I realize it's actually my fault because I mocked Italy ..... that is the 1st time 20 years he has done that i.e. thrown the game, does that make me evil ??

Perhaps next time you'll understand the danger of inciting someone who is in a position to throw the game.

Yeah, it is one of my favorite strategies. My only solo as Italy came from taking advantage of a mocked and abused France.

Glad to see Julien is picking up right where he left off.

Also, +1 abge

yeah +1 abge

Did Italy ever threaten to throw the game if you didn't stop attacking him or refused to meet his demands? Or were you just trying to get him to help with the stalemate, knowing you'd just eat up his centers? Because the first one is a lame move, but the second one, he's basically got to chose between continuing the fight with you, or turning on his ally. I can't fault him for that.

The guy has been mocked for the 1st time in 20 years, he couldn't handle it so he threw the game to France, he did have a list of demands which were just nonsense as there was no way of achieving them without giving France a solo.
Bottom line is he never made a single move against France all game and then let France take his SCs, I've learnt a very valuable lesson from this, Italy is a twat who will chuck a game .......

Well, the fact that he never made a move against him, should speak to their alliance. Now alliances get set aside to prevent a solo, but if by doing so, it would mean his defeat at the hands of you and turkey, then that's a different situation I think.

I read the global, and I think France made a good point about things you could have done to show him that helping hold the line wouldn't mean his demise at your hands. Don't get me wrong, I think throwing a game out of spite is incredibly douchey, but I'm just trying to figure out if that's what Italy really did.

Guys, I am France in that game, so I will share my view.
First of all, thanks to Tom Bombadil for his welcome back. I'm also glad to see you again buddy :)

As for the game, I indeed recommend that whoever is interested in this topic should have a look at the global tab as it gives some important information.
As for me, I am fairly confident that the verbal abuse Italy has been subject to was the reason for his decisions in this game. Based on our interactions during the game, he seemed to me like a seasoned player (very impressive tactically, and sound understanding of the board), and I got confirmation of it after the game ended, as I learnt he is a top player on Vdip.

Italy said in his EOG that he was willing to turn against me, but only at certain conditions, including if the other guys stopped attacking him. Italy gave his conditions to Austria/Turkey. I am not familiar with what exactly these conditions were, but they were deemed unacceptable by the other players, so they refused them.
Therefore Italy did not turn around as it would have meant his demise.

So I guess the interesting point to clarify the matter is to understand what exactly the conditions asked by Italy exactly were.
What I understood from Italy statement is that the tournament rules reward only a solo, so his conditions from a deal were to get in a position where he could be a contender. So maybe they were quite demanding indeed. But if I were his foes, I would have accepted nonetheless, because any other choice only meant giving the game away to the write of these lines.

In any case this game is called 'diplomacy', so the whole point is to get others to do what you want them to do. In that, and with all due respect to them, the foes of Italy failed. So it is easy to criticize the player who did not do what you wanted him to do, but IMO it is better to analyze why he did not do so, so that you improve your diplomatic skills the next time around. He really seemed to be willing to turn around, so probably a compromise deal was around the corner to stop me.

I guess now it would only be fair to let Italy write a few words on this thread.

I meant "As for me, I am fairly confident that the verbal abuse Italy has been subject to was NOT the reason for his decisions in this game."

Julien, that is correct. The verbal insults were used as a diplomatic tool against Austria. If Turkey had backed off, I would have changed.

Also, my conditions were copied by Austria in his EOG statement in the global. They were the strongest conditions that I presented in the game, mostly because we were 1 year away from the end. Prior to that, I had many, softer requests. Most were for him to stop attacking me. They were mostly directed at Turkey.

For those interested, you can read our EOG statements in the game. In it I present my position. gameID=110338

I would just like to hold my hand up now and say that I was the one who did the mocking and forced Devonian to change the habit of a lifetime and throw a game .... it was me and I have to live with that for the rest of my days.

Hmm, a draw is a complete failure is a pretty stupid viewpoint.

A draw is better than throwing the game surely ......

Please re read earlier statements:
Devonian did not throw the game because of the mocking. He could not care less about the mocking.
He simply could not turn around to attack France if Austria and Turkey were still attacking him.
If Italy had turned around to attack France, he would have been eliminated by Austria and Turkey.
So he asked them to stop the attacking so that he could turn around, but they did not agree to do so.
Whether the conditions asked by Italy to shift alliance were unreasonable is up to discussion, but saying that the guy threw the game away because of mocking is incorrect.

Gen. Lee, That is not a viewpoint, those are the rules for the masters tournament. In the Masters tournament, a draw=survive=defeat. Only a solo is given a victory point.

Under normal conditions I would agree that a draw is better than survive or defeat.

Well there I would actually disagree: drawing ensures that no other player is soloing, so it is better than survive or defeat.
If you let another guy soloing, he gets better chances for final victory at the tournament than yourself.
So in this view, everyone should aim for stopping leaders from getting the solo.

So therefore it was irrelevant if Italy survived or not so long as he helped prevent the solo...... because then all of the other players in the game would have respect for Italy for trying his best
England tried talking to him, so did Austria, Turkey, possibly Germany & Russia too but he was adamant we needed a France solo

well, nigeebaby I see your point. if I would be in no position to solo and my defeating would be the only way to ensure no other player is soloing, then I would probably let it be.
but, in this case, it did not seem to be the only way, it was still quite possible to stop me without Italy having to die. What he was asking is some concessions to get back in the game, in exchange for stabbing me. This sounds quite legitimate demands. Why accepting to die if he could also stop me being alive?

I guess in the context of the masters, a muligame tournament, it is better to die if you can prevent a solo, than to survive and let it happen. But personally, I'd have a real problem with turning away from game long enemies to help them if they are just going to follow behind me and eliminate me. The masters is 7 games, but that memory would haunt me for a lifetime.

Julien: "drawing ensures that no other player is soloing, so it is better than survive or defeat."
- I will agree to this. However, if I did turn on you, there would have been no guarantee that there would not be a solo anyway. I was fighting for a chance to get back into the game. I would have turned on you if Turkey had given me the chance. But he attacked me straight to the end, so even if I did go for a draw, it seemed pointless.

@Phil - but of course why would anyone even want to eliminate a country that was working towards a common goal, nobody of course, and that was exactly the situation here, we were actually trying to get near enough to stop him committing hari-kari, there was no value or interest in killing a 4 SC country when his neighbour has 15, to suggest this is just a puerile and churlish excuse for his actions. He also claimed he was trying to make peace with Turkey from 1902 but when France was on the verge of soloing in 1906 Italy was asking me to help him attack Turkey ....wtf.
Why would you want to attack Turkey in 1906 if France is heading for the solo, it was a nonsense. When I suggested we work with him he said it was too late.

Italy not turning around only lead to France solo. A/T not withdrawing only lead to France solo. It is like two cars driving on a one way road towards each other, and none willing to change course.
But my point is that Italy turning around if A/T do not withdraw, could only lead to Italy's death. While A/T had all reasons to withdraw, as doing so was not threatening their very existence, and this would have probably brought the draw.

And as for NigeeBaby last message: yes probably this was the one mistake you guys (A/T) did: "getting near enough" made him feel threatened, while withdrawing would have made him feel safe enough to stab me.

I like it Julien, he fights your battle in the game and you fight his battle on the forum, it's always good to play to your strengths

I do not fight the battle of anyone, I just express things the way they seem to me under cold analysis.
But, once again, I was not (for obvious reasons) involved in discussions between Italy and A/T so I cannot say for sure who was right or wrong.
I am only saying here that situation does not seem so straightforward.
Anyhow, this will be an interesting study case for future Diplomacy universities :)
And as for me I gonna wish everyone a good night, and hope the Mediterranean nightmares won't spoil anyone's sleep or whatever activity you're doing in your time zone.
There are six games to go, so we are very much all contenders to the title.
Good luck everyone!
J.

These were Italys demands, is this reasonable/realistic/rational?
"An apology is way past due, and is necessary, but that is not the only thing that would be required for me to prevent a solo by France. I treat a draw as complete failure. So, unless there is a glimmer of a chance that I might have better, I will not stop France.
I will accept no less than the destruction of two Turkish fleets (not to be rebuilt by Austria), Plus the withdrawal of one Turkish fleet to Ankara/Blacks/sea/or Armenia, and the other to Syria. I will also need two builds so that I can build a navy strong enough to both defend against the potential rebuilding of Austrian/Turkish navy while I go after France."
All the time this was going on Italy was supporting France (Piedmont) into Tyrolia which would have effectively ended the game with France soloing also.....

As I stated above:
"They were the strongest conditions that I presented in the game, mostly because we were 1 year away from the end. Prior to that, I had many, softer requests. Most were for him to stop attacking me. They were mostly directed at Turkey."

Let's not make it all about you Devonian, get over yourself.
Well done France ...... congrats for a fine hard-fought win.