whereas my approach was “we’re both big boys, I’ll never stab you to reduce the size of a draw, but I’ll stab you if I think it will lead to my solo and I expect you to do the same, so let’s both do a good job of never making the other feel that way.” I don’t think there’s a *right* answer, but F’s approach just seems like a blatant lie to me, while my approach seems more honest. But maybe people don’t like to hear the honest truth. F told me he would rather that I lie to him and say I’ll never stab him.

The third point was on playing for a draw vs. playing for a solo. By 1906, EF was doing very well. Even if T had not stabbed R, I felt pretty good about my chances of wiping out R on my own. The problem is that I needed F to match me with progress against T in the south. F wasn’t interested in attacking T, instead settling for a 3- or 4-way draw. This was very troubling. In my view at the time, F was my only ally and everyone else was meat. I didn’t like that F’s lack of desire to play for a solo crippled my own ability to try for a solo. However, there wasn’t much I could do about it. Even if I wildly succeeded against R such that I could attack T directly myself, by that point I would be too strong and FT would band against me (or F would have asked for centers along the way to keep us even).

That’s it. Thanks to MadMarx for setting up the Invitational and letting me play. Now that I’ve spilled the beans on my thought process, it will be interesting to see if next time you will want me as an ally due to our strong collaboration or if you will be too spooked that I was still scheming along the way.

Ha, very interesting notes from E/F/G. I'm currently running around submitting my grad school applications in time, so this will have to wait till the weekend. I will write one up as soon as possible.

Nice EoG THM, much appreciated! No wonder I could never get comfortable with you, all that scheming must have seeped through your press somehow, I was a nervous wreck all game long. Two quick comments:

1. When did I "vaguely threatens to blacklist" you?

2. I think what you don't understand about my logic, and what you see is me being more preoccupied with a draw than trying to solo, is that giving up a solo is something that I view as unacceptable. The whole concept of us racing to a solo is not something I would ever do, the mere possibility of a solo in that fashion would in no way balance the possibility of allowing someone else to solo. If all you care about is a solo, I can see how this will get you more solos when all is said and done, but if giving up a solo is something you take much pride in *not* doing, then the offer just makes me think you will stab me at any moment. Anyway, I cannot remember the last time I survived a WTA regular press game, and in fact, I'll go check right now... No wonder I can't remember, it's only happened to me once, and it was the most disturbing game I've ever played, flashman gave TMG a solo in game one of league play rather than four-way draw, all so flashman could get tie-breaker points... DAMNIT, now I'm seriously angry about that game again!! ;-)

I'll respond in reverse order:

2. I fully agree that giving up a solo is unacceptable. However, I think there should be a balance between striving toward one's own solo and preventing another's solo. If you look at our game in 1912, I could have still tried to solo myself and either (1) trusted that you would not REALLY throw the game to T, holding at least something back in case we reconciled and could last-minute prevent a T solo; or (2) arrogantly trusted that through my own brilliance I would be able to pull it off despite your and T's best efforts. However, the risk of a T solo instead was very real, the chance of my own solo was slim, and I decided it was not worth taking it down to the wire, so I was prepared to draw instead of pushing it. In contrast, EF were very strong in 1906 and there was a lot of play left in the game. At that time, I think it was premature to decide that the game was a 3-way and that you were not going to attack T or try to break through him. Maybe it ends up a 3-way either way, but I would rather that it ends up a 3-way after you and I both hit T and it ends up being like a 16/14/4 draw because the 14 and 4 have to band together in order to stop the 16 who is on the verge of solo.

1. I said "vaguely threaten" as distinct from "explicitly threaten" such as "I will blacklist you if X" since you never did that. Instead, it was more that you brought up the concept of blacklisting at all. Here's the key paragraph:

"Again, I'd expect you to be telling Germany something different than you are telling me, but with all your lies, it appears you are just lying to everyone, including me, and seeing where it gets you. Personally, I think that's bullshit, I think two people that are top allies should be extremely honest with each other to advance the team as much as possible. If this has not been your MO to date, I hope you will adjust from here on out and be honest with me. I don't like that much bullshit and it will absolutely be noted by me when I play future games, and I'm sure others are adamant about blacklisting such players that lean on such tactics so heavily."

This was in A03, when we were trading huge tomes of press about trust and lies and MOs. Since I'd never played with you before (and by then I did think it was you), I had no idea if this was a calculated motivational tactic, or an emotional outburst, or a serious possibility I could be blacklisted, or what.

As is now obvious from my EOG, I continued to think about solo and keep my options open for the entire game. To me, that's part of the game. I would be surprised if other Diplomacy players did not do the same. At the same time, it did not stop me from being a strong ally to you for the duration of the game culminating in our being 2/3 of the draw.

Hmmm, I looked for something like that, but suppose there was too much press to search through, I never came across it before giving up...

So those of you who've played me lately have heard me rant about the country allocation system that's out to make my life miserable, but I have been getting Italy or Turkey in all my non-live press games, and it's annoying because they're the two countries I have absolutely no clue what to say with.

The thing that bugs me about Austria / Italy alliances is the loose units - Italy's second army, and to a lesser extent Austria's fleet aren't doing too much, so I've been trying to come up with variant openings where they're put to good use. This turn I decided to push Austria in favor of an early Western rush. My theory was if Austria could get Turkey to work with him, then he could send his fleet west with me on France, and I'd lend him my army for land assault.

It's risky and susceptible to Austrian doubts of your intentions, but it made things more interesting so I decided to stick with it despite not being sure of whether Austria would go along with it or not.

I intended to make for France at full steam, so I did not see much point in lying pre-game, and was evasive in response to his wide-area DMZ chats. Russia was crisp and to the point, Austria was suspicious of my plan to take Trieste from him this year and give him Tunis the next. Meanwhile, I spread rumors I would be interested in an E/G/I and E/G both contacted me and I confirmed.

After Spring, it looked good for me - E was going for France, G went to Burgundy as agreed, T was going for Russia, with Austria, which should keep fleets off my back for a while. France was miffed as expected, and indulged in quite a bit of war rhetoric. Austria seemed to be willing to do the Trieste trade-off, and from the position of the board, it certainly was in his interest. At this point however, I still wasn't very sure how much I could trust the others on the map, which was an error of judgement. I should have informed Germany of my plan to take Trieste, forsake Tunis, and build a fleet, as agreed with Austria to give my intentions some credibility, but I did not, and with Austria bouncing me out of Trieste, and him building a fleet, I was properly in it at the deep end.

Austria responded with some cryptic nonsense about me having leaked information to Russia telling him about a move that was blatantly obvious, so I apologized to France for my rude visit and exited stage right. I needed to find friends in the east fast, and Russia wasn't responding. Turkey was being friendly, so I went along with his plan for a while, taking Trieste, then Vienna.

Around 1903, I wanted to switch sides and work with Russia against Turkey, but again Russia was uncommunicative so I wasn't very sure how well that would work out. He agreed to bail on Vienna and take Budapest instead. Some unpleasantness with France depositing fleets on my backdoor occurred , possibly requested by Turkey. He was 'offering to help' against Turkey when I already had three fleets, so that was hilarious. Some entertaining messages followed between us (France and I), where I threatened swift and merciless retribution (while hoping he would go away), he denied fear of death and proceeded to criticize my grammar. Relationships with Turkey soured rapidly post me supporting Russia into Budapest and working with the two renegade Austrian units in the south to annoy him.

I intended to work with Austria and Russia on Turkey and made sure Russia got the message through Austria at well. Ideally at this point (early 1904) if Russia had played ball, things would have worked out very well for me, I would have been able to repel France's fleets while Russia helped me tie Turkey down, and it would have been an F/I/R with maybe England in on it.

But what happened is on the board, and it probably caused, or atleast in part contributed to Russia's eventual demise. The rest of the game was more or less pointless, not that I had given up, but there was not much I could do. Turkey absolutely refused to listen to me again after the bad blood between us. France offered help, I could deny it and sit around doing nothing or see if something could be worked out, but open Rome and Naples were obviously far too tempting to turn down, and that was that.

I like to do what I call a quote of the game - the bit of press that you remember when you recall a game, and this game's one was from Germany post 1903, on England -

"I know. I told him as much. We had a really strong position against France and he threw it away for something France told him. Not sure what it was, but it musta been magic."

LOL: "He denied fear of death and proceeded to criticize my grammar."

Turkey here:

S01: asked R if he wanted an arranged bounce or a straight on jugg, and he wanted to dmz - I was a bit reluctant towards that, which led me more towards a TA(I)
I had my part in the western crusade of Italy (or so I like to think), talking to both EGI about the idea - if I were to attack R, I needed the italian fleet off my back. Eventually we settled on a TAI alliance, and after seeing the opening moves it was golden.

F01: if I wanted two builds, I figured R would protect sev, plus the two armies could potentially shift against A if needed - R surprised me, opening up Sev for a second fleet. the italian quest against F seemed doomed, and austria could potentially grow into a naval power.

S02: the russian fleet resulted in some pressure, and ultimately we decided that I would disband him in arm, and start heading for austria together. I was fairly confident that either R would have a hard time utilizing his builds up north, or worst case scenario, if he stabbed me later on, England would soon be in STP.

F02: I was still on good terms with italy, and I desided to go for another army, thinking A would try to recover inland - big mistake! somehow, italy convinced A that I was the bad guy, so my attack on russia had to be prolonged...

S03: Russia was very short on press, plus he hadnt entered orders close to the deadline, so I tried a sneak for sev, without entering arm - that way austria would get a good shot at my home, and I would still patch things up with R if I didnt succeed - which I didnt...

F03: italy showed the first real sign of aggression, besides convincing austria to keep the fleet - he supported russia. I had already given the center to russia, since I had to hold A/I out of serbia, so it was only italy that became my enemy with that move, not R.

S04/F04: I believe it was R, who tipped me off about the austrian move to bul, and the arrangement for us to disband him there, plus my shot at trieste was risk free, serbia being surrounded by fleets. the move to syria opened up for two western fleets in case R did as promised.

S05/F05: R moving an army to Rum worried me a bit, but with this position I had to trust him - serbia made a safe-move, since I would rather lose serbia than bulgaria. the italian fleet position, plus the lurking french fleets, meant I had to focus on controlling the med, before I could go for R again.

06: setting up fleets to take ionian, while trying to get france to take his chunk of italy, in order to get those fleets away from my border. the english move on russia assured me that he would not stab me, and I began to see the opportunity of a solo - but then france decided to keep italy alive in venice...

07: F and me arrange for I to be killed completely, and instead of attacking R, I allowed him to shift back and defend against E.

08: F/E wanted me to stab R, so I ended up getting rom and nap without much of a fight - I cant remember if it was explicitly agreed upon, of if F just stood by allowing it to happen, since he clearly played for a draw now.

09: the stab on R came, assuring he could not somehow get revenge by helping E/F.

10: I played it a bit conservative, getting my units alligned instead of working with E to take the final russian centers down, plus moving the fleets along in order to have more power against tyrr

11: the death of R fell, and I entered pie in order to open up for even more fleets bordering tyrr - after the builds I realised I should have had two fleets, if I wanted any shot at breaking tyrr. I decided to draw, since my impression of the E/G alliance was much more solid than what I have read here in this thread - I only thought they were shaky during the early years.

all in all, I did what I always tell myself not to do before any game - I tend to stab too much, shifting alliances too often, and I havent totally got the hang about the end game yet - I need to plan for potential solo setups long before I have been doing so far.

Thanks, santosh and Per Olander! So it sounds like (at least from the Italian perspective) Ven-Tri in A01 was by agreement between IA, but Italy did not expect the bounce and subsequent fleet build. It would be interesting to hear the Austrian perspective, since that sequence of events really shaped the whole game and was the impetus for E switching sides (as opposed to any magic words from F).

Bump. I definitely have words. Just need time after dinner to put them on screen.

long dinner Geofram? ;)

I'm a math guy, so if I criticized someone's grammar it must have been pretty bad, lol! I'm totally kidding and have no idea what you're talking about, so I'll have to go reread our press, I'm curious now!

What a let down, santosh, I was totally joking with you, guess I suck at poking fun while at war, and I suppose at least half of my jokes are lost in translation (i.e. reading text on a computer screen), but oh well. :-(

^ yes, I know, I know. I reserve the right to dramatize my press. It was good fun. If it was F2F, when you refused to pull those fleets, I swear I would have thrown a chair at you.

What's fun is matching up the EOG statements on particular issues. For example, France/Italy in 1903:

Italy: Some unpleasantness with France depositing fleets on my backdoor occurred , possibly requested by Turkey.

Turkey: italy showed the first real sign of aggression, besides convincing austria to keep the fleet - he supported russia. I had already given the center to russia, since I had to hold A/I out of serbia, so it was only italy that became my enemy with that move, not R.

France: [England] talked me into building a fleet to defend against Italy, even though I wanted to build an army to take everything I had at Germany to kill the lying bastard! ... in the south I had shifted into The Best Defense is a Good Offense mode, which for me meant any sort of offense, merely being in Tus and West Med would require Italy to do some work to take any of my home centers...

England: Since Italy won’t help me with T, I am trying to steer F against Italy but F is reluctant ... A asks me to persuade F to cease attacking Italy, Magic 8-Ball says: Don’t Count On It.

I still haven't figured out whether there ever was an AIT, or if not, why EFGR all thought there was.

LOL, santosh, we absolutely *must* play F2F sometime, sounds like great fun, some sort of Extreme Diplomacy where some of the battles play themselves out in real life!! :-)

The Hanged Man, as far as the AIT, there was one in the pregame, from what I remember (and without re-reading all of this thread), but as soon as A/I started butting heads over Trieste (perhaps when spring 1901 orders went through?), then there was not. Though I'm a bit confused myself, thanks for compiling all those statements above, what a friggin' mess, nobody knew what anybody else was thinking, it's almost like somebody planned that!! ;-)

PS - I hope it's clear I was just joking around by saying "the lying bastard", got to love a little in-game anger that's all in good fun, nothing personal...

there was an AIT going pre-game yes, but AI collided early - I didnt make a clear choice in that battle right away, but desided to switch R in for A, when the fleet position in BLA got rough, and we found a way to work it out.

^Yes. I was betrayed on two occasions, and on both of those occasions, continuing to work with me was tactically better for the betrayers, so I'm waiting on their EOGs to find out what press they received to make them move that way.

You may be waiting a while. I hear Geofram eats a lot. ;)

Sorry, lots of travel recently. Settling down to get some work done today, I'll find some time this afternoon. I have so many things to say.