I'll write an EOG if you do, Valis

Deal

Valis's EOG of Peanut:
http://i1.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/232/757/199.jpg
http://i3.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/232/633/205.jpg

I'd just like to get in on record that I really like uclabb's chances in this one. I think he may go all the way!

At least uclabb has some points now. It was embarrassing before when they had such an obvious 0 point noob on the mod team.

I'll probably write an EOG tomorrow if I can find enough time to do it justice, but the short answer on the ATC question is definitely NAO support NAfr-MAO. That was the move where I decided that he either was going to try to cut me out or was too incompetent to be counted on to stop the solo. A simple NAO-MAO as requested by me on that turn would have left us in great position to force the 3-way draw (or 4-way if he and uclabb both wanted PW in the draw still). Mun could have been retaken easily even with Germany supporting ucla into there that turn, but putting Austria into MAO with no way to guarantee pushing him back behind the stalemate line before his other fleets could get over there was just flat dumb.

Yalenuc has the 100% correct answer on the "mistake". The worst part is I did it on purpose. More to come in my EOG - I've half written it, but probably won't be able to finish it until tomorrow.

It's mostly apologies so far :)

Oh...i just assumed HR was going to do the entire EOG for everybody. I guess you guys doing it yourself is cool too.

Russia's EOG for the Peanut Gallery Game. Or, "Ah fuck, I can't believe you've done this"

Before we get into the EOGs - let me remind everyone that it's only a game. None of this will matter when you're 80.

Having said that, I'm *really* sorry about this result. Particularly to France and Germany - I gave Austria a solo for basically no reason.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_X6VoFBCE9k

For me, the game was over in Spring 1909. After Austria had left Iberia to come stab me, we were able to lock him up easily: Sev->Mos, Gal->War. Then, Berlin supports Silesia, Kiel supports Munich, Moscow and Warsaw support Ukraine, Burgundy supports Marseilles, a unit in Gascony supports Spain, and NAO supports MAO. It would have been a five way draw - with the optional removal of Italy to make it a four way (Yaleunc is also correct that there could have been a three way later).

I believe the Diplomacy was there for this result (although Austria no doubt will say it wasn't) - I think Germany and France both wanted the game over any way they could. Germany didn't trust me, but would have if I'd made those moves - England wasn't prepared to play along with any alliance (a theme that ran through the whole game for me) - so he was going to be eliminated, but he couldn't really threaten that line, not after moving to the channel.

As a commentator called out, supporting Austria to MAO was terrible. Strategically, tactically, any way you look at it, it was terrible. That was the move that gave him 18. So, why the hell did I do it?

I'm going to paraphrase something uclabb said in another context - I think Diplomacy is about having a meaningful social and strategic experience with other members of our hobby. I don't personally think that Diplomacy is about the result you get. On that, the four way didn't feel like a fun or appropriate result to take- this game, Austria and I had had a great alliance until he overreacted to the support of Munich in F07. We could have locked him down, but it didn't feel like an interesting result to take. I should have taken that result.

This is going to really annoy Yaleunc, but uclabb claimed that he'd take the two way if he was able to refuse the solo. Did I believe him? Of course not. But, I gave him the shot to see if he would. Why not? We'd been good allies (nearly) all game, we'd beaten the main alliance against us, and the board was ours. Why not give him the opportunity to show that he was honourable?

I thought there was maybe a 10% chance that he'd actually take a two way draw - although looking back on it, it was more like 0%. I had a fun EOG planned where I talked about the importance of a strong alliance and wins not being the only way to "win". Sorry again, everyone. My poor experiment in honour robbed us all of a draw.

Flame away.

----
Turkey / Chumbles: I don't care what anyone says - Chumbles is one of the most underrated players on the site. His pitches in 1901 were strong (despite a misorder in F01), and it would have been really fun (and probably effective) to R/T with him from about 1902 onwards. It was just not our game.

Germany / Daximus: You REALLY pissed me off with the bounce in Sweden. I have no idea what you were thinking - we talked extensively about why it was bad, and then you did it anyway. I guess England was in your ear? What was the thinking there? Anyway, we managed to work together after a while - but I never really trusted you enough to let you grow again.

England / Balki: I thought a lot about what to write about your play. I think I'll just say this - I found you a passive aggressive bully, and I don't think that's an approach that will work on experienced players.

Italy / PW: I have a lot of respect for your play. I agreed with a lot of the commentary about the dominant diplomatic position you had in the early game. I've already spoken about this with you privately, but I'll repeat it here for those playing along at home - being in Tyrolia in F01 isn't terrible for your relationship with Austria, unless Austria wasn't expecting you there. Sadly you were just along for the ride after that - I think you played really well, considering.

France / Yaleunc: I also have a lot of respect for your play. Your strategic vision is solid, although I didn't always agree with you. I found you lied at unnecessary times (in the early game, you promised that you were turning on England and then didn't, which only served to sour our relationship for no real gain that I could see), and I'm not wholly sure why you stuck with England for so long - while you were with England, it was clear that the AR wouldn't break, and it seemed like the AR was going to win the fight against the EF if you stuck together. Still, I'm not sure you did the wrong thing.

Austria / uclabb: You were a solid ally for most of the game, but at the end you had no honour. I should have known.

Lastly, I really like the format of this game - I love the idea of a SoW format where the commentators don't need to worry about affecting the game. I hope we do it again sometime.

I can speak a bit about the regrets I have in this game if people want, though I think the big one is fairly clear.

Oh - and many many thanks to HR and all the commentators - you made this game a lot more fun, and it wouldn't have worked without you.

"When they perceived and saw clearly
that they found the bridge-wards there bitter,
those loathly strangers began to use guile,
asked for free landing, passage to shore,
to fare over the ford leading foot-troops.

Then the earl for his arrogance
left too much land to a hostile people."

I'm not sure how that quote is relevant; I'm not an earl.

Earl Tin of Can

What does SoW mean? Sorry for my ignorance.

School of War.

I'll give my EOG thoughts by country here and then later or tomorrow I'll post my EOG by year summary.

Austria - I enjoyed being the villain to your hero that everyone loved and refused to attack. We almost started working together after that turn when you pulled back from me in response to ATC supporting me in Mun, but then you went and immediately moved back west the next turn and alas it was not meant to be. I think that would have made for a far more interesting endgame as with me in Mun and you in Tun the 2-way was a very real possibility, but you did better than that anyway, so hats off to you.

England - I enjoyed working with you while we were allies and actually found you to be the most direct and honest player in the game until your ill-fated stab on me. Which as expected hastened your demise rather than delaying it. As I told you many times already in this game I was prepared to send a fleet or two north to help you defend against Russia and I really think at that point he might have finally decided to attack Austria and quit propping up Germany, but you panicked and we never got a chance to find out.

Germany - You were very hard for me to get along with. The constant passive-aggressive behavior and lies for no reason/benefit just rubbed me the wrong way. That was a big factor in my early decision to choose England as ally over you and later your constant nagging led me to encourage Russia to attack you rather than try to discourage him from doing so.

Italy - most frustrating player in this game to me. The early incompetence (I do not get the praise that was heaped on those early dumpster fire moves at all) created a power vacuum in the Ames that compelled me to lock up with Austria or else face a huge threat right on my border with me up as next target. Compounding things was your refusal to accept my offer to get you back into Ven and up to 3 units, instead contending yourself with helping Austria in exchange for absolutely nothing ever. At least when you started working with Russia he threw you a bone in Lvp. My mistrust of you was so high that when you sent me last minute press about supporting me into MAO from Spa I assumed that was a plan you cooked up with Austria for you to move into Spa from Mar and give Mar back to him and changed my Spa-MAO order to Spa support Mar instead.

Russia - I wanted to work with you very much for most of the game but for some reason could not talk you into attacking Austria even though he had a completely exposed flank that you could have ripped to shreds. It would have been great for you, very good for me, and pretty good for England and I guess that last part is why you never did it as you for some reason seemed to hate him more than anyone else in the game. We've already talked about the ill-fated support of Austria to MAO so I won't go into that too much, but I really don't see how you thought you were going to be able to pull off cutting me out without me throwing to Austria there. If you were going to try that you should have waited and made him give you Mun for starters as a pre-condition. I also was disappointed with several of your moves earlier in the game, in particular the turn you tried to take Swe from Germany but did not hit Den from Nth because you "believed Germany was just going to give me Swe" or whatever your explanation was. Turns like that one were a contributing factor to my decision to just stop trying to fight Austria at that point as I didn't trust you to be competent enough to stop him even if you didn't actively try to cut me out at that point.

Turkey - Didn't get to interact much with Chumbles but found him agreeable the one or two turns where we attempted to collaborate.

In the Italy section, Ames should be Med and contending should be contenting.

And to ATC, I challenge you to find the early game press where I said I was turning on England. I think we discussed this at the time as you misunderstanding what I had written and my press was actually clear that I would not turn on England unless/until he stabbed me. Which of course I did after he did. There was one turn in the early game where I misled you regarding my plans with respect to Germany but that was out of concern that you would leak to Germany and prevent the coordinated assault England and I were doing from succeeding.

And thus it is over, and it's time to rate your overall performances in terms of historical comparison; for how else could you really rate somebody? And so, to take a leaf out of Sid Meier's book, this is where you find out WHAT HISTORICAL LEADER YOU WERE! (NB: These ratings are based solely on their territorial and foreign policy performances; and have no relation to their domestic policies)

England - BALKI BARTOKOMOUS! A positive start! You exceeded all expectations despite engineering great dislike of you on the other half of the board. You worked together well with a strong ally in Yaleunc, and successfully dismantled Daximus very quickly. Sadly, when other fronts had began to stalemate, you made the fateful decision to brutally invade your ally; and whilst this led to initial success, you soon found yourself under pressure from all sides, trapped in a quagmire and unable to reinforce, and total collapse thus followed. Therefore, you are ADOLF HITLER - someone who promised much but delivered nothing but failure. Performance rating: 3/10

France - YALEUNC! For a long time, you were one of the stars of the show. A swift and positive start? Check. A strong alliance to ensure your flank is safely held? Check. An almost perpetual rivalry with a strong foe? Check. The battles between you and Austria was a clash of two titans; and you held your own for a very long time. However, betrayal by your ally tore you apart and left you little to hold on to. Alone and betrayed, death swiftly followed. You are HENRY VI of ENGLAND - someone who held a solid position in a titanic war (The Hundred Years War) until betrayal by his ally (Burgundy), led to him losing his lands, and descending into bitterness and paranoia. Performance rating: 6/10

Germany - DAXIMUS! Well, it's tough to find something positive to even talk about here. You were attacked by almost everyone, and despite repeatedly switching sides you could never find a solid ally. At times it looked like the tide could be turning, but it never did, and when you finally got that build, Russia crushed you once and for all. You are JOHN II CASIMIR OF POLAND - A well intentioned king who fought long and hard and yet was an utter failure who led his country through the ruin of the Deluge and the loss of anything resembling great power status. Performance Rating: 2/10

Italy - PETERWIGGIN! Many raved about your early moves; believing that they were a sign of great diplomacy to come. Others laughed, believing you'd merely thrown away any advantages you had. The latter proved to be right. Such was the downtrodden shape of your nation, you spent the majority of the game as a puppet of the great alliance of uclabb and A_Tin_Can, but when that alliance broke apart, you picked the wrong side, satisfied neither, and total death followed. You are CLEOPATRA VII of EGYPT - someone who had to use their body to stop a greater power fucking their nation; but eventually picked the wrong side in a war between her former allies, and fell to total destruction as a result. Performance Rating: 3/10

Austria - UCLABB! The star of the show and the main protagonist for the most part, you bent everyone to your will through a combination of diplomatic nous and military might. Success followed you wherever you went, and the world trembled at your feet. A strong alliance with A_Tin_Can; a willing puppet in peterwiggin, and an occasional mercenary in Daximus all led to the creation of your monster Empire. You are TRAJAN - Best and most successful Emperor of Rome, leading to its greatest territorial extent and helping provide the foundation for the Pax Romana. Everyone shall want to imitate you, but few shall succeed. Performance Rating: 9/10 (a couple of tactical failings prevent you from the outright 10). You receive a gigantic home baked lemon cake, baked by yours truly as a reward for your success, and for proving my early backing right. CHAMPION!

Russia - A Tin Can! For a time, it seemed you had the world at your feet. An early attack on you from Chumbles led to naught, and a strong alliance with uclabb proved devastating for just about everyone. There were certainly highlights: the playing of Daximus, the carving up of your arch-enemy Balki, the fall of Chumbles... but in the end, pride came before a fall, and what a fall it was. The support of uclabb to the MAO was a catastrophic error that handed him the game and showed just how much he'd played you for a fool, and sadly, it defines the entire game for you. You are NAPOLEON BONAPARTE - a great general who enjoyed much success, but let that success get to his head, overreached his forces, and suffered total defeat as a result. Performance Rating: 7/10

Turkey - Chumbles! I'm having to rack my head a bit here because it's been so long since I had to talk about anything you did, which is unfortunate, because whilst you made one catastrophic decision (Autumn 1901. Even without the misorder it was a poor decision, but the misorder just made you into a laughing stock. The board had been laid so nicely in S01 for an IT, but neither you nor peterwiggin seems to have made any attempt toward it, and in the end, that lack of creativity from your both led to poor games for the pair of you as uclabb and A_Tin_Can rolled over you. From 1902 onwards it was more a case of WHEN than IF when it came to your destruction, and it's really a shame that such a solid S01 led to such a calamitous failure. It's hard to give a rating for one who lived so shortly, but I shall do one anyway. You are BONNIE PRINCE CHARLIE - someone who received a great opportunity to fulfill his desires (starting the Jacobite rebellion when the British army was all abroad in the War of Austrian Succession) but hesitated, failed to march on London, and failed completely as a result. Performance Rating: 2/10

And so, thank you and goodnight from the Big Peanut. It's been a pleasure to commentate on this game; and whilst I haven't intended to offend anyone personally with my commentary - you did sign up for it! :). The format was very interesting, and I'd be open to doing another at some point (preferably not til January, as I'll be extremely busy before then). And once more, congratulations to uclabb.

HR - While I think the 6/10 is fair, I do take issue with your claim that after the betrayal by my ally (England) death swiftly followed. Nothing of the sort happened. I recovered from 4 units (Fall 06) at the time of the stab back up to 6 units by Fall 08 in what should have ultimately ended as a 3-way draw with Russia and Austria.

Perhaps; but I think after that stab your position was always at risk. I did mention in Balki's summary how it was reversed afterward, but yeah. After Balki stabbed you I was always expecting it to end in a solo; probably for Austria though possibly for Russia.

Go look at the board after Fall 08 and you can see that the position had stabilized and I was only at risk if Russia foolishly decided to try for the 2-way. Austria could not hold Mun against me and Russia working together and he could not get into MAO without help.

I know; but I also felt that if it stabilised against Austria then Russia would go for it himself. I think after the Balki stab the possibility of having lines on both fronts ended perpetually.

I agree with Yaleunc - the position after 1908 is about as good as it gets for France given the English stab in 1906. No way that he's getting eliminated, so the only way to not end up in a draw is if someone throws the game. Yale could not have predicted that ATC would voluntarily support uclabb across the stalemate line, and he could also not really have prevented it.

I actually could have bounced the move to MAO when it happened (and would have if I had not bothered to read Italy's last-minute press which served only to confuse and worry me and lead me to change my orders away from Spa-MAO).

So in that sense I could have prevented it for that turn at least. Though eventually A and R would have had too many fleets over there for me to keep A out of MAO if Russia decided that was what he wanted to do. Which again was about as dumb an idea as England's stab on me, but that was the way this game went.

I was really surprised that you didn't go Spain->MAO that turn. The support of Mar was unnecessary.

Won't be able to get to an EOG tonight (and possibly not until the weekend- I'm moving this week so things are a bit hectic) but just wanted to make sure I made it clear that I fully plan to write a full one.

Need a bigger apartment to hold all that GR?

As I said, hadn't heard much from Italy and then he sent a late press just an hour or two before he moves were going to process and I only saw it right before I went to bed. Had I not read it I would have left my move as I had saved it, Spa-MAO. If I had more time to send him some press in response to his message and get some feedback I might have left it that way too. Or if he had mentioned in his message that you were supporting Austria to MAO and that is why he wanted to support me there (if he even knew that).