Neither France's position, nor Turkey's seemed like they should have given the draw.

Mine on the other hand... I regret agreeing to a draw when i'd have prefered to have earned it...

Alright, just a few thoughts before I follow with Erist's play in general and answer what he wrote in his EoG as well as how our TA/student communication/relation went on.

First:
"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. "

That is also a question I discussed much with Erist, especially in the final stages of this game. Before the triple attack on him and particularly after, I always advised him to engage in a solid west-east alliance with France and Erist did follow through, but from my knowledge about what went on there, steephie was hard to get a commitment into anything at all. I don't know what went through up there as Erist didn't send me the exact messages that were sent in this game, as I didn't find it was a necessity: we were mostly discussing on concepts, game dynamics, tactics and such. When Erist came into this game and replaced lukebohannon, I felt I wouldn't just have to teach a real beginner into this game as he already had an interesting skills set coming into the game and we went more into thee advanced stuff such as reads and game dynamics, side effects and other players' character and way of playing. But back to what stackelberg wrote.

I was amazed for most of the game at how a 3vs Germany never happened, and especially in the end when Ora switched back to Germany, and France and England, earlier, completely letting Germany lead the way east against Erist while staying stagnant in their side of the board. I think in a high level game, Germany's play would have him crushed in the mid game, but all gratz to him for escaping this fate in this game.

A few other things I'd like to point out about this game. I agree with Gen Lee that France had the best position in this game going through the final stages of the game and that he had the best solo shot, but I like I said, most of the game I felt with what Erist told me about their interactions and his troops movements that he never really wanted to commit to anything too engaging and go for the high risk/high reward that would've seen him become a big fat threat until the end and rather went with the "wait and see" style. Although, I don't blame him for that as this was a SoW where you're there to learn all sorts of aspects of this game and I think this will serve him good in the future onto his next games. Usually new players prefer a more careful way of playing and we become (or not for some players) more gutsy as we take experience. That's why I think SoW are of an utter importance here.

Other than that, it was mostly about Turkey. As time flew, I started to feel that murraysheroes (Turkey) was a strong player, diplomat and competitor (and it finally has been confirmed by me reading his EoG... Nice reasoning and analysis. I also laughed a bit when I saw the attack on Rumania at the end was planned and for some very good reasons! Anyways ;) ) and as Erist mentioned, he was part of most of our discussions regarding the game. I, for one, am someone who likes to ally with strong players right off the bat and Erist was also that kind, but while being really important to your success in the first stages of the game, they are also those you will fear the most going into the final stages of the game as they should be as big as you are, or close to, and they are also skilled players so that's a dangerous combo. As they say, there can't be a perfect scenario anywhere and that was part of my work as a TA with Erist. While I wanted to let him take full decisions over his course of action, I also wanted to be the "red alarm" behind his back telling him: "watch out Mate! Don't be too trusty or that could sink you." And I'm glad, because I seriously think this will help shape Erist MO in his overall play, Murraysheroes confirmed to me in his EoG that it was his plans, sometimes, to do so but finally decided to not do it because of various reasons. At the end, it ended well for Erist because as murray stated: I could've tried to shoot for the 3 way with FG and try to solo at the same time but at the end the relation I developed with Erist became the most significant factor."

I'll finish by talking about Erist in particular. I also enjoyed my experience as a TA and especially with Erist that was always all ears to discussing and learning. This was fun and the work as a TA I decided to do with Erist was based on what I saw would help him the most in his game to develop in the long run. He already knows what so no need to discuss that here. But yeah, I predict Erist will be in the top players of this site in not too long after some time, so all y'all top players should go and watch your back while you're at it!!! ;)

These were my 2 cents.

> 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.

Because every time I asked France to work with me against Germany, even when I had England on board and Germany /was completely open to French expansion/ the answer was "No!" Not "hmmm, let me think about it". Not "Okay, let's think through how this might work". Steephie's response was so adamant and so unreasonable IMHO that had it not been a school of war game I would have half suspected that he and Germany were the same account.

Among other press "I think any attacks on either England or Germany will backfire at me, and I don't feel like doing absolutely nothing, so that's why I moved to Western mediterranean." and "Sorry, but I'm not attacking either England or Germany" or from the turn after G stabbed England and England could have easily been convinced to ally with F against G with me on board "I'm sorry, but no. Not now at least.You're forgetting England is about to have 4 SCs, that's big enough to cause me pain if he's working with Germany."

--

If the people in the east don't want resolution in the sphere, and pass on pushing any advantage, there's little I can do from the west. I already had all of Germany's units in the east twice during the game (much to my dismay), and had open lines of communication with both England and France telling them consistently that I was willing to work with them against Germany and that Turkey and I were a strong alliance looking for a third.

Honestly, I think had the game played out with slightly different dynamics it should have been moving towards an R/T/F 3 way, with both France and Turkey angling for the solo and me attempting to ensure a 3 way.

Very interesting. I'd love to hear from steephie/jacobcfries about why taking out Germany was not pursued at any point, as far as I can see.

> or from the turn after G stabbed England

When was this supposed to have happened? England gave me Sweden by agreement in Autumn 1904. We thought the English army there would be less useful against you than another build in Berlin.

I don't think it would have been possible for France to solo. He would've had to make gains in the Med (where he was losing ground) while completely conquering Germany and England. He simply didn't have the force to maintain the English invasion while holding me off in the Med. Orthaic didn't think either of us should have drawn yet, and if the game had been fun, I wouldn't have.

Like I mentioned before, France and I could have picked G, R, or even E and been able to close out a successful 3-way draw. At the end of the day, though, I didn't have any faith that France would do anything different than what he had been doing up until the end of the game--sit behind Germany squabbling over the Med with me and being non-committal.

Congrats to gavilrop on his desired outcome of the 5-way draw I guess. I didn't really end up caring how it ended, I just wanted it over. If he was only playing at lunatic he played it very well. He would have never been a part of a 3-way draw because I refused to work with him, so 5-way was legitimately the best he could do.

The only thing I'd caution was this: playing a game with someone who is (or is acting like) an abrasive lunatic loses its charm quickly. Unless I accidentally end up in an anonymous game with gavilrop at some point, I don't intend on reliving that experience. He didn't secure the 5-way because of his witty ploy, he secured it because he (and others) made the game so unpleasant to be a part of that I just wanted out. Had I really wanted to fight it out, I think I could have pushed France completely out of Italy while Russia stood his ground, and forced France into becoming a junior partner when my fleets were in a position to threaten Mar or the Iberian.

I won't speak for Steephie because we obviously didn't agree on every single decision, but I can offer my perspective. Once the east worked itself out, the T/R alliance seemed solid. It's easy to say 'France had a huge opening, but wouldn't stab Germany to work with me,' but that is exactly what I'd say as Russia or Turkey whether I intended to follow through or not. Coupled with the seemingly endless stabs that England and Germany committed and the relatively unstable demeanor of both gavrilop and atundal, it seemed more than likely that the Germany was stabbed, he would suicide against France as per his vindictive nature. Just as you're arguing that had France stabbed, you'd have worked with him, I will speak for Steephie in saying that if R or T had legitimately stabbed (as in not an accidental exchange of 1 SC), things would have played out a lot differently.

"He didn't secure the 5-way because of his witty ploy, he secured it because he (and others) made the game so unpleasant to be a part of that I just wanted out."

Exactly. Yet I'm sure he'll chime in soon to inform us this was all part of his brilliant plan and you're just too dumb to see it.

No, I think murraysheroes is smart enough to see it.

I am writing this with some memory lapses but I hope the meat of what happened in this game, for me, makes it into this EoG. I really looked forward to this game for 2 main reasons. One was the opportunity for some tutelage. Secondly, the opportunity to receive feedback. My reasons for entering this SoW were to advance my understanding of a) diplomatic communication and b) strategy. Having played a few games, I understood that I needed to gain a better grasp on things.

I wasn’t dismayed when I found out I was Austria. I know, I know...it’s got a bad record. I thought I could really make a run with it. First off, communication from most everyone was quite good. I found I was communicating a lot with Turkey, Italy, Russia, and Germany. I found that I was really trying to spend the first 2 days sourcing everyone else out. Germany really made a plea that we (G/A/I) should stick together. I appreciated the sentiment, but all the while, Turkey was making some very convincing arguments about the benefit of working with them.

The first set of moves had me run to Serbia and bounce Russia and Italy in Galicia and Trieste, respectively. The feedback on those moves was harsh, and in hindsight I understand why. OK for gunboat, not so good in full press. You have to be able to assume trust in these opening years. Autumn 1901 had me support Turkey into Rumania (to the chagrin of the former Russia player), hit the Adriatic, move Vienna to Trieste and build in Budapest.

During this whole time, I was getting it from both Italy and Turkey. I understood the notion that Austria and Italy’s fates are somewhat tied, and that Turkey doesn’t make a good dance partner for Austria. However, I was very swayed with Turkey’s thoughts. And thus begins my downfall.

Spring 1902...I decide that I am going to take on Italy. I think I am issuing orders to use Trieste and Adr fleet to take Venice. I support hold both Budapest and Serbia (again, chided in the commentary...units are wasted with just support holding). Another lesson...don’t issue orders after having been at the pub. That non-sober mistake changed the course of the game for myself and some others, I’m sure. At this point, I think Erist has taken over Russia. They’re a tough negotiator. Immediately my back was up. I tried not to let my opinion come through in my communication, instead hoping for a more neutral conversation. They really hammered home the need for me to choose a side and get on with it. Not bad advice really, and they were right. However, I was the odd man out in any side at this point.

Autumn 1902...things are slipping beyond my control. Italy tries for Trieste from Albania, cutting support on my ill-fated invasion of Venice. I also tried to move to Budapest, unsuccessfully.

Spring 1903...well, how do you do? Italy snags Trieste and Turkey takes Serbia. I’ve got units now in Vienna, Budapest, the Adr, and Albania. Surrounding me is Russia in Galicia and Rumania, Turkey in Serbia, and Italy enjoying one of my home centres. At this point I am apoplectic and I want to go nuclear. I decide that I am going to burn Italy. by laying all forces toward Trieste. I get it, but lose Vienna as Italy retreats. Russia takes Budapest. So Autumn sees me disband all but Trieste.

The rest of the game sees me bouncing back and forth, being courted by Italy and Turkey, but every order showing that they were both trying to send me out quickly. My favourite was when I was bounced out and retreated to Budapest. Spring 1907 I was finally put out of my misery. Italy did not last much longer. Truth to the adage that as goes Austria, so goes Italy?

Regarding communication, Germany and Turkey were splendid. Germany informed me of their moves, tried to broker peace between Italy and myself, and were pretty encouraging. It made sense. They needed a happy Austria at their back door. Italy and I tried bouncing because we wanted to appear at odds to the rest of the board. The ruse quickly wore thin. My initial dealing with Russia were to get them going against Turkey. I was hoping for Turkey’s success, with me along for the ride, but an occupied Turkey gave me some operating room. It didn’t really work out that way. In reviewing my press with others, Germany was doing some good challenging of my moves or potential moves. That gave me the sense that they really wanted to work with me, that our success was certainly mutual, and that they were also viewing the entire board.

As I review the press (49 pages of it), it’s hard to make a lot of sense of the small things that were being relayed. I think instead, I will close this EoG in honour of TruNinja’s request of me:

“1) What did I learn from the SoW?
2) What did I do well?
In hindsight, if I could have done something differently, what would it be? Why?”

So, what did I learn? Communicate, communicate, communicate. Even when i was out I was still chatting, seeing if I could get something happening. I never started a game wishing anyone luck. The consensus is correct, there was a maddening amount of press. However, it made for a fun, albeit stressful, game. I also learned to set a direction early. Don’t necessarily get tied to an alliance early on, but make a decision and stick with it. That was my intent with Italy...until my mis-moves!!!! Another learning...check the damn orders. Still to learn? Strategy, diplomatically getting others to do what YOU want, with them thinking it’s to their benefit, and stalemate lines. I feel like this game humbled me.

What did I do well? There wasn’t a lot. I moved myself into an early corner that I couldn’t wiggle out of. I was hesitant, ambiguous, and easily swayed from my course of actions. I think I communicated well.

What would I do differently? Check my moves, take on only one power at a time, and be more assertive in my moves.

Regarding TAs, it is my opinion that any future SoWs (which I would still love to be a part of) match TAs and students to time zones, as closely as possible. And 2 days seems to be too long...as I stated globally, it’s a necessity (for commentary) and a curse (flow of the game suffers). Perhaps it’s the time of year that these happen that needs to be considered.

I knew I wasn't in a good position.* During the break when Atundal was gone, I tried lobbying for a draw. It didn't happen yet, but I noted that Turkey might be likely to draw so I asked him about it in Autumn 1907, during the disbands or builds phase. He was very open to it, and we kept talking about it. In Autumn 1908 we had a mutually unpleasant interaction** in which I brought up the draw again; Turkey was able to disengage from the argument by taking up the tangent about drawing, something we could agree on.

*My last PM to StackelbergFollower: "With the options being Russia getting another build this year, or else France putting an army in Norway, I didn't like my chances in the long run, even if I could hold the G/F/E together long enough to get into Moscow and/or St Petersburg. So I lobbied heavily for a draw. Turkey was ready for one, England of course took it, and we were eventually able to talk Russia into it, at which point France caved to avoid being ganged up on."

**I was trying to get Turkey to acknowledge the fact I did not stab England after I took Belgium. If he would acknowledge this, it might be a foot in the door to considering that he might be wrong about not trusting me to draw after Russia was eliminated. Despite his earlier lie, I never said anything about an apology. I just wanted him to admit a fact.

I thought you said that your insanity was all for show...

Hey shithead, be specific. What are you disagreeing with?

You.

That's nice.

So anyway, like I said, a mutually unpleasant interaction. But it ended well.

It didn't end well. The game ended early, a learning game nonetheless, because you told everyone you were bored and wanted to quit and literally drove people out of the game by being unpleasant. It ended terribly. I can envision a few scenarios in which a game becomes a 5 way draw legitimately, this wasn't one of them.

It ended very well. I fully agree with this: "He would have never been a part of a 3-way draw because I refused to work with him, so 5-way was legitimately the best he could do."

My long-term chance for survival was not good. Therefore any draw that included me, ASAP, was a good outcome. Much, much better than waiting for you to get another build or France to put an army in Norway. Much better than pinning my hopes on what you call a "legitimate" draw. There was unlikely to be a tactically stalemated draw that included me.

Some people think I should have fallen on my sword instead of using discouraging press to end the game while I was still alive? I disagree.

And Turkey's global press at the end is as least as discouraging as anything I said to you, Russia. Spread some blame around, why don't you. I didn't put those words in Turkey's mouth. I just found someone else who already felt similarly about an early draw.

Anything to survive goes (as long as it's within the rules).

Right, it was your positioning that would have kept you out of the draw...

Did I say it was only my positioning? No. But my positioning was not good. If I had a better position, I could have afforded to be much more vindictive. :-)

For instance, eliminating France was on my to-do list ever since Autumn 1901. But I never managed to get a good position to accomplish it! One of my regrets.

Maybe if you hadn't wasted so much time and effort attacked everyone else under the sun. ;)

There's a consistent exaggeration of these alleged stabs. I took Belgium, and then France arranged an E/F/G, which continued until Atundal's stab of me. Maybe I should have kept trying to kill France after taking Belgium?

So bring your insight, jacobcfries. What is Germany supposed to do in my situation, still surrounded, with either France or Russia expanding this phase, and the possible collapse of the English ally soon?

I understand you're irritated because I was rude to steephie, and you bonded with steephie, and you read rude press from me. I get that. I don't blame you. I didn't enjoy being unpleasant to steephie, but I found that it worked.

But I think you're being irrational about this. Compare:

> I'd challenge any of the profs to deal with the German press that France and England had to and play as assertively as many would have liked to have seen.

> 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.

> 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.

Those contradictory statements can't all be true. And I think the first two are more accurate than the third.

Oh, and

> It's easy to say 'France had a huge opening, but wouldn't stab Germany to work with me,' but that is exactly what I'd say as Russia or Turkey whether I intended to follow through or not. Coupled with the seemingly endless stabs that England and Germany committed and the relatively unstable demeanor of both gavrilop and atundal, it seemed more than likely that the Germany was stabbed, he would suicide against France as per his vindictive nature.

So it sounds like these tactics did ensure my survival, and France's cooperation if not happy allegiance.

The reason I never got around to stabbing England and Germany is because I wanted that 18th center first. I know I could've kicked both England's and Germany's asses at some points, but then there were Turkey and Russia in place. And they could choose between a 3way draw or a 2way draw, and I knew they liked eachother more, so although a 3way draw was possible, I wasn't even ensured of my survival. Other than that, I fully expected both England (the old one at least) and Germany to gang on me if I stabbed one of them. But that's not a decisive reason. If I could do that and still get a chance to solo I would take it.

That's why I went east another way: England obviously was willing to get me into Norway once I got on his island, and after that possibly into St Petersburg, while being so aggressive in the Mediterranean so I could at least keep Tunis I had the 18th SC right there, I could start by defeating England in one or two turns and then Germany pretty fast too.

My strategy to hold a center in the east and then take the west was there very long (I think after it became apparent to me that the west didn't want a Western Triple and neither wanted to gang up on one of them quickly without regretting part of the agreement and stabbing for it (like Germany did: he agreed to a deal including me getting Belgium, at least for a while, while he probably could have had one where he got Belgium, regretted it and stabbed me for Belgium)), but it just never came to it with Turkey being just a little too demanding to make it work (I wasn't ready to move on Germany, I may have considered it after I had St Petersburg, but at that point there was no way. And your solid alliance with Russia spooked me from taking big risks based on you two fighting eachother as well.). I'm not sure if that was Turkey's design, but he was the main reason why stabbing the west was not doable in my opinion. He had an ally and could easily overrun me once I caused the west to fight eachother once more.

I wasn't as stubborn as you seemed to think. I think I would have moved on Germany and/or England as you demanded once I had St Petersburg, but we never got around to that.

Did I forget any questions? Anyone new questions? Tell me!

So what I think went "wrong": I think Turkey was the main reason for everyone playing safe (well, that sounds a bit different from what I actually mean, it was a chain reaction that went clockwise I think, and anyone in that chain could have stopped it, but it became less likely with the solid alliance in the east. I mean, anyone in the west seemed like they would be overrun by the east once they stabbed. That made the west solid in a freaky way, full of distrust. Meaning that the east became even more solid.), so in a way he was playing safe accidently. Then again, I think I would have done the same. After all, only one of 5 people have to do something else to make it work.

This is not what I thought during the game though, I just made that up lol... But I think that way of thinking did unconsciously match my play, I did try to break the chain in a safe way (take St Petersburg and then turn on the west), which may have lead to a new chain, but a 3player chain, since Germany and England would be defeated or mostly irrelevant at that point.

steephie, I think waiting for StP to strike at your would-be allies (frenemies?) is a bit too transparent. For a year or two, literally the only thing I was telling gavrilop was, "do not let France get STP whatever you have to do." After you had Tunis, just IMO, you could have afforded to play aggressively in the east and immunize Russia from an early draw talk.