But I played aggresively in the east right?

oh lol, forgot to go to the right page :P

But aggresively in the west would mean giving up Tunis I think?

Well, we'll never know. If I were you, I would have wanted to attack one of England or Germany (saving the other for later, but keeping them around so Russia thought a 3WD that didn't include Turkey was possible, meaning it was safe for him to up his solo chances by taking out Turkey) while Russia stabbed Turkey, a scenario that could have been possible a year or two earlier when italy was still around. That's the sort of scenario I envisioned/expected before England stabbed Germany, about as likely as a cleaner RTF draw. Even without Russia attacking Turkey, builds from the north would have made holding Tunis possible, but not guaranteed.

But as I said, we'll never know... I'm sure others here have different ideas still on what you, Russia, and Turkey could have done differently.

And Germany, I'd say... Because he was in a funky way a major player as well, in the sense of that he was able to make a difference one way or the other...

Note that Germany told me he would attack me if I attacked England. I've said before how impossible the northwest was at that point. I actually think this is a good move of Germany, but I don't know what others think? It's another link in the chain of people playing safe and boring.

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

Your instability may have aided to your inclusion in a 5-way draw, but as is clear, nobody on the board liked working with you which is why had the draw been whittled down, you'd have been on the outside looking in. The point isn't whether you were included in a 5-way draw, it's that if you crippled the west with your tactics. Successful alliances are built on trust and efficiency. You ruined the chances of ever establishing a fluidity to any alliance you were in. The east was in disarray at the beginning of the game. It looked quite possible for your and France to quickly dispose of England and start marching east. But then you stabbed. Then you lost your mind. Then you adopted the demeanor of a douche for the remainder of the game.

You can try to brag about how you got in on the draw so clearly everything you did worked, but we all know better that.

To add to jacobcfries: if you (Germany) wouldn't have done certain things, you may not have had to fight for a draw but have a draw insured and fight for a solo, much like me I think? Just a question: do you still think stabbing me was the way to go? We could have taken down England very early, and I would let you have Belgium once I had some gains in England, then we both could have grown even stronger, much like Russia and Turkey.

Steephie: From my perspective, if you are facing that strong of a G/E alliance (which you don't know, I mean people say all sorts of shit but then when their ally is limping go in to finish them off) then that is there perfect time to come to me as Russia and say hey, I can't work with G and E at all. I know we both have a vested interest in seeing them gone, let's talk about how we could work together.

Not a single player in the West ever approached me and asked me to help them, which seems odd as Russia, since I certainly can help or hurt with both England and Germany.

(Also, I think you got stuck into the Med a bit, which is why it didn't make sense to me to go after the Med before G or E was dealt with at all -- and I am interested in jacobcfries thoughts on that as well -- it seemed to me that you were so stuck on not losing your gains in the Med, which are hard to hold so early in the game, that you were hobbled from thinking about attacking Germany, even though there were various times the Low Countries and Munich were completely open to you.)

You approached me, and I said it sounds good but I didn't have an idea yet, or something along those lines. No need for me to approach you then yet, is there?

I just didn't have an idea that was profitable for both of us. You didn't really have one either I think, you just wanted me to attack Germany and told me how Turkey will surely back off because he's reasonable. Nothing I can actually use there, if Turkey doesn't back off, right?

@murraysheroes: you said:
"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."

Technically, solos shouldn't happen. But since we're not robots and are guided with reason/judgment/feelings, solos *are* possible. The 18th center is always the hardest to get, and to get it, there has to be distrust between the remaining players, you need them to make mistakes so you can solo. In this game, the distrust was so strong between most of the players that we ne'er know how this could have turned out once France was on 12-13 SCs. The problem here is if you always tell yourself, when on 7-8 SCs, that you can't solo or have no shot whatsoever. Here, I'm not saying that France would've soloed as we never know how a game will unfold, I'm just saying that the game structure invited him to have at least one shot at the solo in the game.

With everyone distrusting Germany and with his bold moves all over, I think it is quite clear who in my opinion I would've let as a buffer in the end game for the 18th SCwere I in Steephie's shoes. ;) you guys had so much trouble dealing with him that my (Steephie's) fairest chance at soloing would've been to have him as the buffer country to seal the deal... Or not! ;)

Sorry for the frustrated tone. It was really the most confusing and frustrating game of Diplo I've ever played, never felt like I had any idea what was going on in the west, and it was odd for it to happen in a game where learning was the primary goal and everyone had a TA.

I think it's reductive for the east to argue that France *should* have stabbed. He *could* have, yes, and maybe it would have worked. Maybe not. But it's either naive or dishonest to suggest if France would have stabbed Germany (who made it clear he would vacate his eastern borders and throw the game), a F/T/R draw would have happened. We know the odds of a tight 2-country alliance avoiding the temptation to take out a lone wolf is risky at best. A 5-way draw was not an ideal end, but was guaranteed for France. There were no guarantees if he stabbed, except for the guarantee that Germany would go ape-shit. The predominant opinion here seems to be that Trying for Solo and Being Defeated > Not Trying for a Solo and Drawing. I feel like that choice is a lot more subjective than anyone is allowing for.

Certainly in France's position, I would have attacked England before attacking Germany. Slyster's comments echo something I told gavrilop earlier in the game, perhaps around the time of England's stab: his role as Germany was a buffer between France and Russia, and they both had a good reason to want that buffer temporarily. His play needed to be focused on making sure they had that a reason to want that buffer for as long as possible.

If I were France and England offered me a path to Scandinavia and StP, like orathaic ended up doing, I think I would have been hard-pressed not to take that deal, even though it was blatantly and transparently positioning to solo for all to see. But I might not have done that when Turkey already had his draw vote up, since those moves definitely spell doom for everyone else on the map.

jcobcfries: fair enough, but then why not attack England? Why leave the entire west unresolved and unwilling to fight each other /or/ work together for 8 years? Also, that's why some sort of good alliance and communication with Russia was called for, to know that if Germany attempted to keep pushing east, France would attack him from behind and to know that if he shifted back to France, Russia would move in and weaken him enough for France to grab the low countries, etc.

You may say, well then that throws the balance of power to the east, but realistically if Germany is falling, both France and Russia are gonna get a piece. IMHO, France hung onto Tunis for dear life, when he could have had more supply centers (and more easily protected supply centers) by heading to territory closer to home - either England or Germany

And I think in a learning game, especially, that trying for at least as small of a draw as possible, if not trying for the solo, making a mistake, and being defeated would be the best choice yes. I don't think I ever accept a 5 way draw, but definitely not in a game where part of the point was to learn about mid and endgame play, which can be learned through failure just as much as winning

@Stackelberg: true

@jacobcfries: you said: "There were no guarantees if he stabbed, except for the guarantee that Germany would go ape-shit"

He would probably have, but it still doesn't change anything to the game dynamics. See below.

You then said: "The predominant opinion here seems to be that Trying for Solo and Being Defeated > Not Trying for a Solo and Drawing. I feel like that choice is a lot more subjective than anyone is allowing for."

I disagree with that way of thinking, and your equation of "Trying for Solo and Being Defeated > Not Trying for a Solo and Drawing" doesn't apply to this current game. There's a difference in all scenarios. Here, the game dynamics told otherwise. Lets draw some possibilities that could have occurred:

A) France stabs England.
Immediate response: EG allying against him and... Defeating him? Really? I don't see that happening anytime. And why? Because Russia and Turkey would not just sit on their backs and say: hey! Lets go to the beach and hold everything while EG eliminate France. In any scenarios, in this game, it's the cat chasing the mouse game. And here there's 3 cats and 2 mouses. Guess who are the two mouses. EG make progress against France, Turkey and Russia advance, forcing EG to stop the attack, turning against Russia and Turkey. Then Turkey or Russia gets a comfortable position enough to shoot for the solo. No way EG can eliminate 7-8 SCs from France while defending the eastern front.

Scenario B: he stabs Germany. Same thing happen more or less. There isn't enough leverage for EG to invade and eliminate France with RT in their back.

The scenario where your assessment would be right would be an Austria, Germany or Italy 7-12 SCs stabbing one of their corner ally to shoot for the solo. Then the remaining countries can attack him on more than two fronts to shoot for an elimination because the remaining countries wouldn't have to worry about a growin threat in their back.

So, yea, that game wasn't about this dynamic, the game dynamics and units positioning told otherwise there.

> Your instability may have aided to your inclusion in a 5-way draw

So you admit you were wrong. Thanks.

> but as is clear, nobody on the board liked working with you

No, that's not clear. That's just sour grapes after the fact. France was the only player I treated harshly before the end of the game, and only because it worked. Austria liked working with me. England expresses no complaints. Russia was happy enough when I wasn't fighting him, and he was downright mean when I fought him, but I never returned those sentiments. Turkey was fine until I didn't take up his stupid request to help him fight Italy in exchange for a worthless promise of an unspecified favor down the road.

Read carefully: what Russia and Turkey (and only Russia and Turkey) are complaining about is that I became very negative with them at the end, when I was lobbying for the draw. Should they now assert otherwise I can show the press demonstrating I'm right.

> The point isn't whether you were included in a 5-way draw,

Uh, wrong. The game ended in a 5-way draw, so the point definitely is that I was in that draw. Try to change the subject to your personal gripes if you like, but the ending is all that matters.

> it's that if you crippled the west with your tactics.

So are you saying I should have kept on trying to kill France after I took Belgium? Maybe there's a reasonable argument for that. But I'll bet what you want to say is that I should have let France get all of England, surround me and kill me. Because that's what was going to happen if I didn't take Belgium.

> Successful alliances are built on trust and efficiency. You ruined the chances of ever establishing a fluidity to any alliance you were in.

Bullshit. The alliance with England versus Russia was as fluid as it could be. Atundal literally *flipped a coin* to decide whether he should change it up and stab me, because he was bored. All I could have done was keep more units in the lowlands to discourage that, which would have meant less fluidity.

> It looked quite possible for your and France to quickly dispose of England and start marching east. But then you stabbed.

You mean it looked possible for France to take England while I bounced around Den and Ska.

> Then you lost your mind. Then you adopted the demeanor of a douche for the remainder of the game.

Only with your buddy steephie. That's why you in particular have got this chip on your shoulder, jacobcfries.

> You can try to brag about how you got in on the draw so clearly everything you did worked, but we all know better that.

That's not what I'm bragging about. There were things I did wrong. I should have just forced Belgium in the beginning, and/or allied with England against France. I shouldn't have bounced Russia from Sweden. Apparently I should have made it clear in the global chat that England gave me Sweden in 1904, so that no one interpreted it as a stab. My negative press with your student, however, was not one of the things I did wrong. And my negative press at the end of the game, to secure the draw, was also not wrong.

> but realistically if Germany is falling, both France and Russia are gonna get a piece.

Usually, erist, but in this case I had made clear that if France attacked me, I knew I was dead anyway, and I would simply evacuate my centers for you because you had never stabbed me.

Congratulations, you secured a meaningless draw in a learning game and deprived everyone of the ability to learn about the endgame because you "were bored". Next time don't sign up for a SoW game gavrilop.

> Congratulations

Thanks! Hey, I learned plenty. Including how to get a draw when I'm likely to die otherwise.

As for spreading some of that blame around where it belongs, again the fact is that Turkey in global was at least as discouraging as I was. Oh, but he was your ally, so you only want to criticize me for it.

Those who weren't in the game should go read the last phase's global chat now and see what an Eyeore murraysheroes had become. I didn't put those words in his mouth. http://webdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=118036&viewArchive=Messages

"Orthaic didn't think either of us should have drawn yet, and if the game had been fun, I wouldn't have." +1 to that, Yeah, perhaps i should rephrase my comment.

The game should be fun first, so I can heartily support your choice to draw.

I think there is some credit to what gavrilop chose to do in the game. There are a few different philosophies as far as what you're after--some are after winning at all costs, some are after having good stats, some are after a good game. Gavilrop couldn't win and couldn't survive to a 3-way draw (and let's just say that the "why" behind him being unable to survive to a 3-way is unimportant). He wanted to secure a draw before he was eliminated, and his method to achieve that was to make the game hostile and unpleasant. He did what he had to do, and he got what he wanted.

His philosophy differs from mine--I'm in it for a good game. That's the reason I wanted out--alliances were stagnant, and while the board wasn't stalemated progress would have crawled. It wasn't fun or interesting any longer, and more than that it had become combative and hostile. The price of gavilrop's draw was that at least three of us are unlikely to ever intentionally play with him again. That's clearly a price he was willing to pay, so his strategy worked. It's not one I will ever employ myself, but it worked.

I'm in it for a good game. I actually have a collection of players that I really enjoyed playing with (win or lose) listed in my profile. I never want to be so rude or unpleasant so as to ruin my chances at playing with a good player again. Out of the 25 or so games I've finished and the 150 or so players I've played with, there are only two that I will never choose to play with again. One of them was in this game.

To reiterate, though, that's a choice gavilrop made, and since he was willing to pay the cost and he got what he wanted, I actually have to credit it with being a successful decision for him.

No need to get him gavrilop on your list I think since he told me he's leaving the site now, just saying. Or was that part of your strategy?

Ahh, I didn't see that he was leaving. It makes no never-mind to me, though.

'I never want to be so rude or unpleasant so as to ruin my chances at playing with a good player again.' - i'd agree with you in principle, but there is a point where chainsaw diplomacy has it's place... It doesn't last though, it is one phase where, when your moves are revealed it becomes clear you were lying; i've only pulled this kind of thing off once. (see: www.diplom.org/Zine/W1998A/Windsor/Chainsaw.html ) and pulling the wool over competant opponent's eyes is fun.

steephie, no, it's true. When my current games are finished, I'm gone.

I have to agree with Oratheic. Ya'll seem to be just piling on gavilrop, which is fine as he is basically asking for it in this EOG, but there is a place for different types of press. Perhaps he just needs to adjust it/practice it and not bring it into the post-game. Look at MM, he will be a complete ass and incredibly difficult to talk with in certain situations but he also mixes in that he can be quick to get back to "buddy-buddy" and be quite charming. He has sat at #1 for my entire time here (1 year). Most people here play for the best result. Its nice to say its only for fun, but I think that is bullshit. Winning is fun! :)