Fair point jacobcfries, but truth be told I had more as much trouble diplomatically with France as I did anyone else in the game. While playing this game, I was simultaneously playing a few others--a couple with some of this site's better players and at fairly high stakes--and I did more than hold my own in nearly all of them. I wanted into this game because while I tend to be fairly strong with diplomacy and negotiating, I'm a touch weaker with some of the advanced tactics (self-displacement, when to disband rather than retreat, when to defer a build, etc.). Perhaps that's more in the "intermediate" game I saw go up, I'm not sure. At any rate, I generally have an easy time talking with other players, even those I'm currently fighting.

With that being said, the press in this game from nearly every player with the exceptions of Austria and Russia (for me at least) seemed like they were playing a completely different game with different players and a different set of rules--it made no sense at all. France continued to move Tun-Ion every single turn that while berating me for being hostile by not retreating--he even got mad at me for attacking Ven the very same turn he took Nap from me. It should say something that by the end France and I could have picked any single country on the map for our third partner in a three-way draw and made it work fairly easily, but that we couldn't find a way to work together despite our only border being largely stalemated.

I still have a lot to about this game tactically, I know, but I would say that many of the players in this particular game need to improve their communication skills more than their tactics. It says something that I was willing to choose working with R and settling for a five-way draw over fighting down to a three-way with either F or G simply because I could talk to R, doesn't it?

And I do appreciate the irony of discussing communications skills in a post with 2-3 typos in it...

So I log in to type up a commentary, only to find that the game's over! Would you guys like another commentary, some thoughts n your EoGs, or anything else?

I wouldn't mind it if you had the time to look over my EoG and, knowing my motivations each phase, looking at my moves and telling me whether there was anything you would have done differently tactically.

peterwiggin, I would still like commentary for that last turn if you are willing, and thoughts on EOGs sound good. It should be noted though that Germany probably won't participate, he told me he would write a brief EOG and answer some of my questions (why is hard to explain for me, ask him if you want but he only mentioned answering my questions :P) but nothing more since he wants to quit the site.

I'm France and I don't think I will make a complete EOG at once but I'm going to address what murraysheroes, Turkey, said for now.

First of all, I did forget to make a few changes in moves, mostly at Turkey's disadvantage, but especially my own disadvantage. Pretty much every time I said I made a mistake in-game, it was actually a mistake.

Then: the DMZ. We never could make it work, I think at the start because we misunderstood eachother, and at the end because you could just overrun me in the Mediterranean, or that's how it seemed. I never suggested to stop fighting, to take any risks whatsoever (unless you wanted it), I just suggested to work on DMZing it safely, with bounces and such so we could not exploit any gaps the other person left, and therefore didn't need to trust or even like eachother. We only needed to be selfish enough to realise it was the best for both of us.

And of course, if you wanted to take risks to make it go faster, that was fine. I had in mind that you wouldn't tell me in such a case so I didn't know I could abuse anything. As an answer Turkey, who apparently didn't get what I meant (I must admit I sort of assumed Turkey knew what I was talking about, or at least his TA would explain, apparently I was wrong about both?), said he would DMZ Ionian Sea, which I didn't believe, pretty obviously, I thought. Also, since peace was never negotiated, I assumed we were still at war during the process, and I sort of had to tap Ionian Sea as part of my defence. The same cycle happened after that again and again. Turkey kept pumping more units into the area, up to a point where he didn't need to risk anything by moving a few units away at once. Meanwhile he kept telling me he wanted to DMZ, which did become frustrating, at some points I thought it was just acting stupid, and at other points I realised it was not. We just had this miscommunication so long ago and somehow I apparently failed to explain the concept of my plan 6 times in a row or so. I still wonder if this was my fault.

Also, I have been blamed for being vague as a way of being just as deceptive as lying but technically being right, while in many cases this was just because I wasn't sure yet, so I said things like: "I could do that", and people would assume I would actually do that. I didn't mean to be vague in a deceptive way in almost every case, I just couldn't give a clear answer if I did not have one yet. Maybe the fact that I'm not native English is to blame here, that I misunderstand what I'm implying in English? Because if everybody would read my words in the technical way I wrote them and implied them, I think that would have helped a lot, but apparently that's not the way it goes in English? And then I also forgot to give my clear answer when I had it a few times.

And one thing to note for Turkey: there was never a stalemate in Italy, and there was never going to be one until you moved away some units. That was part of the problem for us I think.

Also I don't know what berating means so I can't be sure about that part, but moving Tun-Ion was never a question I think, even if we did work to DMZ. Other than that, I did not get mad at you for attacking Ven. It was the obvious thing to do. The only problem there was was that you didn't DMZ while claiming that's what you wanted, and blaming me for not doing it, which is a good argument but not one that got us anywhere, because I still believe the first step should be yours since you simply had the upperhand. I just think we couldn't get on the same page when it came down to how to do it.

I will answer any questions by the way, I don't know exactly what everybody wants to hear from me so that's why I try to do it a bit more in a way of discussing rather than keeping a diary...

To jacobcfries: did you have anything specific in mind when you said "didn't play flawless by any means"? That I sometimes got a little too much dragged into a discussion? Anything else? Just trying to make sure I know every flaw I made, so I at least know what to improve.

Not counting the accidents of course, since I get those are flaws myself :P

From my perspective everyone in the west was nearly impossible to work with. Nearly everything was one or two sentences at a time - do it my way or don't do it at all. Little desire to talk about possible future scenarios, little desire to weigh different options. I think it's telling that not once was I approached with a possible multi-year plan by france, germany, or england, whereas I was in constant long discussions with all of Aus, Italy and T. In fact I was never approached at all, all my press was like pulling teeth to get even brief responses.

I still have no idea why France and England didn't take out Germany when given a shining golden opportunity to, /especially because/ Germany was so unstable (though honestly England was worse than Germany both diplomatically and strategically. Doubly so because the R/T was strong at that point and we were both looking for a dominant partner in the west to work with.

@murrayshoes Believe me, Steephie (France) and I discussed communication as the biggest thing to work on in his game. Hopefully he won't mind if I openly address what he and I discussed during the game, but chief among them the topic of his diplomacy. I think one thing Steephie needs to work on, and again I've told him this, is making more calculating responses. Sometimes he came off as argumentative or stubborn in press when he was simply trying to be thorough. This was made easier for me to understand as we discussed his responses, but as I told him, his tactics and understanding of the board were more finely honed than his communication skills.

But my point isn't to assess the player's skills or say who was right or wrong, just to explain why the west played out the way it did. Germany went so far as to mute Steephie when Steephie wouldn't give him Marseilles after his initial stab (which netted all of one SC) and employed a bullying strategy that consisted of making demands with threats to throw the game if they weren't met. The combination of that style and a recklessness with stabs and changing alliances made for a west that was impossible to stabilize.

I think that was definitely part of our disconnect in the Med, steephie...I had the stronger position, so I was willing to slowly boot you out of Italy unless/until you decided that it was worth it to work with me instead. Since you vacated your border with Germany, you left me no incentive to work with you--you were a member of an opposing alliance asking me not to take your stuff. I never got any indication that you were looking to ally with me over G or E, so there was no way I was going to give up my (slight) advantage over you. You can't really be in the weaker position (at least in Italy) and insist that it's the duty of the other party to back off. I was under the impression that you would attack Germany once Italy was defeated, and when you didn't you left me little choice but to continue pushing. I think that perhaps you paid too much attention to what was being said about us in the forum (like Yonni suggested) and not enough attention to what we were saying to each other.

@Steephie Yeah, my main critiques of your play, as I've told you, came down to communication. You definitely got dragged into some arguments/discussions that weren't beneficial and your discussion tactics sometimes came off as argumentative even if that wasn't your intent. If you aren't seeing eye to eye with someone, sometimes its better to just agree or disagree for the sake of civility and then make the decision you have to. Over-discussion can make for a tough environment for alliances or plans, as evinced by the reaction most of the east had to your style. Also, I agree with the professors that your approach was a little hesitant, both in your moves and in your discussions. Sometimes you just have to lie or fully commit to a course of action, even if only for the sake of change, but as I said in my defense of you above, that was definitely harder to accomplish this game than in most I've played. The atmosphere in the west was insane.

Here's my potty EOG. I enter as a new Russia in a terrible position. About to be eaten by Turkey and Austria. I go back through the press and see that the old Tsar has written one sentence hard-ass messages to just about everyone. I send out long messages to just about everyone on the board that are firm but fair I think, letting them know I am available to talk through scenarios and looking for allies.

Eventually Turkey and I hit it off and I manage to convince him to convoy out of his threatening position and take on Austria with me. There's a few bumps and scrapes along the way, one due to a super-unfortunate misorder, but that goes well.

There are a number of turns where I am ready to stab Turkey with Italian help and I lay out a few scenarios for us. (Turkey meanwhile is doing the same I feel). I make a pretty strong case for the stab taking place now and for the benefits of an R/I alliance, yet Italy thinks he can stay in the middle and try to play Turkey and I off one another and not commit to either of us. There are two turns in a row where Italy could have made moves that would have led to me following through with the Turkish stab, yet he does neither, stays neutral, and gets run over.

In the North, nothing is working. France refuses to fight either Germany or England, instead coming down into the med. I convince Germany to turn on England, which he does for all of one round, then stabs me. Germany then proceeds to literally shift every single unit to the east, leaving Hol/Bel/Munich completely open - yet France still refuses to fight Germany, even though it will lead to him being the dominant player in the west for sure, and Germany is much more tempting than Italy. I finally convince England to stab Germany, then Germany doubles back to work against England for one turn, then re-stabs me again, despite the rather generous play by me of letting him sit in Warsaw to stay stable.

Down south Turkey is growing faster than me, and if I help him through the French blockade will have smooth sailing. As far as I'm concerned, the R/T alliance works well if there is good communication, if Russia is slightly stronger than Turkey (especially as Turkey has a better position on the board) , and if they can get enough units out of the back to protect against a fatal stab. We had 2 out of the 3. The turn where everything almost fell apart was a bit confusing from my perspective. I had told Turkey every move I was going to make, in an effort to protect myself against his unit in Bulgaria that wasn't supposed to be there, and try to gain one more SC so we could move forward again. (Essentially a, "let me play defense for a turn, but here's what I'm doing and why I'm doing it, and know that I'm only doing it because you took Bulg when you weren't supposed to") and instead of countering with a different proposal or finding a way to ease my concerns another way, I get an "Okay, sounds good" and then stabbed.

Luckily, the west was such a mess that Turkey had no partner over there or I would have been toast there. Now not only is he stronger, but he's in Rumania and has a build, while I have Germany and England attacking me in the North. So we were able to figure out a way out of that mess, mainly due to murrays suggestions about a way forward.

I do not understand Orathaic's play at all. In my opinion it was flat out terrible and aggressive. He comes in as England in a terrible position, with France on the island. Is facing an R/T that is starting to disintegrate, but both courting him, and he decides to take a super hard line with both of us and move a unit to Livonia and leave it there. He could have had support with R fighting G and T fighting F, and was offered Warsaw /and/ had a golden opportunity when G again left the low countries completely uncovered, but wanted no part of it.

Overall, I already said what I thought of the west's press. I think I could have worked with Aus or Italy, though Italy's press style was...unique and hard to read. It almost still worked out with Italy, but his moves never matched his mouth, and in the end Turkey and I had a great diplomatic relationship, so we just stuck together for the most part, perhaps not always working as effectively as we could've and never finding a partner in the west, but so be it.

France's press got better as the game went on i felt, Germany's got worse, he refused to talk at all when he was fighting me, which was every other turn, until the very end of the game when we were finally able to talk again, but at that point there was nothing to work out. Aus went out through no particular fault of his own, except, you know, Austria. Italy went out b/c of commitment issues. I got a bit lucky that Turkey couldn't find someone to work with and take me out, but I'm still happy I turned around Russia from a "first-out" position to be a force.

I understand a western triple would always be frustrating for Russia, but it was more frustrating that there was a crappy western triple made up of three strange factions - one who didn't want to think through moves (england), one who chose a different enemy every turn and couldn't follow through (germany) and one who refused to fight for dominance in the west despite having been given the largest opening I have ever seen for a stab in a game before and being stalemated down south (france not attacking germany when england was in no position to hurt him)

spotty EOG, though maybe it's a potty EOG as well :P

also huge thanks to Slyster, who helped me think through a lot of scenarios, put up with my indecisiveness and didn't begrudge my continuing to work with Turkey, though he advised the stab on a number of occasions (but also wasn't privy to the mess of the communication with the west and how hard it was to find a partner there). He was helpful while still trying to never directly tell me what to do and stayed in contact til the very end of the game.

Funny, erist...my interaction with Italy almost convincing me to stab you sounds identical. He actually had me sold on doing it, but then sprinted his forces to my border...strategically I think he would've been better off with you, but it sounds as though he could've had his pick if he would have just chosen a side and gone with it.

A huge THANK YOU to StackelbergFollower for answering several PMs each phase, and reading all the 1901 press. I couldn't have been luckier than to get him as my TA.

Thanks also to all the profs who provided commentary that I could leverage in my negotiations. After "your idea sounds good, I like it, but I have to check with my TA," the next most useful line in this game was "see, the profs think you're making a mistake. What if we ...."


I'm writing something more detailed, but in the meantime I see a lot of complaints that this or that player was too difficult to work with. I suspect a lot of this amounts to "that player didn't do what I wanted!"

I'd challenge everyone to put some more substance into those complaints. What *exactly* were you offering? What exactly were you asking for in return? What, if anything, did you do to demonstrate your sincerity? How might your requests interfere with the player's other priorities? Maybe there are good reasons why your diplomacy failed. (I made many requests that I thought had little or no chance of success, but were worth a shot. I won't be complaining about those.)

I was a central power stuck next to one of *the* most difficult players. Despite that, I was able to take Belgium from him without incurring retaliation. jacobcfries reveals the sticks I used, although there were some carrots too. Like Gen. Lee, I am impressed with my ability to repair relations and make allies from enemies. Maybe some of you just need to work on your diplomacy! :-)

@gavrilop I'm just making observations based on the press I received. There was obviously a lot I, like the profs, was not privy to, some of which was undoubtedly solid play and some of which was likely poor play. And much of the press I was sent was admittedly in context with important/difficult/confounding decisions.

That said, there are very few who would agree with some of the tactics you employed (muting? seriously?). And I can assure you that your relations weren't ever repaired, from the French faction at least. Steephie's approach, and was my recommendation, was to engage you as little as possible. You were viewed as a loose cannon after that tirade you went on after stabbing. I'm not trying to attack you, but to illustrate, as is the point in SOW, that those tactics can and did create game-long distrust and frustration.

> (muting? seriously?)

Sure. I knew that I was making a totally unreasonable demand: evacuate Marseilles for me. steephie, naturally, wanted to reason with me. My demand would never work if I showed myself to be a reasonable person who could be negotiated with. So I muted him for about half a day, to demonstrate that I could not be reasoned with, and the only thing I would accept was unconditional evacuation. It didn't work, but it was worth trying, because there was no "reasonable" way to achieve my goal.

> And I can assure you that your relations weren't ever repaired, from the French faction at least.

Oh but they were: France let me keep Belgium, moved away from my borders as I demanded, never invaded me, switched from F/G/R vs E to F/G/E vs R in Spring 1908 like I wanted, and repeatedly told me his plans. I got what I needed.

Before chiming in, I'll just say that I enjoyed TAing and I'm glad gavrilop found my thoughts useful (even if they weren't always correct!). Being a TA was, in some respects, harder than actually playing a game because of the difference in perspective and the added nuance of how to offer my thoughts without telling gavrilop to play like I would.

That said, there's something to be said for being "difficult" if being "difficult" results in having 3 potential enemies surrounding you and what probably a lot of us thought was a likely elimination after the English stab to being included in the draw (though there's a fair argument that Germany's position should have been stronger before that happened). Reading both erist's and steephie's posts, I really don't understand why they didn't attack Germany more or earlier given the views they've posted. And, TBH, in either of their positions, I would have wanted to work hard for his elimination. I'm interested in knowing *why* there was never any stronger French-Russian cooperation against Germany.

And on the subject of dealing with a difficult or obstinate neighbour...sometimes not engaging, as jacobcfries and steephie seemed to have decided to approach Germany, just entrenches distrust. I can say that post-stab, a lot of my conversations with Germany were colored by how difficult it was to figure out what France wanted (at any level of depth). Alliances can be repaired post-stab, but not by not engaging.

Sometimes you really do feel like you need to play it closer to the vest, but I think it speaks to the level of confusion in this game that by the end, the board leader (France, in my view) had 3 viable long-term partners and far from very much trust or cooperation with any of them.

The game isn't won year by year or move by move. It wasn't worth trying because you eliminated any chance of him ever seeing you as reasonable again. Your stab bombed, so you two were forced back together. Had you not went nuclear, it could have been an easily-salvaged relationship. Instead, it was strained and filled with distrust, which resulted with both of you lolly-gagging around each others' borders for too long and ruining any chance of making progress in the east. Yes, Steephie had to consider your demands closely because you weren't playing rationally and loose cannons have to be handled delicately.

"Oh but they were: France let me keep Belgium, moved away from my borders as I demanded, never invaded me, switched from F/G/R vs E to F/G/E vs R in Spring 1908 like I wanted, and repeatedly told me his plans. I got what I needed."

I'm not sure what your point is here? If your master plan was to get a 5-way draw, congrats I guess? Otherwise, I don't know what exactly it is you're proud of...

@StacklebergFollower I'm curious if you were aware of the nature of the press that occurred between France and Germany. I totally agree with you re: disengagement as a barometer of distrust. But I didn't encourage him to play it cool until much further in the game when it became clear that there was not discussion/cooperation to be had. It was a wholly my-way-or-the-highway attitude that Germany embodied, at least in relation to France.

> It wasn't worth trying because you eliminated any chance of him ever seeing you as reasonable again.

I didn't need him to. I was able to avoid retaliation by threatening to throw my centers to England and/or Russia. And it was a credible threat, since I was an "unreasonable" person.

> Had you not went nuclear, it could have been an easily-salvaged relationship.

Frankly, you have no way of knowing that. It wasn't the Marseilles situation that steephie complained endlessly about. It was Belgium that he clearly resented, even bringing it up in global again near the end of the game.

> If your master plan was to get a 5-way draw, congrats I guess?

Thanks! I do not care about the size of the draw. If you think I could have soloed, tell me how.

I think there is a time and place for agressive press. But I would reserve that for the most desperate situations. Of course it is always an experiment to figure out when to play nice, when to strong arm, what to promise and when to lie.

I am curious why France accepted a draw. I thought the french had the best solo shot on the board. We've heard why Turkeu choose draw, maybe i just missed the French explanation.

Also is steephie22 really a guy? I have always had the impression this was one of the few ladies on webdip.

@gavrilop Your mistake is in thinking these tactics ensured your survival or France's allegiance. Your communication strategies and your place in the draw are independent of each other. If you want to think otherwise, go for it, but it will be to your detriment. Not sure why you signed up for SOW when you cotton so poorly to criticism.

Here is the press regarding Marseilles. This is after Belgium disbanded, so I knew a build in Marseilles was coming unless I could talk France out of it.

http://tny.cz/83c90d9e

Lol

> Your mistake is in thinking these tactics ensured your survival or France's allegiance.

Mmhmm. I just know I got what I needed. (I never thought France liked me, but I didn't need him to like me.)

> Not sure why you signed up for SOW when you cotton so poorly to criticism.

Heh. I think you are wrong and I am disagreeing with you. Taking criticism well doesn't necessarily mean agreeing with it. I haven't insulted you or anything like that. I just disagree.

Gen. Lee: France was the last hold-out. Once everyone else on the board voted to draw, France did to avoid being ganged up on.

@jacobcfries, yes I saw a lot of the press between France and Germany. There were times I would have drawn a harder bargain and times I would have finessed more, to be sure, but I think the overall evolution of Germany's tone was a net positive for him throughout the game.

I'll echo Gen Lee's question. If I were France, I probably would not have wanted to draw. But with England and Russia both threatened by France's growth, I can see why he ended up being the last holdout.