Welcome to webDiplomacy.net's new server; providing better performance and stability, more expansion room, the ability to host related projects and dev servers, and managed backups. Please let us know of any problems in the Forum.

Finished: 11 AM Sun 20 Sep 20 UTC
Private The Masters 2020 R7G1
1 day, 12 hours /phase
Pot: 35 D - Autumn, 1916, Finished
Classic, Anonymous players, Draw-Size Scoring
3 excused missed turn
Game won by AncientMemories (635 D)
23 Aug 20 UTC Autumn, 1912: I, as you had before me, worked with who i needed to in order to try and grow. Wha you call reckless, i call the inevitable result of playing this game: namely, that i took what centers as i could when i was able. In my position, you would absolutely have done the same. The alternative was a draw, which i expressed multiple people was boring. Germany’s actions were also perfectly justified, as your acquisitions were utterly vulnerable and he was losing ground. If you hadn’t immediately become a thoughtless pawn of Turkey, i might have had a solo chance. In the end, a solo is the more satisfying result. It is only your choices which have changed the outcome, from a possible solo by me to a guaranteed solo by Turkey. But a solo is better than a draw, so I’m still happy with the outcome.
24 Aug 20 UTC Autumn, 1912: I still think i can solo
24 Aug 20 UTC Autumn, 1912: Ps that was a joke
24 Aug 20 UTC Autumn, 1912: Of course it was, you must all accept that in the end, you have no chance against me.
24 Aug 20 UTC Spring, 1913: There are many other things I want to say, but quickly, on my phone, I’d like to ask: given that my position became untenable because of Germany having to move towards my SCs because of your attacks, how did you expect to react? Did you think I’d be like ‘well, that’s life, but I’ll overcome the fact that I’m being eliminated because of the above-mentioned circumstances and do my best fighting Turkey so that England, to whom I could hardly be more grateful, has a chance to win!’?
24 Aug 20 UTC Spring, 1913: basically, yes. Although the public shaming for playing the game was unexpected, the rest is pretty much it. No one is guaranteed to survive or solo in any particular game, so that you're so mad about it marks you as the outlier. See how gratious France has been? Even Austria has a sense of humor in this. Only you have become publicly bitter, and that's unfortunate.
24 Aug 20 UTC Spring, 1913: I'm very bitter, but I'm just more of a private person. ;)
25 Aug 20 UTC Spring, 1913: Well me personally, if I have to choose whether to throw the game to the person who I've been fighting for years or the person who just betrayed me, I will always choose to screw over the person who betrayed me. Because they betrayed an ally for their own benefit, and I didn't want them to, so I don't like them anymore, so they can go die in a hole. Just my personal opinion though.
25 Aug 20 UTC Spring, 1913: Well... I'm not sure what's the issue here, but you brought the issue to global chat. I answered only after your second global message regarding that, being in general more of a private person as well. And while I appreciate the clear show of support from Russia, Germany and Austria regarding the absurdity of your behaviour, I wouldn't call myself particularly bitter.

I am, however, especially unable to understand your behaviour and how you see the game. You seem eager to set in motion events that ultimately do not benefit you, which is rather weird. You can't even say you didn't know I would support Turkey if my position fell exclusively as a consequence of the chain reaction you started. I made that crystal clear several times.

And yet you chose to go ahead and pull the trigger. Surprisingly, you somehow figured sabotaging the Russian war effort would further help you, oblivious to how it would affect Turkish growth. This is a clusterfuck of your own creation that I'm really unable to grasp.

Despite that, and despite my somewhat formal vocabulary (English not being my first language, I'm at times unfamiliar/unskilled with more informal speech), I hold no personal grudge or bitter feelings towards you, and fully realize this is merely a game, whose outcome, though, I'd have preferred to be different.
25 Aug 20 UTC Spring, 1913: I think you and i see the game In exactly the same way, Italy. You spent your beginning of the game attacking me, just as you accuse me of spending the end of my game attacking you. You saw Russia as a foe, in exactly the same way i saw you as a foe. You chose to stop your attack on me to focus on attacking Turkey; i chose to cease attacking Russia so i could attack you, and Germany by extension. You wanted a solo from the start; I wouldn’t mind having a solo. The difference between us is that you think you can attack me for the whole game and then expect and deserve my loyalty in serving your new goal of stopping Turkey; I think you do not deserve my loyalty just because you “spared me.” As i explained to you twice, i saw that i was kept alive in this game, twice, only because i was “useful” to another player. Germany needed me to stop Russia at the beginning, and you needed me to stop Turkey in the mid game. I was never an equal partner in your plans, only a useful tool. The original plan was to divide France equally between us. We all saw who betrayed who first, or rather, who betrayed the other at all.
Perhaps you’ve never been a declining power before this game, but if you eliminate me, or if there is a late-game Juggernaut, i lose in either scenario. It therefore doesn’t matter who i help, or if i do; you’ll just take my centers anyway. As such, i have no incentive to help you, and after you spend years attacking me, i don’t particularly want to help you now that you’re in a weaker position. I don’t see why this isn’t clear.
It seems like you only care about my behavior because I prevented you from taking a win in your last chance in this tournament, but i don’t care about winning. I’m just here to enjoy playing a game.
But perhaps this is my fault. You told me you would work to make Turkey win, this is true. That same day i got a note from Germany in which he made the same promise. Russia was already overextending a bit, and he also told me he’d let Turkey win if i didn’t back off. Given that “we were all agreed about giving the solo to Turkey”, i posted in public that we didn’t need to waste time waiting 36 hours for retreat orders to expire. Perhaps exposing the hidden motives forced all your hands, and you didn’t actually mean to hand Turkey a free win for being the only agreeable person in the chat, but alas, I’m still bored with waiting, Turkey is still the winner, and I’m still sitting on “ready” for days at a time as we pretend the inevitable isn’t going to happen
25 Aug 20 UTC Spring, 1913: Well I don't know how the negotiations are going exactly, but I'm pretty darn sure that if you aren't all complete idiots then nobody will solo this game. If you keep blaming everyone else and acting self-righteous and expecting everyone to agree with you anyway, a solo is very possibly on the horizon. I have no clue who's doing what but a solo is not even close to guaranteed. Neither side is past the stalemate line yet.
26 Aug 20 UTC Spring, 1913: Ok, by parts.

My first hostile move towards you was in Spring 1906 (Spa-Gas and Por-Mao). As we both know, however, you were duly informed of my moves of Spring and Autumn 1906. The moment I broke that working relationship of telling you what we were going to do and actually attacked you was in Spring 1907.

However, after a successful convoy in Autumn 1907, once it became clear Turkey was coming after me, I moved back immediately (Spring 1908). Despite your concerns that I would not do what I said I would, my orders matched my words exactly and I convoyed out, and did not move on Liverpool in Autumn 1908.

So, just to be clear, what you say was an early game devoted to fighting you boils down to two seasons of direct and unannounced attack, which cost you none of your Home SCs, of which I promptly backed off. Before addressing my withdrawal, I'd like to point at Portugal and the dismantling of France.

Indeed, there was a joint attack between you, Germany and I. It took you until Autumn 1903 to get yourself into the Channel, facing only one French unit. Meanwhile, my forces were facing three French units, and yet managed to conquer Marseilles, with Germany's assistance.

For reasons beyond my comprehension, Germany ordered Bel-Hol in Spring 1904. Equally (as a matter of fact, more) useless was the idle stay of your army in Yorkshire in Autumn 1903 and Spring 1904. If you had moved it to Wales or London in Autumn, along with the move to Channel, you'd be able to conquer Brest sooner, despite the German fleet moving away.

As a consequence, you finally managed to conquer Brest by the same time I had finished conquering Spain, Portugal and Marseilles, and I hadn't even done that at full speed. As a matter of fact, I managed to get France to disband F Wes by promising to support France, as a puppet, against Germany. Consequently, I leaked the moves of A Bur for 3 consecutive seasons (from Spring 1904 to Spring 1905), but France, for unknown reasons, despite having followed my requested disband, failed to process that and impressively tried to guess the German moves three times on a row, always making a mistake, despite knowing the German moves in advance.

Consequently, it became clear France had became useless as a puppet and I abandoned the idea, thus conquering Portugal (I moved to Mao, instead of Portugal in Spring 1905 because, if France had followed my intelligence and moved to Burgundy, Mars-Gas would have worked and France would be kept alive. In Autumn, however, I grew tired of France's inefficiency and conquered Portugal instead.

So, yes, even though I wasn't particularly eager to finish France quickly, I managed to conquer Iberia and Marseilles by the time you managed to bring a second unit into the struggle. That you would actually expect me to reward your lacklustre effort by handing you Portugal is unrealistic.

Not only due to the above mentioned reasons, but also because it would require me to ignore your interests in moving past Gibraltar. How is England reaching 18 without crossing Gibraltar? It didn't seem as if you were planning to march all the way to the Balkans. So, both for reasons related to how this game went and to overall English and Italian strategy, your request for Portugal would hardly have been answered by anyone in their sane mind.

After my idea of having French units advancing my agenda in the West had to be abandoned, not because France did not accept my demands, but because s/he failed to act coherently after disbanding the fleet, I persuaded Germany to attack you.

There are many reasons for that. First and foremost, your overall moves up until that point made it highly unlikely that you'd manage to break through Russian forces in Moscow and Warsaw. Everyone knows this is a difficult path, and, with Russia growing at Austria's expense, it was very unlikely that Russia would be as ungarrisoned as necessary for your assault to succeed.

Where would your forces head, then, especially as there wasn't, yet, a boardwide threat to warrant a grand coalition? You'd either attack Germany or me. It thus made sense for us to attack you first, as your units, despite having numerical advantage at sea, were out of position.

Your insistence that I attacked Germany in 1906 or 1907, instead of you, was understandable. I'd have argued the same. But we both know it made little sense to me. Let's assume I could have won against Germany in France despite my lack of armies. What would I have gained from that? Paris and perhaps Munich.

Granted, two extra SCs could have helped me. But I'd only have somewhere to grow in the East if Turkey and Russia fought each other (something I was trying to make happen anyway, and of which I'd profit more by attacking you anyway). And, while I'd have gained these two SCs, you, who could conceivably have hoped to reconquer Sweden and add Denmark, Kiel, Berlin and the Low Countries, would be absolutely invulnerable.

Let me be clear: even if you did not advance further than Sweden and Denmark against Germany, your defensive position would have been invulnerable. You'd have even more fleets, and time to reposition them. Our attack was perfectly timed at a moment you could be pushed back.

Yes, my ultimate goal was to solo. But this, it appears from the last messages you sent me, is a major difference in our understanding of the game.

I realize you can plan to solo and set yourself in position to that (for instance, getting solidly across the stalemate line early), so that when it becomes a rush to 18, you are in the right position, and you have employed the right allies at the right places to have achieved such a position you would otherwise be unable to attain.

On the other hand, you appear to understand looking to solo not as the careful planning for the moment you need to attack everyone. It appears you only understand 'trying to solo = attacking everything that moves, regardless of the consequences'. Hence your late attack on Russia. WHY? You essentially made it impossible for Russia to contain Turkey, for the conquest of one SC? I have never seen someone as short-sighted as you.

I did not, as you say, move back to attack Turkey. I moved back to defend from Turkey. If you know the rules of the game this needs no further explanation.

Now, with Austria essentially out and my lines holding steady, I was hoping I could drive a wedge between Turkey (who skilfully tried to gaslight me into dismantling my defensive position before taking any action in that direction) and Russia (who did not answer me for weeks). You certainly tried the same. With Austria out, I figured this would either be the moment where Russia attacked Turkey or attacked Germany, thus making their position vulnerable to Turkey. Plus, combined with the forced disband of F Alb in Spring 1907, I figured the combined weight of all these things could steer Turkey North.

The two fleet builds, on the contrary, showed a renewed determination to sail West. To be clear, if Turkey could get away with sailing past Gibraltar, s/he would. Consequently, MY fleets were what prevented Turkey from assaulting you. I was on the way.

At this moment, Russia was still allied with Turkey. Have you read about the power of their alliance? I did not move back because I figured I had a better opportunity and then expected you to conveniently forgive my one/two years of hostile actions, but because I had to, or else Turkish fleets would be near Iberia in no time.

Proving I had it under my full control to prevent the chaos of Turkey steamrolling past me, I managed to reach a stalemating position in Autumn 1909. Turkey had reached Ion, but could not move any further and had not threatened a single SC.

You had also remarked, and sent me a small message in CAPS after Autumn 1907, pointing that Germany would obviously attack my unguarded possessions (perhaps assuming Germany would behave as irrationally as you do). It turns out, as I expected, that Germany was a rational player and realized that attacking me would unleash Turkey's full power. Germany could get away with conquering them from me, but would be unable to defend their new gains against Turkey and Russia (except with your help, but I'm certain no one here would trust you to help. In hindsight, great intuition from Germany).

Consequently, Germany who only moved to Burgundy in Autumn 1907 at my request, didn't take advantage of my open SCs until Autumn 1909 (after moving towards France at my urging), as a direct consequence of your continued attacks. Germany only took my SCs as not doing so would equal being eliminated. That was, by the way, the expected response of Germany to your attacks.

So, just to recall a few things: I did not keep the entire early game attacking you, and I did not move back to profit from something else, but because I had to, to the general benefit of the board. Granted, Turkey being able to threaten me was good to you, but even to you having Turkey steamroll all the way to Iberia was not a nice outcome.

So, on realizing Russia and Turkey could be contained by our joint efforts, which would a) result in a shift of alliances, where they'd be on opposing sides or b) result in a rather boring draw, you decided you'd rather jeopardize everything just to have some fun. This meant a) that Germany would either die quietly to ensure your plan worked, having to that end no incentive other than being nice to the player attacking them from behind, or fall back to my SCs, which in turn meant that b) Turkey would conquer my SCs whether I wanted or not.

My options would then be to die heroically to allow you time to stop the Turkish fleets, despite the fact that you were to sole factor to unleash this chain reaction, or not reward your unwise behaviour. Needless to say, I chose the latter.

Now, I was not asking for your loyalty because I spared you. I did not attack you for the whole game. You have been attacking Russia in the last five seasons for longer than I attacked you, even considering the moments I leaked to you our attack moves. I was asking you to be reasonable and acknowledge there were other players around who would profit considerably at our expense if you didn't stop to attack Germany, I was not asking for your loyalty.

What have you gained from it? A few SCs? You never had any chance of soloing, especially because you made Germany, Russia and I have strong reasons not to trust you. You appear to value conquering each and every SC available, as it makes you stronger, regardless of how your actions impact the board as a whole, and this is definitely not how diplomacy works.

Russia didn't overwhelm the Continent as I said would happen, but that didn't happen exclusively because Turkey attacked Russia. Would Turkey have attacked Russia if Germany had not had to migrate, thus crippling my defensive position? We'll never know.

But what we know is that you unequivocally fucked Germany and I in broad daylight, with the subtlety of an elephant holding porcelain, and then went forward to fuck Russia as well for the sake of conquering Berlin and Moscow. It does not appear to us that you ever considered what the implications of your actions would be.

It is not a matter of loyalty, but of reason. I told you I would not die heroically delaying Turkey because you felt you were entitled to conquer everything someone could not defend from you. Your approach to understanding how solo works, and how to build relations with your fellow players, appear to have yielded you a position where no one trusts you, and your gains have not, by a large margin, been enough to offset that.

My original plan did not work because that's life. This is a complex game where one seldom wins. Turkey was wise not to attack Russia, though I assume that could have happened, especially if both of them had been stalled. I decided to play safe and contain Turkey, rather than press forward against you, because I figured you'd be a rational player who would understand the consequences of stabbing us in the back while we contained Russia and Turkey, because that is what, from my experience, people do: they consider the consequences of their actions away from their immediate border.

You didn't, and you'll lose, not draw, without ever having had a chance of setting a potentially winning position, because of it. Not sure if this was all because you were mad that your alliance suggestion had been rejected in 1906, this could be the case. But the fact is that you've earned three players that rightfully won't trust you, and a loss.

Given how universal the criticism of your behaviour is, you would do well to learn something from this.
26 Aug 20 UTC Spring, 1913: This can be considered my EoG
26 Aug 20 UTC Autumn, 1913: TLDR. Good game, Turkey
27 Aug 20 UTC Autumn, 1913: TLDR Shut up England, nobody likes you and you are wrong.
27 Aug 20 UTC Autumn, 1913: That’s too bad, and also exactly my point. Can’t be friends with everyone, Especially in this game, and expecting everyone to like everyone else is setting yourself up to be disappointed. I don’t care if you like me, and I’m happy with a Turkish solo, so stop pretending you can insult me be giving me what i want anyway
27 Aug 20 UTC Autumn, 1913: No, but perhaps you could learn something from the experience. Everyone is telling you the same thing, and I’ve carefully detailed everything that happened and why. You’d do well to read it, even if only to grasp a different perspective with which you disagree.
28 Aug 20 UTC Autumn, 1913: Well played Turkey.
31 Aug 20 UTC Spring, 1914: GameMaster: Game was extended due to at least 1 member failing to enter orders and having an excused missed turn available. This has un-readied all orders.
31 Aug 20 UTC Spring, 1914: Sorry, that was me.
31 Aug 20 UTC Spring, 1914: Still shows missing one, hope everyone is OK. If you're just entering hold orders you need to hit ready or change one, save it, and change it back then save it again I think, or it will not record you as having entered orders.
04 Sep 20 UTC Autumn, 1914: It seems like we're set for a stalemate. If everyone enters their supports correctly, we're done. The one possible flaw in our design is my fault for neglecting to move Berlin and thus denying the reinforcement to Germany, but our side of the line still gets a build, and the middle can still be held until I reinforce the weak point. I'm content to draw now if everyone else is, or we can force the game to the full point of support orders and no movement if that's our preference
04 Sep 20 UTC Autumn, 1914: my draw vote is in
05 Sep 20 UTC Autumn, 1914: It’s been a long game, let’s call it a day
07 Sep 20 UTC Autumn, 1914: Having finally replied to everyone with due care, I'm happy to enter my draw vote. I am also strongly in favour of allowing Russia to be a part of the draw.
08 Sep 20 UTC Spring, 1915: To all Great Powers of Europe, a declaration on the draw, published by the Italian government, but certain of German wholehearted support.

It is our wish to draw with all remaining participants, even though we acknowledge ensuring Russia's survival to be entirely beyond our means. We nevertheless ask for universal compassion towards the Russian exiles in Budapest.

As it stands, England, Germany and Italy hold a defensive line Turkey can't possibly break. That is, provided England moves Kiel-Ruhr, Berlin-Kiel and Prussia-Berlin in the current season.

When that is done, and there is no way Turkey can possibly stop this set of moves, Nao SH Mao, Gas SH Spa, Bur SH Mars, Ruhr & Kiel SH Munich, Baltic SH Berlin and Finland SH StP mean the game will be effectively stalemated.

With this, we ask Turkey to gently agree to the draw.

But, equally important, taking into account all well known past events of this game, we DEMAND that England do not enter any move whatsoever whose purpose is not directly related to effecting the above-described set of orders and thus ensuring the draw.

To make this very clear: If England moves in a way that may seem ill-intentioned towards Germany or Italy, these two powers shall immediately ensure that Turkey wins the game. To avoid any possible ambiguity, we'll thus set a specific moveset to be followed.

Given that no unit other than Mao, Nao, Kiel, Berlin, Prussia, Baltic, Finland and St. Petersburg is required to the stalemate line to be held, we demand that North Sea is moved towards Barents Sea, through Norway, Irish Sea is moved towards Clyde, through Liverpool, and London is moved towards Edinburgh, through Yorkshire (it is thereby made unequivocal that London shall NOT be moved to Edinburgh through a convoy, as North Sea is required to move to Norway immediately).

Once the superfluous English units are, as detailed above and through the above-described paths, in their respective locations of Clyde, Edinburgh and Barents Sea, THEY SHALL NOT MOVE.

Given that there is no reason whatsoever for them to be employed in any way, unless England wants to attack Germany, ANY MOVE not in agreement with the above-detailed demands will immediately result in a Turkish solo victory.

In short, we demand that, in Spring 1915, England orders Nao SH Mao, Mao hold, Irish Sea-Liverpool, London-Yorkshire, North Sea-Norway, Kiel-Ruhr, Berlin-Kiel, Prussia-Berlin, Baltic S Prussia-Berlin, Finland SH St. Petersburg.

In Autumn 1915, England is to order Nao SH Mao, F Liverpool-Clyde, A Yorkshire-Edinburgh, F Norway-Barents Sea, A Ruhr SH Munich, A Kiel SH Munich, Baltic SH Berlin, Finland SH St. Petersburg.

Afterwards, Nao, Ruhr, Kiel, Baltic and Finland are expected to keep support holding, respectively, Mao, Munich, Munich, Berlin and St. Petersburg, and the fleets in Clyde and Barents, along with the army in Edinburgh, are expected to be held in their place in perpetuity.

Again, given the absolute lack of reason for any move not in compliance with these demands, unless aggression towards Germany is planned, any deviation will result in a Turkish solo.

As unequivocally crystal clear as possibly conceivable, to the point of being redundant,

08 Sep 20 UTC Spring, 1915: The stalemate line is set, the West would have to be idiots to lose it now. England pushing results in a Turkish solo unless somebody is either dumb or a huge wildcard, and Turkey has already secured a board top. I say y'all should just put up a draw vote and go home unless you're really confident in your ability to wrap smaller powers around your finger for your own benefit (or in your opponent's ability to be stupid). For what it's worth, I am voting draw in spirit, if not in action.
08 Sep 20 UTC Spring, 1915: GameMaster: Game was extended due to at least 1 member failing to enter orders and having an excused missed turn available. This has un-readied all orders.
11 Sep 20 UTC Autumn, 1915: Turkey, I have made my peace with England. The line is drawn, I suggest you input draw, or wait until next turn if you prefer.
13 Sep 20 UTC Autumn, 1915: I made my utmost to ensure Turkey did not win, and God and humans alike are witnesses of my efforts. It is with great sadness and disappointment that I must admit England throughly lack common sense and is a puppet of his/her unrestricted desire to be an asshole. A shame.
13 Sep 20 UTC Autumn, 1915: Thoroughly. On. My phone, but could not further delay this statement.
13 Sep 20 UTC Autumn, 1915: Would you move out of mars so we can give Turkey the win?
14 Sep 20 UTC Autumn, 1915: You can just support Turkey in with everything you have if that's the outcome you want.
17 Sep 20 UTC well played Turkey. Italy i would like to give you a survive, but i don't think there is any way. Maybe just support Mars? I will be.
Good game all. I understand why you pushed for the win England, but didn't work this time.
17 Sep 20 UTC All is as i hoped: someone got a solo, and i enjoyed the finish. If this win does give 3rd overall to Turkey, i remain happy for it.
17 Sep 20 UTC well i guess that's a view. Personally i prefer a draw to a survive. But yes is a game, so as long as you had fun...
17 Sep 20 UTC England, that is the most stupid and senseless argument I’ve ever heard. It makes no sense whatsoever to actively pursue a result that gives you a loss when you could have not lost. You do not cease to negatively surprise me.
17 Sep 20 UTC Well then it's a good thing I didn't actually make an argument, or else that scathing review might have hurt my feelings
17 Sep 20 UTC You just said you'd rather have someone else win than reach a draw. Imagine someone scoring an own goal because they do not enjoy goalless draws. It makes no sense whatsoever, unless you clearly do not understand the rules, or plays with absurd objectives. I can't understand what's wrong with you, but you really play this game in a very weird and illogical fashion.

Especially because it isn't as if you were throwing to Turkey because someone forced you to choose between that or elimination. On the contrary, you are the primary driving force behind the Turkish solo since what, 1908? Why? Your behaviour is overall outrageous, and frankly one of the dumbest displays in diplomacy I have ever witnessed.
17 Sep 20 UTC The bitterness you feel towards me, perhaps i have felt it towards you since 1906? I don’t have any negative feelings about a Turkish solo, and he thinks this point can help his overall ranking. You’re also acting as though you think i haven’t been talking to him, but rather attacking you blindly purely out of spite. From 1908, if you like that year, i got to make a decision between him and you, and i chose him. Simple as that. But the game is over now, so the anger can now be forgotten and moved on
17 Sep 20 UTC out of interest england, when i made that stab very early on ... would you have stabbed me the turn after if i had not done that; or stuck with our alliance? it was a turning point in the game from the western triple having the upper hand; and interested to see if i made the right decision or a mistake?
17 Sep 20 UTC I generally play with people until someone gives me a reason to play against them. You told me in a private note you thought you made a mistake, and i agree. So, if you had let me keep Sweden i would have had no reason to attack you. If i recall rightly, at that point we were still intending to cooperate against France and Russia; after that point, you directly attacked me and supported Italy against me in France, so i wasn’t very excited about helping either of you after that. When the tide turned to make me key player in maintaining a stalemate, i told the truth: i don’t really like stalemates in general, and i didn’t have anything against Turkey, so he may as well win. Perhaps I’m not how all players go, but that’s how i was thinking
18 Sep 20 UTC You’re courageous to call that some sort of thinking.
18 Sep 20 UTC Perhaps that was a hit harsh, but you get my point. I have explained in great details how your arguments regarding our relations are absurd, and you refused to read them, so, I have little else to say. I’ll address some other flaws in your logic tomorrow.
18 Sep 20 UTC As before Italy, i have ignored and will ignore. By tone alone you have proven to be unpleasant to play with. I repent of my invitation to play further games with you. Unless i meet you by accident in the anon games, i expect we won’t talk much going forward.
18 Sep 20 UTC Thanks everyone and congratulations on making it all the way through the masters.
18 Sep 20 UTC I don't think there's a need for a huge EoG, for most of you I've talked your ears off individually already and you're probably sick of hearing from me.

I'll just say I think there were a few tricky tactical moments at different times with different people, which is often my favorite sort of puzzle solving, and at least speaking for myself but probably for most of us, a few silly mistakes/bad guesses. I'd say I squeaked by here on luck and being the neutral choice in a lot of ways, but obviously not going to complain about the outcome from a selfish perspective.
19 Sep 20 UTC Well played matey
19 Sep 20 UTC England, I have many flaws, and I may have been overly harsh with you, but I'm certainly not an unpleasant person to chat with. As a matter of fact, I'm under the impression I'm the only person I know to have ever received an award for being friendly. As an adult. From the organization of a classical music competition I went to as a candidate, in a foreign continent, knowing virtually no one. So, yes, I can be very charming, and this usually applies to diplomacy as well.

Your falsely polite way of saying things here mask two things. Firstly that I attacked you when you'd have liked to attack me. That could be seen by your units and by your simple lack of targets. As we've seen recently, you're not one to sit with your units idle. After France was gone, you'd either try to push your way through St. Petersburg, then occupied by a fleet, towards Russia, which is definitely one of the least efficient paths England could ever try, or attack one out of Germany or Italy.

You've clearly stated above, and recently, that you would not have attacked Germany. So either you're lying to Germany (no news here) or you would have attacked me, in which case I basically outpaced you. And yet, due to that perfectly understandable game circumstance, you became bitter towards me ever since.

More impressively, you've developed a story where I've spent all the early years attacking you, which I've easily debunked and you refused to address.

And secondly you say you became bitter towards me because I attacked you in 1906, and you could never overcome it. I'd be very impressed if you'd have decided to throw the game at that point because I attacked you once. But even more so given that the game was rather balanced! Instead of considering other options, and seeing what would happen, you chose to take revenge and trigger the chain of events that made a Turkish solo a distinct possibility, as if there were no other possibility in the game for you.

That would also have been very impressive, and, collectively, they make it appear as if your handling of Diplomacy is way different from how the majority of decent players see it, not to mention the very goals of the game.

But no, more than that, when I managed to somehow give us the chance of setting an unbreakable stalemate line to ensure a 4-way draw with Turkey, you decided that was boring and decided to throw the game. Why, exactly? Would such a result benefit, say, your team, if this were a World Cup? Was your survival at stake, so you had to make this threat?

No! You were bored! You figured a draw was boring. Given that your position was not threatened in the least, I can see no difference between that and a goalkeeper kicking the ball towards his own goal just to avoid the boredom of a draw.

If you claim you had wanted me to lose regardless of what happened because I attacked you in 1906, even though we know you'd have attacked me, my attack was absolutely reasonable within the fabric of the game, and that it essentially amounted to an aborted landing in a non-sc province of the British Isles, I'd be impressed you'd be so bitter because of something like that. I could have been this person, when I was five. But then, I was five, and wouldn't remember that for months to come and hold it against the other person.

It is not that I can't understand your logic. I can't understand Einstein's logic. Your logic is pretty simple, it just doesn't make sense. And it did impact me. Because I've invested three months and a half playing this game. I sent messages to six different people, I've studied moves, I've carefully planned things. But you act like a child. You'd hate someone because they attacked you several seasons ago, even though you'd have done the same and it made sense. You'd create chaos just to have someone win, even if that makes you get a worse result than you'd otherwise get. And there were other options to get things to move. Like a child, you can't keep yourself from taking what's within reach, regardless of the consequences, or whether or not you should.

It is very frustrating to see the attention I've devoted to this game was useless not because someone else outwitted me, outguessed me, was more dedicated, bright, sharp, innovative, creative, or even lucky. No, that was simply because you consistently behave like a child. This is the closest to flipping the table one can possibly do online, and that's exactly what you did.

I can certainly understand you may be going through stressful times. I am, and I assume many people are. I can understand if you made a wrong assessment, at some point, as to what would happen, as that happens as well. I can easily forgive those things as well; despite my engagement, this is a board game, for heaven's sake. But to have you act like a child and come here self-righteously claim you're correct, your 'logic' makes sense and I'm the unpleasant one, no, that's beyond me.

I did my best, but there was nothing I could do to prevent you from giving Turkey the solo.
19 Sep 20 UTC Well played Turkey!

Start Backward Open large map Forward End

Won. Bet: 5 D, won: 35 D
20 supply-centers, 16 units
SirThursday (907 D)
Survived. Bet: 5 D
12 supply-centers, 13 units
KingJohnII (1539 D (B))
Survived. Bet: 5 D
2 supply-centers, 3 units
Survived. Bet: 5 D
0 supply-centers, 1 units
GalahadIII (1939 D)
Defeated. Bet: 5 D
BobMcBob (170 D)
Defeated. Bet: 5 D
Roadhog (102 D (G))
Defeated. Bet: 5 D
Civil Disorders
BobMcBob (170 D)Austria (Autumn, 1907) with 0 centres.
Archive: Orders - Maps - Messages