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: 03 AM Wed 11 May 11 UTC
1 day, 12 hours /phase
Pot: 175 D - Autumn, 1909, Finished
Classic, Anonymous players, Survivors-Win Scoring
1 excused missed turn
Game won by Alcoway (198 D)
29 Mar 11 UTC Spring, 1901: Good luck to all.
29 Mar 11 UTC Spring, 1901: Alrighty then...come home from work to find the game started...20 hours to go and everyone but Austria and I have *finalized* orders... Sooo...phhht...uh...y'all aren't much on talking before you move, huh?
29 Mar 11 UTC Spring, 1901: I had a start when I saw that as well. I think it's more likely that players finalized their moves just to be sure they had an opening up just-in-case. I know that that's what I've done.
30 Mar 11 UTC Spring, 1901: I dont' disagree with entering orders and saving them. But hitting *ready* means if everyone ready's in, the turn plays. If you just save, then the clock runs out and you have time to talk.
12 Apr 11 UTC Spring, 1904: Hey Bud - so where are we? I have to confess, by the reading of the board, it will APPEAR to the world that we are headed for a battle. To that extent...I have spread the word. In other words, I *WANT* people to believe that we are going to go to a confrontation now.

What I *HOPE* is that we can now both move west. You moving west (south) and me moving west (north).

The issue at hand: Rumania. Admittedly, I promised it to you, and typically, I am certainly a man of my word. In this case, though, I must confess that for reason both of equality and of strategy, I want to keep Rumania. Equality, is an easy concept: we are 8 and 8; we are equal, enough said.

as far as STRATEGY, convoy to Rumania, move to Galacia, to Silesia and I am on the front line. ALTERNATELY if YOU own Rumania, , it is convoy to Sevastopol, to Ukraine, to Warsaw, to Selesia...

I trust you are man enough to see my point: Giving up Rumania severely limits my ability to wage war in the North...and thus - let's be honest - makes it so much more desirable to wage war with you --- WHICH I DO NOT WANT TO DO.

We have conducted an *AWESOME* Russo-Austria alliance, and I would like to see it through to the end. The caveat is that we reset out alliance to the current country disposition. BOTH of us have significant manuevering to do for our next battles: YOU -> italy and France, maybe Munich ; ME -> Germany and England. We CAN make these adjustments and still win....but it can ONLY be done with the mutual understanding that we ARE AT PEACE.

What say you, my friend?
12 Apr 11 UTC Spring, 1904: Here's my concern - for me to wage war in the west, I would need to move my units away from our front. For you to wage war in the west, as you described, would involve moving more units along my front. You can understand that I would certainly be uncomfortable with the idea of having the largest power in the game (tied with myself) running armies along my home supply centers. My experience with Austro-Turkish, Austro-Russian, and other alliances that share large borders is that they can work very well as long as three things happen - first that they expand at similar rates, second that they find a way to demilitarize their borders, and third that both parties trust the other.

Fortunately for us, the first part is already true (we're at 8 and 8 and would very soon control a majority of the board). The second part can be true, as long as Rumania, Galicia, Bulgaria, and Constantinople are kept empty. However this would, as you already pointed out, make your progress west cripplingly slow. At this point, though, it's a necessary factor. While I won't take Rumania, moving armies through Galicia and Rumania would give you the opportunity to stab me at any moment while not providing me with any similar threat. In other words, I would have to trust you but you would require no similar assurance. As for the third part, we've had some awkward points where I feel that you haven't been honest with me. The move to Rumania worked out for the best, but given that you had explicitly told me that I could take that space and then bounced me out without forewarning left a very bad taste in my mouth. Similarly, your decision to stab Germany (which gave England full control over Scandinavia) went on without letting your ally know.

The reason that I bring these up is not that I think I should fight you. If the two of us were to fight, Rumania and Bulgaria would change hands a few times but both of us would waste the majority of our forces in a stalemate across those two centers and Galicia. Compared to what should be an easy draw win, it's not a war I have any intentions of fighting. Rather, it's to explain why I'm not going to trust you to march armies across my backyard. I recognize that right now it serves us both best to work together. This is only true as long as neither of us are capable of dealing a crippling blow to the other, though, and why I won't allow you the opportunity to do so.

Here's my proposal - the borders in the south remain as they are, with Galicia and Rumania persisting as no-go zones. Once you get your armies out of Turkey (the long and boring way), I pull out of Bulgaria. In the meantime, I persist in a defensive stance around Bulgaria to maintain the illusion that you apparently desire that the two of us are at war.
12 Apr 11 UTC Spring, 1904: wHO ARE YO TALKING TO????
12 Apr 11 UTC Spring, 1904: So....I abandon my territories and take take the long way around....and YOU C's open to you...no defenses to stop you.

I'm sorry you decided to post our strategic discussions in public....but I can ****assure*** you we no longer have a peaceful border for the world to watch.. FUCK YOU and you plan. FUCK YOU and your God-damned distrust, when I have been **nothing but*** an ally. I will glory in your slow, f*ing death, asshole.
12 Apr 11 UTC Spring, 1904: Hey Bud - so where are we? I have to confess, by the reading of the board, it will APPEAR to the world that we are headed for a battle. To that extent...I have spread the word. In other words, I *WANT* people to believe that we are going to go to a confrontation now.

Pretty sure I was responding to that...
12 Apr 11 UTC Spring, 1904: I'm still not totally clear why you started this in Global, but I had no problems being open about it. It should have been fairly obvious that up until your bounce in Rumania and lying about the North that we were closely allied. It should be equally obvious that what's going to happen in the next few turns will be quite pretty.
12 Apr 11 UTC Spring, 1904: OK...declare war on me.....open up yuour backside. HEY FRANCE!!! HEY GERMANY!!!! AUSTRIA is open for the taking because he is shifting all his forces to attack his ally....

By the way...Austria = NOT TRUSTWORTHY...

sigh....Another ally shouting lies to the world. Makes me f'ing sad...
12 Apr 11 UTC Spring, 1904: Who did I betray? You offered me Rumania and then bounced me out, then ask me to let you march armies through Rumania and Galicia. Calling me untrustworthy after publicly stabbing Germany and me (your two allies thus far this game and the only two nations that you've had the opportunity to stab) is silly.
12 Apr 11 UTC Spring, 1904: You decided to publicize our relationship, so I publicized a simple counteroffer - one with secure borders and safety. You're not interested in any deal that doesn't let you march alongside my home supply centers and then cry about distrust? This is Diplomacy. If I let you get away with that, I'd be an idiot.
12 Apr 11 UTC Spring, 1904: blah blah blah.....Austria has no honor. IF you happen to be allied with Austria, know that hsi words are worth the shit-paper you find in your average out-house....

Lies lies lies. If you are pretending to NOW be Austria's ally...why??? WHY???? WHY??? He obviously has turned on his long-term ally! And how long will he USE YOU????

I'm just sayin...Austria = UNFAITFUL (AS BEST)
12 Apr 11 UTC Spring, 1904: Well, it was nice working with you (before the stab-sequence and all). May the best man win.
19 Apr 11 UTC Spring, 1905: So which one of you is the playing France as an alt? I've never seen such nonsense as a France that can't progress, but won't die. Either France is the most incompetent offensive...and yet brilliantly strategic...player ever....OR somebody is holding them in this odd neutral position in hopes that when they need France to die, it will collapse and be absorbed by the eventual winner...

Can't wait to see who England, Germany and France are...and then look at their gaming history to see what shenanigans are at play. Or, alternately, to find their common xyz@joeblow.edu addresses...
20 Apr 11 UTC Spring, 1905: France's inability to win a 1v2 war combined with its ability to survive when both potential enemies are busy fighting another power can only be attributed to it being an alternate account of another member in this game.
20 Apr 11 UTC Spring, 1905: Seriously, Austria...ever hear of sarcasm?
20 Apr 11 UTC Spring, 1905: It's hard to read sarcasm and other tone-specific things over the internet :(
20 Apr 11 UTC Spring, 1905: I know. I am quite horrible about hoping my tone is understood through words. But - to explain - in my situation -- *frustrated* (mostly because of my own mistakes) -- I look at France and can't figure out why the hell they are still there or not dead (same with Germany and England) and therefore, so often, you hear the accusations of meta-gamers or multi's....I don't think we have any cheating here! I was just parroting the so-oft cries of cheating.
20 Apr 11 UTC Spring, 1905: I'm pretty surprised about the survival of France this far as well. I'd have figured Germany and I would have been able to do something productive in the western triangle by 1905, but we've all been rather incompetant. I would however offer the explanation that we have both been desperately trying to fight people other than France and have attempted to either win France over or are hoping they can be contained long enough for the other threat to dissapear.
20 Apr 11 UTC Spring, 1905: Speaking of incompetence, I think I have to look in the mirror! lol Not sure where my empire has gone...(stares evilly at Austria....wonders what he needs to do to turn the world's attention to this menace...)
20 Apr 11 UTC Spring, 1905: I think it had something to do with stabbing all your neighbors, personally. It's hard to win without allies and it's hard to have allies when you've stabbed . . . all of them.
20 Apr 11 UTC Spring, 1905: Like I said...I was incompetent! I don't deny I made mistakes! Sometimes stabs work out just fine. It's just my bad luck that England and Germany decided to cooperate so well against me while just to the south of Germany the guy going solo is turning into a Juagernaut...I mean, I understand vengeance against a stab, but doing so to your own doom doesn't make sense to me.
05 May 11 UTC Spring, 1908: How did the move to Sev fail? It was a supported move against an unsupported hold.
05 May 11 UTC Autumn, 1908: You cannot support against yourself, read the rules :-)
05 May 11 UTC Autumn, 1908: I thought that you could not move against yourself but that you could support moves against yourself, but then I reread the rules. Ah well.

Start Backward Open large map Forward End

Alcoway (198 D)
Won. Bet: 25 D, won: 96 D
19 supply-centers, 15 units
fedaykin42 (100 D)
Survived. Bet: 25 D, won: 43 D
8 supply-centers, 7 units
KnightGeneral (1342 D)
Survived. Bet: 25 D, won: 38 D
7 supply-centers, 9 units
krellin (80 D X)
Survived. Bet: 25 D, won: D
0 supply-centers, 1 units
Spartan 00256 (377 D)
Defeated. Bet: 25 D
bones_41 (100 D)
Defeated. Bet: 25 D
Dan Sickles (166 D)
Defeated. Bet: 25 D
Civil Disorders
Spartan 00256 (377 D)France (Autumn, 1905) with 4 centres.
Archive: Orders - Maps - Messages