@ Gen. - When I am speaking I am not saying that I think you had the best chance to win, or that you squandered one. I don't know the in-game dynamics. I think that each player had a chance to win given the situation on the board alone.

Yes, understood Lando. I just feel myself that I had the best shot of anyone. Especially earlier on to be able to change the tide and avoid getting jammed in the 3 way tug-o-war that was very volital to swing a solo to either E/A . I'm being very genuine about looking to improve for the future.

You guys have me feeling like its time to get right back to in lab and test some more formulas for success. Maybe the Confederate Grand Ball #3 will come much earlier in the year than expected. ;-)

Ok guys, I was Italy in that game, not my favoured choice, but on the other hand if played well, Italy can do well, many people think it is worse than it actually is, but it is not.
So in this case, I got help from England to convoy to Portugal.
At this stage there has been a crucial choice, I succumbed to France's sirens and instead of finishing France with England's help, I chose to stab England to get the lion share of the SCs. I do not think this was good or bad, it just led to a different game. My reasoning to do so was that splitting France would lead to a tense standoff with England, while I'd be exposed to the east to a raising Austria.
Yes England and I could have gone for DMZ after France was done, but what if he did not do his part?
So I stabbed. Being on France side meant we stalemated England and kept France alive. I considered helping France growing again, but then I made a very bad mistake: I thought we could reach the same stalemate line with England with France out of the picture. Wrong choice: France was not dead and helped England pushing me back. My fate was decided there. My mistake, live and learn.

As for the other comments I read on this thread, I do think that people tend to behave differently based on other guys' reputations. Cachimbo thinks that most people won't attack MM out of deference, but as I was the top player on another site, I also experienced the inverse experience: people ganging up on me because of my rank. So in fairness, I am not sure there is a rule, but yeah it also seems to me that Gen Lee should have moved on Russia earlier on, and that not doing so compromised his chances of a solo. When the guys were down to three, yes, they could have continued playing. I may have if I had been one of the final three, as I am usually a relentless competitor. But, in fairness, on objective facts related to this specific game, that was a draw at that stage.
As others pointed out, it is all about getting in a position to solo, and Gen Lee had not gotten to that position.
Should he have moved on Russia further? This is my opinion, but I know only my comms and not other guys' come, so I could be wrong.
In terms of diplomacy, I was the most impressed by Cachimbo and Uclabb. They fought hard to the bitter end despite being ganged up upon till the very early stage. That was an impressive resilience that I must hail.
MM stayed vague all game (maybe his style? or maybe he had no interest in the two step plan I proposed him: turkey down first, then austria second), I did not find Ghug very responsive (could be due to real life.. sometimes happen!), Gen Lee was very good but our comms got limited early in the game due to the stab.
Well despite the result, I found it an enjoyable game, with mostly good atmosphere, and motivated and smart players.
I'd definitely play again if invited. But I'd be for anon game this time to avoid any positive or negative bias due to players reputations.

@Yonni- To answer your question, in the game you linked, there were no race conditions. You were too far ahead. You might remember that I was trying furiously to convince you to bring me with you so we could both be at 12 or 13 or 14 at the same time and then get one of us the solo. With you so far ahead, the only risk we as small powers ran was that one of us would be worried that we would be eliminated and thus throw the game. So we were just careful to define separate spheres and the game was done. If we were to continue you would have needed to cede centers, which was something I don't think you were willing to do.

This game is completely different. There is an obvious race between Austria and England to 18 and it is fairly close. England should have pushed on. Why is that? The only way that Russia could throw to Austria while trying to stay in the draw is by throwing all of his centers except Berlin to Austria and hope he does it quickly enough that he still has a good chunk of Scandinavia. This is hard. It's much more likely that he would have pushed hard on Austria to keep as much of Rumania/Russia proper as possible so that he could be part of a lower half + Munich minus Tunis stalemate line. In other words, there was almost no risk and a lot of potential reward.

(in my opinion)

@uclabb possibly. I'm interested to hear which way Marx indicates if any that would have gone. What you may or may not have been privy to is that MM and I were at odds for several years there. Depsite meceding those centers all I was getting was crap from him. We had come to reconcile before that 3 day pause I thought, but upon returning we had some strange exchanges/bickering going on.

MM giving you crap is a way for him to establish his 'superiority'. Don't think anything else of it, regardless of what he says. As a good diplomat, he'll use whatever situation to his advantage. And as a good reader of the people he faces, he'll know what leverage to use.
In other words: you were so busy trying to make up that you failed to consider seriously the option of just destroying the guy who was giving you crap. That's not magic... that's just "classic misdirection" (2 for the person who can give me the reference).

I have to agree with Cachimbo here. While usually making other players like you and think that you like them is the best way to go, there are situations where being prickly or outright disagreeable can get the desired results.

Yeah, the whole muting thing was unbelievably transparent manipulation.

Yup.

Interesting comments... Too much to say... Suppose I'll just start...

I am a bit baffled by uclabb thinking "spending an hour a day" chatting with Gen. Lee equates to being included in the draw. Gen. Lee says he never promised uclabb a part in the draw. When at one or two units, certainly you must expect to be eliminated in the end (>50% chance), even if you hold out hope for not being eliminated, no? Perhaps it was just things that Gen. Lee said specifically within those conversations? That comment really surprises me, as well as Gen. Lee saying, "I'm a bit ashamed I didn't keep you in honestly." As others have said (in general), we're not playing Candy Land. What would it mean for Gen. Lee to gift a part of the draw to uclabb, when (arguably?) it was undeserved? Perhaps my knee jerk reaction would be a bit different if I were in uclabb's shoes, but from where I sit, that whole discussion/concept was surprising...

As far as Lando commenting that there was "tons of space left to play" and "players appear to have stopped caring about winning and only care about inflating their stats with draws." That's an interesting discussion indeed! I think everyone has a different attitude on this topic, and I think it's good that Lando stopped playing press games if he "requires" "everyone" to agree with his way of thinking. I remember Edi Birsan once commenting that he'd accept a draw in any game at any time. I'm sure that's a slight exaggeration, but his point is well made. For me, I will openly admit that my top goal in any game of diplomacy is not to solo, my top goal is to prevent a solo. I've heard it said that any quality game will end in a draw. I've never been one to "race" for a solo. All this may be because I'm not very good at getting a solo, and you don't gain much experience doing so if you are overly obsessed with not giving up a solo, but I am who I am. In my limited experience with a solo, it rarely comes from taking a game from 7 players, to 6 players, to 5, to 4, to 3 and then solo. My solos typically come from total chaos and 5 or 6 opponents that are largely pissed at each other about whatever random offense, but again, I speak with little authority. Anyway, in this game, I definitely felt extremely vulnerable and that if anything it was a race to a solo for Austria and England, so I was more than happy to three-way draw. As far as how I would have played things out, at least in my mind, my top priority in that game had shifted away from not giving up a solo, it had shifted to not giving England a solo. In my mind, I would have died a quick and relatively painless death (i.e. survive) to give Austria a solo in order to prevent an English solo. I never once threatened Austria that if he moved on me that I would throw a solo to England, and I never planned to, because that would have been a lie. After Austria stabbed me late in the game and shifted a bunch of units my way, I said nothing of his stab, and was not concerned about it at all (since it fell within my mindset of not allowing an English solo), but Austria's shot at England not joining him in moving on me quickly left Austria apologizing to me and promising to move away from me.

Okay, enough ramblings on those topics, perhaps I should try to come up with some sort of response to what Cach has said! ;-)

PS - One thing I really dislike about gunboat is how many solos result, as well as how self-centered everyone's mindset is (and likely *must* be) in that variant/deviant.

Why are you bringing up the gunboat variant here Marx? Nobody in this thread was discussing anything about gunboats however for some reason you think it is a relevant topic? We were discussing the press variant, your specific game and generally the idea of strategies and goals. Can I ask what the "point" of your post scriptum was?

Just that Lando...
The same way riling up England (Gen. Lee) helped putting him ahead of his opponent, he's throwing something in there that he figures will bite a little so that your argument becomes tainted by your emotions.
"Classic misdirection".

(Still waiting on someone to tell me what I'm quoting here. SD should know I think.).

As for what I've said here that regards you, MM, let me sum it up (though I know you will ignore that and try to nit-pick at the details instead, at least I'll have made my point clear otherwise).
- I'm not a fan of your approach to this game, I find it profoundly unpleasant and incredibly pretentious (ouch... that's going to come back to bite me in the ass... I know I'm not exactly devoid of arrogance myself), and the personality that comes through your messages both here and in-game is simply not one I care to associate with as I find it contrary to my pleasure.
I've said as much in private to you, and have also given you my reasons. I've not been explicit here because I don't need to. If you want to bring that shit up, go ahead but please know that (and don't be offended if) I'm not going to debate you on this though: I just don't feel like having this dance anymore, hence the decision to avoid playing you in the future.

Cachimbo -- you have made your point over and over. Why keep piling on here?

[this is speaking not as a mod but as a forum member and someone with a great deal of respect for MM and his approach]

Fair enough Mapu. I did say I just wanted to sum it up so that MM's attacks or responses would have a clear target. Your comment tells me that my point is clear and that there should be no ensuing confusion.

As for your respect towards MM.

I have respect for anyone that will play with me, and no greater or lesser respect for any of them. Heck! I have respect for pretty much anyone on this site that doesn't repeatedly show an utter lack of respect for others. And to tell you the truth, I'm actually somewhat bothered by that great level of respect people can have for MM. I think it can potentially if not actually change the dynamics of a game and, in my very humble opinion (I recognize that this is debatable), not in the right way.

That being said: though I dislike MM and have said my piece about that, I have respect for Mark and, I believe, I have his as well. Don't mistake a profound disagreement with a lack of respect. The latter case is better illustrated by my feelings for Krellin, for example ! ;)

Sure, Lando. You commented about how you no longer play press games because people don't go for the solo, and that they inflate their stats with draws. It's pretty clear, to me at least, that you do play a lot of gunboat, and I assume partly because you can get more solos, and thus inflate your stats with solos. Again, to me, my comments seemed perfectly logical and related to discussions within this thread. I am truly sorry to offend, that was not my intent.

I don't even know where to start, Cach... Perhaps I'll start at the end!

Two points:

1. You have my respect.
2. I absolutely hate metagaming. I think this is part of the reason I'm not overly fond of F2F, especially games that are not mostly made up of webDip players, but I digress. I would love to play all games as anonymously as possible, but in this game, uclabb signed up and he has told me that he can figure out who I am in a game within a few messages, and I didn't want that sort of disadvantage in such a high quality game (since I am terrible at figuring out who is who). Anyway, I strongly prefer a game be played out based 100% on the press and submitted orders within that one specific game, all baggage left behind. Clearly, in a non-anon game that is impossible. For me, metagaming manifests itself in two extremes, and all the points along the spectrum between those extremes. Some people are 100% set on killing me no matter what, they "fear" that I might "best" them, or whatever, if I remain in a game long-term. The other extreme also exists, where I'm the fat lady with a beard, the circus freak, that some are fascinated with and want to team up with, at least for a little bit. I assume this is what you are referencing, but I'm not so good at figuring those sorts of things out, just like I'm not good at figuring out who is who in an anon game. Anyway, I prefer people to go to the extreme attacking me than go to the extreme being buddy-buddy with me. I don't prefer things handed to me, I prefer to earn what I get (at least in my own mind), and it's always more interesting to get someone to ally with me that initially refuses to, rather than to be an ass and drive someone away that prefers to team up with me from the start for a reason I don't agree with.

Marx, you come out here and apologizing if the previous message offended and you write something that is overtly and intentionally offensive. As if ending your message with an apology will allow to allow you to get away with insulting a huge proportion of the players here. I am going to clear a couple things up for you. You're not going to agree with what I say, and we both know what that means, but for the benefit of the rest of the community:

I didn't comment that I no longer play press games, I simply don't intend to do so on this site anymore. There are reasons beyond the lack of competitiveness, but that is beside the point. I am playing press games elsewhere. There are other communities out there, you should consider testing your hand in some other arenas - you might be surprised what you find.

To speak on gunboats, I could not disagree more. There is no way or reason to try and compare the variants. What I will say is that winning gunboat games is an extremely difficult take, only possible if other players screw up. Gunboat games tend to end in draws when the best players on the site are involved.

Obviously it is also hard to solo in press games. Solos are solos and they are difficult as fuck to pull off, but they are also the highest achievement and the reason we all play this game. In press games, the ability to write to your competitors gives you a tool to leverage to help you solo, but it also allows your competitors this same tool to help them stop you.

Comparing the variants is futile and Cachimbo is probably right, your breaking it out is just another tool in your forum strategy.

I'm not sure if this is just ignorance on my part, or you giving me more credit than you should, but I honestly don't see how I was "overtly and intentionally offensive." I think I've made it clear that I do not like gunboat, through the months and years. To me, not being able to talk makes it more difficult to stop a solo, and thus allows more solos, and thus provides inflated solo stats for those that focus on playing gunboat. In my head, this is a fact, so I stated it as a fact. If you, a gunboater, disagree with it being a fact, that's something for me to think about, but in the end I'd hope you'd care very little about what skewed thoughts a non-gunboater has on that variant you clearly know far better.

PS - To be clear, I should not be offended by you saying press players on this site inflate their draws, but you should be offended by me saying gunboaters inflate their solos?

I pull off fucks much more easily than I pull off solos...

Just sayin'.

And if neither works, you can just fuck solo.

See, you didn't agree with me and therefore we are not going to get anywhere with this. Your misdirection is working as I did not post in this thread to argue with futility about gunboat games.

I didn't say you shouldn't be insulted, I stated my opinion. You are stating your position as well, which is fair, and you are really focusing on your overall forum strategy which is less fair, but hardly questionable. It is fascinating to watch though.

Dudes! This is about me! Stop making it about that old stale debate! ;)

MM -- Whether you do it consciously or not, you use the tools (psychological and others) that you have at your disposal to manipulate conversations. We all do. That's in the nature of the game. But I've read you say way too many times that you're not "good enough to do or know X", that people overestimate you, that you don't intend to accomplish something (which you never fail to accomplish regardless) to think that it's not somewhat intentional, albeit maybe not entirely conscious. I'll leave it at that. I think you will know, in light of our private exchanges, what my thoughts are on this otherwise.
Nah... I'll just add this (sorry!): say one of us did put his finger on one of your communication strategies, would you really just go: "Dude! You got me! Got to think of something else!". Fact is, you use what you have at your disposal, and you do it pretty well. Now I'll leave it at that.

So, having said that, the piece where you replied to me was... well... golden! Some of the best reading you've given me in years! And we agree on every point you raise. What I think we will forever disagree on is how it applies. Because, as I've said elsewhere (and as you imply in your text), there is no escaping all forms of meta-gaming. We can at best hope to mitigate its effects. One of the things that infuriate me about you (and this is not really personal, so I hope it will not offend nor feel out of place) is that you (as we likely all are) are COMPLETELY BLIND to the way metagaming affects you and the choices you make. Blind, and/or unwilling to question yourself. You're quick to point the finger, but this, this bit of text you wrote just now, is likely the closest I've ever seen you come to admitting that metagaming actually does affect the dynamics of your games. The only thing is, you still remain short of owning up to your own biases. I believe other players on this site have tried to make the same point about you. And I believe many of those players have moved to another site since.

I believe I've said my piece.

I'm really glad that we had this EOG in the end.

Mm, you said:
"I am a bit baffled by uclabb thinking "spending an hour a day" chatting with Gen. Lee equates to being included in the draw. Gen. Lee says he never promised uclabb a part in the draw. When at one or two units, certainly you must expect to be eliminated in the end (>50% chance), even if you hold out hope for not being eliminated, no? Perhaps it was just things that Gen. Lee said specifically within those conversations? That comment really surprises me, as well as Gen. Lee saying, "I'm a bit ashamed I didn't keep you in honestly." As others have said (in general), we're not playing Candy Land. What would it mean for Gen. Lee to gift a part of the draw to uclabb, when (arguably?) it was undeserved? Perhaps my knee jerk reaction would be a bit different if I were in uclabb's shoes, but from where I sit, that whole discussion/concept was surprising..."

Sure I hope that Uclabb once mentioned to Gen Lee: "ok, I'll help you solo, but if in any case you dot, will you keep me in the draw, or at least consider that possibility?"
But then my question is: if small powers don't help the strongest power to solo instead of just being eliminated and on the way to a draw, then what's the point in helping players achieve a solo position? Clearly they should still go for it and help them achieve the best solo position because its their best way to survive a game, but where I have a problem is this: I find that there's a lack of consideration to other small countries if the solo position country gives him no chances of surviving whatsoever.

I think we both agree that a solo should never happen in a high profile game, and that most, if not all of the time, when it does happen, it is because of mistrust between remaining players in the Grand Alliance, but there's also that other fact: one cannot solo without the help of smaller powers.

So basically, if the smaller powers have no certainties, lets say, at least, even a slice of consideration that he will be given a shot to the draw, then why should they even bother help the largest power to solo?

I'm not talking about this specific game and that I find Gen Lee lacked consideration to Uclabb, as I haven't read any of their press, but I find that if that part of the ane doesn't happen, or is left without consideration, that we miss an important part of the game's dynamics.

All that to say, I guess it's all a personal way of dealing with things, but usually, in a game, *if* I have a solo shot, clearly I'll ask the small powers to help me solo instead of being "boringly" eliminated to a draw and that I will be more than glad to keep them in the draw if they happen to counter my plans when I'm on the verge of soloing. I think this is fair play to me. Thoughts?

Damn it... Slyster walked in... This is gonna get ugly pretty fast now.

So I'll just go meet my wife and go out for dinner.

:)

PS: No one? Really? No one can tell me where the quote "Classic misdirection" is from? If I have no answers on this upon my return, I'll have to enlighten you!

@Cach: I'm discussing, here, not arguing. ;)