Well....game, set, match. We all got dealt a lesson by one of the best players this tournament has seen.

I'm going to hit the highlights.

1901 - I connect with Germany and we go E/G.

1903 - E/G fizzles out b/c of an R/A so I stab Germany in conjunction with France and Russia.

1904-1906 - France and I have good talks but we are basically stagnant, niether wanting to trust the other and leave the backside exposed.

1907-1908: France moves on me once I move east. But I get a build and we stalemate at MAO. Italy starts running away with the south. It is obvious that he has no resistance and will get warsaw and moscow but thats only 17.

Builds 1909: I've had talks with Italy about being prepared to throw the game if France keeps seeking my elimination. I tell France before builds that if he builds a fleet at Brest I will support Italy to MAO. He builds fleet at MAO.

Italy moves into position ti crush marseilles and iberia with my help.

Russia brings the emotions back down to even-keel and proposes a plan for holding warsaw and moscow. France agrees to turn around and stalemate.

1910-1911: The 4 of us secure a 100% stalemate just barely in the east. Italy backs off.

1911-1912: France gets greedy.

He starts taking the centers that Italy is ceding, marseilles, warsaw. Austria is knocked out.

At the end of 1912 I see that France either thinks he can solo, or is extremely concerned with getting a 3 way or a 4 way. I take the open centers at Sweden/belgium to grab 2 builds. My impression was that this guy wasn't going to stop until a 3 way draw. As the guy in the middle I'm the easiest target no being on the stalemate line.

1913-1914: France is coming at me with every unit on the Spain/Marseilles border. I think if I can knock out Russia I will de facto be included in the draw and we can end this miserable game. I move everything east to try and get to St.Pete.

1915: I get St. Pete but France is keeping Russia alive and sparing him centers. Now I am getting back in talks with Italy about throwing this game to him as they have backed baby into a corner.

Spring/Fall 1916: Perfect tactical move to keep 3 centers and the ability to throw the game.

At this point Russia passes my message to France, Russia always had a head on his shoulders and had some relations with France I figured if anyone could convince him it would be him.

The message was simply: Tell him that I'm going to support Italy to st.pete in the fall if these spring moves arent made.

Clyde -Liverpool
North Sea -Belgium
Denmark -Kiel
Livonia - Prussia.

Spring came, France continued to advance, I had already planned my moves to ensure that I could throw the game and I entered the final Support Move Moscow-St.Pete.

The Hanged Man - very impressed you could string that along from a blatant solo attempt to convincing someone you wanted a 2 way and they never even gave themselves a shot at the solo. We didn't get to interact too much, but I enjoyed when we did and happy to help you into St. Pete in the end. ;-)

Brian Hickey - wish we could have given it a better shot but that R/A really stuffed us from the gate.

Devonian - you got a bad rap for your game 1. You seemed to be a very competent player.

LakersFan - What were you thinking? You were the problem that caused a near solo in 1910. And you were the problem that caused the final solo. Thinning the draw is well and good. But I would think that every player in the top 200 GR recognizes that you never thin the draw if you can't ensure that the solo isn't at risk. This is just common sense, a bird in the hand is worth 2 in the bush, you know?

Now this is the masters, so I can even understand going for a "2 way" but looking to solo. But you never put yourself into position for that. Perhaps you need to work on where the stalemate lines are. I think you should have negotiated more property if your goal was to go 2 way turned solo. But honestly it doesn't seem like you were even trying that, you needed more armies in the east to have any shot at warsaw.

Overall just poor play, buddy.

Now, in conclusion. For those of you who have read this far and are still curious or skeptical about my reasoning for throwing the solo. I actually commented on this in the last solo EOG thread. I will throw the solo if I have the ability before taking a defeat every single time. I felt that throwing this game did not handicap my ability to win the tournament as I believe it will take more than 1 solo anyways. While I of course would prefer the draw, I'm actually happy to have this game on my resume to point to the next time some fuck doubts I will throw the game. I also hope this will remind the community of how to approach elimination of a foe on the stalemate line. This was a completely avoidable solo, but greed, stupidity, or emotion...or a combination of them all created it.

I'm sure I will revisit this discussion as I think of some more stuff. But for now there it is.

@Gen. Lee ... is giving up the solo worth it? In this tournament, solos are the only thing that really matter, and from the way things are going, we aren't going to see many. I am not criticizing you as much as I am simply asking whether or not you could have somehow done more yourself to persuade the opposing powers to let you survive and assist in stopping the solo. Personally I don't think there is any reason to eliminate a small power in this tournament, and why anyone would consider thinning the draw whether there is a solo risk or not is a mystery to me.

Yes I believe it was.

1. B/c I already have a solo and I believe it will take at least 2 to win anyways.
2. I will throw the game if I have the ability to before accepting a defeat every single time. This should be every players approach to this game. This should be expected by the player that is seeking to thin the draw. If anyone playing this tournament is expecting that a player should just give you there centers and accept a defeat b/c of the scoring system...make sure I'm not that power you are targeting. ;-)

@bo_sox I did everything I could to try and get this to end in a draw. I got myself to the stalemate line to have that final card in my hand since all negotiations and reasoning had failed. After France attempted to call the bluff on my ultimatum he never even messaged me to try and persuade me to not, propose a way for me to be allowed in the draw or anything. Russia tried to convince me to just die. But France who held the power to keep me in the draw never even messaged me. I probably would not have trusted him anyways. One more move and I would lose my ability to "pull the trigger" on the game.

@bo_sox: exactly, my WTF comment up there was directed towards France and his inhability to see the solo threat before it finally occurred.

Also, I am not surprised at THM pulling this up as I know what he can bring to the table. I also would've reacted like you, Gen Lee, if France hadnt respected what I asked him to do in order to stop the solo and prevent my elimination. It is better to make statements like this one than boringly being eliminated.

There is something ironic about this game. Gen Lee did exactly what Devonian did when I got the solo. Both are excellent players. But Devonian got a lot of abuse for it why Gen Lee won't get that much as he is an established member of the community.
I personally believe that it is the right approach for players to try to thin the draw - whatever the tournament scoring system.
And I also believe that it is the right approach for small powers to give the game away if they feel threatened - whatever the tournament scoring system.

@ julien - I agree. As I said above, devonian got a bad rap in game 1. He was a very competent player in negotiations and tactics. We were in the same boat in this game but he didn't have the units to hold himself at the stalemate line. I came back and agreed in that thread with his approach.

Julien, you are French right?
I find it very concerning that you're making reasonable statements, you should be saying irrational stuff that infuriates me.

I've been living for the last thirteen years out of France, so I guess I lost some of my Frenchness.
But don't worry I can still have outbursts of gallic ranting in case you truly miss it :)

That was a fun game. I'll post a full, lengthy EOG when I have time. I agree with trying to thin the draw, and I agree with using throwing the game as leverage when you're going to be thinned (and respecting that others will do so). The tricky part is thinning someone while neutralizing their ability to screw you, or alternately recognizing that they've successfully set themselves up where it's not possible to do so.

Ah, what the heck. I can't resist at least a little commentary. That's why we love the game and find it so interesting, right?

Assuming Lakersfan was trying to solo himself under the pretense of striving for a 2wd, I have no quarrel with that as a legit approach. There was a time just a couple turns before the end where I was sincerely worried that he might be able to secure War permanently, then finish off the north where I couldn't reach him. That might have led to his own solo, which is why I moved to try to stop it. It can get a little dicey when two 14+ powers are dancing around, both trying to solo and not let the other do so. But that's what makes it fun. :)

As an individual player, it's an interesting question for future games whether it's better or worse for me to have the community thinking about small powers throwing the game as leverage. When that first thread came up re Devonian/Julien, I was unhappy because I was negotiating that issue in multiple ongoing games and wanted to keep my shady deals in the shadows. At the same time, yeah I want people to be vigilant against *other people's* solos!

Aight, I'm going to bed now.

+1 Julien
I have a great deal of Dutch bluntness to offer if you want to trade. (Ask the others)

"The tricky part is thinning someone while neutralizing their ability to screw you, or alternately recognizing that they've successfully set themselves up where it's not possible to do so."

Exactly. As I said I have no qualms with exploring the possibility. But it was plainly obvious that he could not take me out without that risk. The move to St.Pete was inexplicable. There was no corresponding move to shore up warsaw or to put someone in place to hold St.Pete. Never take the center if you can't hold it safely.

I disagree that this game was similar to my first game. In my game against Julien, I fought against the aggressors the entire game. In this game, Gen. Lee actively pursued a solo for Italy.

As early as Autumn 1908, he said he would throw the game to Italy. He repeated it frequently, and re-positioned himself to guarantee it. In the EOG, he even pats himself on the back that he made the "perfect tactical move" to throw the game. He finishes himself off in the final move and gives Italy the solo.

Gen. Lee was actively throwing this game, even when there were several stalemate positions possible. In autumn 1912, France makes a move to set up a stalemate position against Italy, but he stabs both me and France. Had he moved into MAO, a stalemate line could have been set up with me and England alone. It would have forced a draw, but he goes for a selfish stab against all his neighbors.

When I try to talk him out of it, he says he is trying to "teach France a lesson" and build his resume. Build his resume??? What does that have to do with a Master's tournament? His rationale, is that in future games, he can use this game to convince others of his willingness to throw games. In my opinion, this is completely inappropriate in a masters tournament, or any game for that matter.

Oh Devonian...smh. Several folks come to clear your name and you decide to come by and show your general ignorance to how the game is played. I feel completely justified in how this game turned out, so let me reiterate what I have already detailed above and respond to each of your flawed arguments.

"In my game against Julien, I fought against the aggressors the entire game. In this game, Gen. Lee actively pursued a solo for Italy."

You were on the stalemate line. This gives you the ability to fight the aggressors and still have that last card in your hand. Once it was apparent that France would continue trying to take out smaller powers I found myself in the middle of the map with the MAO border completely secure, vastly outnumbered in units, France had no worries of Italy moving in as he had backed off completely. Take note, that if you find yourself in this situation where the other party is deadset on eliminating you, you WILL be defeated in due time. Your best course of action is to flee to the stalemate line and bunker down.

"As early as Autumn 1908, he said he would throw the game to Italy. He repeated it frequently, and re-positioned himself to guarantee it."

Yes, that was the first time France began seeking my elimination while completely ignoring the solo theat. If Italy got a hold of Iberia/Marseilles the game was OVER. At this point I had the ability to threaten to throw the game over my elimination on the west side of the board. Again, see above for explanation of why this is the correct way to play your hand as a smaller power on the brink of extinction.

"Gen. Lee was actively throwing this game, even when there were several stalemate positions possible. In autumn 1912, France makes a move to set up a stalemate position against Italy, but he stabs both me and France. Had he moved into MAO, a stalemate line could have been set up with me and England alone."

This is absolutely, 100% incorrect. Please let me know how England with fleets at Eng Chan, Irish sea and MAO can "stalemate" France with fleets at Brest, North Africa, west med, and gulf of lyons!!! Hello! Mcfly? MAO would be lost in 1 turn. You can't be serious...this is only to respond to the flawed tactics you cite. It was also plain to see that France wanted at the very least a 3 way draw but I also assumed a 2 way draw, which was later confirmed by Italy that was the "plan". So again, see getting to the stalemate line.

"When I try to talk him out of it, he says he is trying to "teach France a lesson" and build his resume."

Yep! You got it. All cited above in my posts. You tried to talk me into accepting a defeat in order to prevent a solo. That will never happen if I can avoid it. You didn't do the same in your game with Julien!!! As slyster put it I'm not going to take a boring elimination when I have the opportunity to make this statement, to spite/teach France a lesson, and to have this game on my resume to point to the next time some dumbfuck thinks I will roll over for his 2 way!!!

You forgot to address the part about building your resume.

In my opinion, this is making an alliance for reasons outside the game. I was definitely injured by this alliance, and it was for reasons outside the game.

Seriously? No I did not forget. See quote from above post, but if you have a cheating accusation you can direct it to the mods next time. Okay!

"As slyster put it I'm not going to take a boring elimination when I have the opportunity to make this statement, to spite/teach France a lesson, and to have this game on my resume to point to the next time some dumbfuck thinks I will roll over for his 2 way!!! "

This is just an added benefit to standing for a princple that I already stand for, apparently my words were not enough to convince you/France this time to take me seriously. Survive > Defeat - Every. Sinlge. Time.

So if I'm right about how ties are broken in the Master's, then Julien is winning now and Gen Lee/THM are tied for second (since Gen Lee has less draws than Julien)? Or are Julien/THM tied for first and Gen Lee in second?

Gen. Lee: My apologies, you addressed it by admitting to it. I expected you to be ashamed of it and address it from that perspective.

The Hanged Man: Congratulations on a very well played game!

@ Stackelberg - No , tie breaker is who you have soloed over. Therefore, THM has a solo over me, which gives him the tie break and first place. I'm not sure there is a second tie-break with draws.

@ Devonian, exactly! I'm not ashamed one bit about being happy about an added benefit of making my point! I've detailed extensively why it was the best game move to make, which was obviously my motivation. You trying to claim otherwise is just reaching......again, there is a gmail account for that - so please file a claim and keep it off the boards.

From the Masters page:

"Points will be scored by solo wins only, each solo scoring a single point. The position is determined by the number of points a player has at the end of the tournament. If there is a tie, it is broken first by who you won solos against, so looking at the sum of the points of the players beaten in the solos, a higher position will be awarded to the player who beat better opposition, and then by seeing how many draws each player has achieved."

http://tournaments.webdiplomacy.net/themasters

The tie breaker should probably be revised to read: some of the points of the people you've played against EXCLUDING the games you were in.

There could be a situation where it's actually advantageous to give up the solo as it gives you a tie breaker in the tournament.

@Gen Lee: just to clarify my position: I would've thrown the solo to THm in your position in this game if the others wanting to thin the draw didn't do exactly as I asked, yes, but I have to say, between a survive and a defeat, I would most probably go against the player who has pissed me off the most in a game, then if its the Ayer with a solo shot, I would try and fit in the stalemate so I am essential to the draw and I would risk elimination just to not reward the player that would've pissed me off the most in the game.

Darn iPhone...

But yeah, in this particular game, since THM is impossible to hold a grudge against, you chose wisely I guess. Hahaha! ;)

Yeah, what I said makes no sense. Just ignore me - I'll show myself the way out...

@Sly, true I can see that argument. I had nothing but pleasant interactions with THM. so that fits my scenario anyways. ;-)

Why would anyone want to hold a grudge against me? It’s much more fun to be my friend and go beat up on someone else! :)

Okay, I’ve put together one of my lengthy EOGs. I won’t be hurt if anyone skips the details, but it seems like at least some people like my chronicled thought processes.

This game had ups and downs for me. The worst was in 1909 after my first solo attempt failed and I thought the game was going to end in a 4wd or 5wd. It’s so hard (for me, at least) to solo as Italy it was going to be crushing to come that close and fall short. I enjoyed my communications game-long with Austria and France. I had relatively little press with Germany and Turkey. I had good interaction early and late with Russia, not so much in the middle when he concluded that I left him to fend for himself against Austria. Of course I credit England with enabling my solo.

SPRING 1901

Standard initial press, except for T. T proposes an unusual IT alliance. I’m potentially interested, but the details seem a little nebulous and dependent on what happens in the spring. In the meantime, I’m supposed to act normal which suits me fine. I like my initial press with R. We discuss dogpiling 3 on 1 against A or T. He favors A, I favor T, but neither of us is pushy.

In the end, I open Lepanto without upsetting anyone (since T wants it as a prelude to a surprise IT alliance). Everyone else’s moves look pretty normal except for an English move to EC and Wal. I like that, as EF fighting should benefit Italy and buy time for things to resolve in the east before I have to deal with a western threat.

AUTUMN 1901

Austria and I discuss the possibility of an ATI alliance, and I try to shoot it down. I leak to R that this is being raised, and exchange substantive press with R. At this point, I consider myself most aligned with R. I tell both A and T that I don’t want an ATI, and they both quickly drop the idea. A is fine falling back to the original RAI vs.T/Lepanto plan and T is fine falling back to the original IT plan. R wants to go RTI vs. A and I agree but obtain his approval for my not bypassing Tun and leaving an attack on Tri to my discretion. I ask T for support to Gre, and he declines. I figure if Vie were committed to a bounce in Gal (which R confirms), then if T were willing to support me into Gre, I could take a shot at Tri and likely end up with one or the other of them. When T says no, that makes it easy and I take Tun without attacking Tri.

Strangely, Turkey goes after Gre himself without support, which of course fails. He also moves to Bla, which aggravates R. Now T has been hostile to both R and A without me tipping my hand. Well, except for my non-attack on Tri. T decides that means AI are solidly allied and he will have to react accordingly. I am surprised he does not try to salvage an IT. He seems to think that he can rely on an RT but I feel my relationship with R is probably better than his. Indeed, T’s move to Bla switches R from RTI vs. A to RAI vs. T, which is what I originally wanted. A is happy I did not take a shot at Tri (which would have succeeded) and agrees not to build any fleets.

Meanwhile, G’s support of Wal-Bel makes F feel the walls are closing in. He asks me to attack G, which I am in no position to do. Instead, I am very reasonable about accepting that he needs to build F Mar to defend himself and give him no grief about it. I plant the idea that maybe down the road, I could send one of my fleets west to help him, but only at his request.

SPRING 1902

F Nap build is a no-brainer. E builds two fleets including Lvp, which helps keep F feeling under siege. E asks for Ven-Pie, but I decline. AI discuss my taking Gre while he takes Bul. My press with A is getting more involved. It’s still good with R, but now I rank them about even in my feeling of who my chief ally is. RA start planning their joint attack on G. R thinks A moving out of his home centers will leave A open to an Italian stab. That may be, but for now I’m just happy with my slow steady growth at T’s expense with nobody attacking me. EF fully engage. G penetrates Bur, but now faces the RA onrush.

AUTUMN 1902

T sees his ship going down and pledges to give me his centers. I keep alive his hope for Tun-Alb, but it’s not happening.

F is enthusiastic about me moving my armies in Tun and Ven west (A wants a DMZ of Ven/Tri). It may be that I’ll use that Pie army to attack him at some point, but I like his blessing. I can also sell it to E as potentially anti-French since E has been asking for Ven-Pie.

Everyone does what they’re supposed to, and G is in trouble. R picks up a northern fleet build, which will pull E back and let up the pressure on F. F and I are bonding well, I’m not worried he’ll head east. A’s press with me this phase is better than R’s, probably due to R on a road trip.

SPRING 1903

T is still begging me to attack A so he can help in his dying throes. R and I write a lot trying to figure out how we would go about attacking A, either with or without T. We can’t reach a good compromise. R feels like my proposal makes him stab first unilaterally, and I feel the same about his proposal. Meanwhile, I’m exploring with A where he sees my next build coming from so I can weigh which way to go. Ultimately, I take a conservative course and get my African army back on the boot and ready for action.

F was supposed to support Mar-Spa, but instead bounced himself. He says he biffed the order, but also asks me to pull back from Pie. I think he is feeling more confident with E pulling back, and it makes me a little wary.

AUGUST 1903

This is a critical turn. A says R has outlived his usefulness. R is ready to pull the trigger against A with my assistance. R says A intends to attack one of us this turn, but says it is unclear who. I feel pretty confident that it’s R and not me.

I get A to agree I can support myself into Alb and destroy his one fleet to cement a long-term AI alliance. I tell R I will attack A in Alb as a show of my anti-Austrian intent.

Boom. A stabs R, both feel like I’m on their side, and I’m about to have the only fleets east of Spain. A gets three army builds, which makes everyone view him as a threat. G is under serious duress. E looks like he’s reloading for a fight with F. It’s all good in the Italian ‘hood.

SPRING 1904

Right around now, my kids go on Spring Break and I head to Utah for vacation. I’m hiking in Zion and Bryce Canyon National Parks all day with no phone access, and wiped out when I get back to the hotel at night. I don’t talk to anyone at all on April 2. R is worried I’ve abandoned him too, but that’s not necessarily the case.

Everyone is worried about A, so he needs to slow down his growth. I get him to agree that I can take Tri from him to offset his gain of Mos. Not only does it give me an easy build, it further ensures that he won’t be building a fleet and I can show the other powers I’m attacking him. And maybe I really am, but if I can take a center unopposed that’s the best. Additionally, A is okay with me moving to Tyr, which also looks anti-Austrian

Although I’m playing at anti-Austrian moves, I’m at the point where I have to really commit. R asks for my help to hold his position and I either have to do it or not do it. I decided my big picture strategy is better off letting A kill R, so I do not help R as requested. I did not promise the help, but its absence clearly will be harmful to R.

AUTUMN 1904

EF are fighting, RA are fighting, GT are hanging on. A starts realizing that even though I did what I said and he approved, he is a little vulnerable. We agree to bounce in Vie, which continues to look anti-Austrian.

R is not convinced, and is upset that I have not done more to help him against A. I made a diplomatic error in S04, not devoting enough time for press with R. My excuse is that I was on vacation. I’m happy with my actual move orders, but I did not do a good enough job handling R. I had meant to spend more time trying to do so, but the phase end got away from me. R is upset with me, and I have a lot of damage control to do. I’m not going to need him anytime soon, but I don’t want to burn my bridges for later in the game.

1905

System crash issues, additional time added, E locked out of entering moves but allowed to do so with mod intervention. The game stalls for a long time while we get this straightened out. R tells me he was locked out of changing his moves, but he doesn’t seem to be lobbying the mods for the opportunity to change them.

R and I are working together again to finish off T. He doesn’t like that he isn’t getting a build, but this eliminates an enemy and simplifies things.

1906

AI drop all pretense of hostility. We take out R in the south, which I think he knew was inevitable. A lets me have all of the Turkish home centers, which is great. A wants me to attack F, F wants me to attack A. I’m definitely going after one of them.

This is perhaps the trickiest year so far diplomatically. F wants to feint into the Med so he can trick E into thinking FI are fighting. I want to A to think FI are fighting and F to think AI are fighting. We’re all being super-sneaky and who knows how it will turn out. I have had good relations with both A and F, but I think I am going after A because he is more vulnerable. I can take Austrian centers and crank out armies to get more, whereas an attack on France will just result in a stalemate at Iberia.
1907

Setting up the attack on Austria... then executing. I make sure F is still friendly, and talk to A about keeping him alive if he’ll help me.

Right after my stab of Austria, the site implements the self-press/notes tab. I try it out, writing this note to myself: “This is the crucial point. I am trying to convince France that I cannot solo, to encourage him to continue fighting England. I will need at least one French center. My best chance of getting it is Mar or Iberia, so I need to delay his entry into the Med.

Meanwhile, I'm trying to get Austria to be my advance vanguard against France in the mid-board. The idea is to push him west, leaving his vacant centers close to me to grab when I am ready.”

1908

A wants to fight rather than be my pawn, which is understandable. F sounds like he is still solid with me. We’re both trying to work on R to attack E to loosen things up. R is very wary of increasing my solo chances, but there’s still a tiny sliver of a chance if he feels he can get back into the game, starting with StP-Mos. I can live with that if he is builds a fleet to go after E (rather than an army to challenge me by land). F also is trying to encourage me to support StP-Mos, so I feel like it has a legitimate shot.
We do it in autumn, and A stops fighting me. He says he will help my solo to punish R. Meanwhile, E says he will help my solo to punish F. This all sounds good, and I start getting excited that I might be able to pull it off.

1909

I make my move on F and it goes perfectly. A is helping me against R. F takes the stab well and says he expected it a week earlier, feeling my solo was inevitable. That’s great news to me, because I think it’s a long way from a sure thing even now. E lambasts F on global and swears it’s game over, which is helpful for me diplomatically. E promises he will support me into MAO, which will be a death blow to Iberia for my win.

***Unfortunately, E reneges on the autumn turn and tells me it was just a ploy to help him make the draw. I think this is an important point that has not been raised yet in this thread when people have been critical of E. Although E eventually did throw the game to me in 1917, I don’t think he sincerely intended to in 1909 despite his posturing.

I’m extremely disappointed because I think my window of opportunity just closed. Even with E reneging, I might have been able to pull off the solo if I had taken out War because I could get to 18 with Mar and Mos. Instead, R’s failure to cover StP shocks me. A takes StP... which gives him a build in Vie! Now A can slow down my advance long enough for the other powers to establish a stalemate line and deny me War/Mos. It’s over.

1910-1911

But maybe not. I mean, who wants a 5wd? It will be particularly crushing if I can’t convert this solo because I just had to settle for a 5wd in my Round 1 game after getting up to 12-13 centers as Turkey and leading for most of that game. I thought I might come out of both of the first two rounds of the tournament with solos, and now it is looking like I might take two zeroes.

So I pull back. F still hates E, so I fan that flame. I feed anti-E propaganda to R, hoping some of it will come back to F in the RF press. I give Mar back to F and pull way back so he has room to operate. And I start laying the groundwork to get R back into the game via StP-Mos again. All the while, I keep my units one turn’s moves away from establishing a stalemate line to protect all my holdings. At this point, I know that the worst I can do is a 5wd and there’s no way I can be cut out of the endgame.

1912

Down goes Austria. Fan the flame of hatred against E. Keep FR thinking about 3wd and cutting E out. Keep open the possibility of an F solo.

1913-1915

The attack against E is on. Rather than defend the home island in a losing fight, E shifts east to take out R, which I think is a strategically sound move. These are slow turns for me since my units are just sitting and support holding. 1915 ends with the destruction of a Russian fleet such that his only option is a build of A Mos. That’s terrible for me.

1916

F and I have been bouncing for a while, but I realize that he actually has a chance to lock his own solo. On the autumn turn, if I do nothing and he orders Liv S Sil-War, Ber-Pru, Mun-Sil, Hol-Ruh, Kie-Ber, Bur-Mun for a full-scale assault eastward I’m not sure that I will be able to take War back from him. If he can hold War, then his solo is unstoppable as he eventually finishes off Edi and England. So I move in response to take Mos and surround War.

F accepts my explanation, realizing that his prior orders did pose a threat, which appears to have been unintentional. Surprisingly, on the autumn turn he pulled back from Mun and Ber (maybe to show emphatically that he was not trying to solo?) which makes me think I have a solo chance again. If I rush Mar/Iberia, he will need to use his army in Bur to protect his western centers. I think that means that he will only have four armies with which to defend Mun/Ber if I keep his two eastern armies in Liv and War. The key is going to be inserting my own armies into the strip between Pru and Tyr, which F wants to DMZ. He does not insist upon a DMZ and we do not block out specific moves, which really is necessary here to prevent a solo.

1917

FI are still friendly. I offer to support him into StP under the rationale that if StP is blue, he doesn’t need to worry about E throwing the game to me. Meanwhile, E is promising again that he will indeed throw the game by supporting me into StP if F doesn’t do exactly what E requires. E won’t tell me what he required of F (which I want to know so I can blow it up). Whatever E is asking for, I’m sure it isn’t F taking StP. I support F into StP and am set up for the win *IF* E supports me into StP.

But I have no idea whether he will or not. He is vitriolic on global. At the same time, he already reneged in 1909. If I take War and attack StP and E does *not* support me into StP then this time I think F will give up on the 2wd dream and settle for a 4wd. It’s too much to ask that F ignore my solo threat again and go back to attacking E after I stabbed him twice.

The thing is, I feel I still have a slight chance at a solo if E does not support me into StP, but only if I don’t take War. So this is the million dollar choice, whether or not to follow E’s plan.

The other problem is that E is so vocal on global that it is a done deal he will help me into StP, it has F uncomfortable. F can still stop the solo if he has StP S War-Mos. Even if E supports me into StP, F will take Mos and I will be held at 17. At that point, I think there is a chance EF could reconcile enough for them to kick me out of StP and deny me the solo. I wish E would stop crowing on global about throwing me the game. I try to do what I can via private press to assure F that E is just trying to push buttons. In my view, F *should* attack Mos. Even if it was a false alarm and I don’t go after War or a solo, what am I going to do about it? It would just be a faux pas and we would keep calm and carry on with the purported 2wd. However, it may well be that F doesn’t even care anymore, his animosity toward E is so great.

In the end, I decide to trust both that E will support me into StP and that F will not support War-Mos. It turned out to be the right call.

Thanks all for an enjoyable game!

Umm, warsaw to moscow last turn was futile. It would have been an unsupported move that would bounce with SEV-MOS while GAL and UKR took WAR. Nice EOG although I did skip around I'll come back to read the middle part later.

No, it would have worked if StP S War-Mos. Since Mos-StP, the support would not have been cut and the force of two would beat the unsupported Sev-Mos.

Great EOG, THM! That was a lot of fun to read and made me wish I'd been in this game. And also that I thought about my own games as clearly.

I really do not think that is true THM. Maybe I am confused?

Funny side note. In the last fall move, when I had already decided to throw it and I was chatting with Italy a bit. I said... at least I know you are not Julien. I just hope you aren't TheWizard or The Hanged Man since they have proven they can score again in this tournament! ;-)

"No, it would have worked if StP S War-Mos. Since Mos-StP, the support would not have been cut and the force of two would beat the unsupported Sev-Mos." I don't believe you get the force of two when the unit is dislodged. Oh I see...you were theorizing on *if* I didn't support you.

@ Gen Lee:
"at least I know you are not Julien"
How could you possibly know?
French accent? :)

Haha, that was b/c he said he was back in CA from Europe and I know you live on the other side of the world! Now, that might have made me think twice about throwing it if it were you, so maybe I can't say every single time. ;-)

Yes, Great EOG THM. I wish I'd been in it also. :-)

Seriously though, it was a good game. Most of it went down almost exactly as THM said.

@Gen. Lee: No, even if you supported me. Let's say Fin S Mos-StP, GoB S Mos-StP as you did. If StP S War-Mos, the support for War-Mos is not cut by Mos-StP. The unit hitting StP is from Mos, and does not cut support for an attack against the territory from which it originated (Mos). War would still go to Mos with a force of two, which would beat out an unsupported Sev-Mos.

Also, I said I was wiped out from jet lag having just returned to Canada from Europe. That's true, I flew into Vancouver ("returning" because I also departed from Vancouver). However, I'm not Canadian and I don't live there. It was just an interim stop before I came home to California. That's not even counting the fact that I could have been straight up lying about the whole trip. :)

THM, Gen. Lee is right: "A dislodged unit, even with support, has no effect on the province which dislodged it" All it would have done is caused a bounce in Moscow with your army that moved in from Sev.

Oh yeah? Good thing the game didn't depend on my correct knowledge of that rule, then. Why didn't someone tell me in-game?

Wait, am I following this right? If (taking the moves from the last turn of the game but changed it so Gen Lee attacks THM) StP S War - Mos, Ukr S Gal - War, and Sev - Mos, then my understanding is that A War would successfully move to Moscow, since Moscow has no support and it gets support from StP. Warsaw doesn't actually get dislodged because it successfully moves to Moscow.

It would only be if Moscow was dislodging Warsaw that it would be safe, eg if THM had been ordered Ukr S Mos - War or something. What am I missing?

Upon further reflection, I think Gen. Lee and Devonian were right, and I was wrong. I am looking at the 2000 rulebook, page 23.

I was thinking of Rule 13 (Support is cut if the unit giving support is attacked from any province except the one where support is being given). Since with StP S War-Mos support is being given to Mos, an attack by Mos on StP would fall under the exception and not be cut.

However, there also is Rule 14 (Support is cut if the supporting unit is dislodged). Under the scenario of Fin&GoB S Mos-StP, the French unit in StP would be dislodged. Therefore it cannot support War-Mos even though the unit attacking it is coming from Mos.

The key difference there is the dislodgment. If Fin & GoB did *not* support Mos-StP, then StP could still support War-Mos without being cut. However, since StP is being dislodged it cannot give support anywhere.

I'm not following Stackelberg's scenario.

I was talking about the scenario where Fin and GoB don't support Mos-StP (Mos-StP has no support), and StP supports War - Mos. That's the only scenario in which War - Mos would have been a threat, as far as I can see.

But I also see that's not the scenario you were actually worried about in the game.

Just to clarify here, THM is winning the tournament now.

Also, since games aren't finishing as quickly as I thought they'd be, I'll be delaying the start of rounds 5 and 6...don't want people getting fatigued.

I haven't read the time to really respond to general lee. Obviously, I lost this game pretty poorly, and probably would have preferred a 4WD to allowing a solo.

The funny thing to me though, is that General Lee put himself in a worse position to win the tournament, as other people have already mentioned, by allowing the solo.

In lieu of an actual EoG, I can include my notes on the game as we were playing. I had starting writing stuff down just before they added the notes feature (by URL hacking), but there is a pretty clear cut point at which I stopped having time to devote to this game.

France EoG: The Triple Alliance - How to (and how NOT to) form them

Spring '01 Ah, France. It feels so good to be blue. England seems open to working together, and we make a DMZ in the Channel our first order of business. Germany also implies a willingness to work together.

I do not push for a Western Triple, however, since I am leery of building two fleets first year and leaving myself open to a German stab in '02.

Fall '01 Well, I suppose over trusting England was a bad play. England breaks our DMZ in E.C. faster than you can say London Calling. I suppose it could be worse though - Germany doesn't go to burgundy, and Italy similarly leaves piedmont empty.

Winter '01 I begin to realize that the only possible way I am going to survive an EG alliance against me is to rally support from the rest of the board. I send several requests to Italy, Austria and Russia all to attack westwards into Germany's flank.

1902: Well, England is able to break into MAO. Austria sends armies to tyrolia and Bohemia, which ensures that Munich will fall. Germany's only other adjacent army that can support it is in burgundy, which I take from him. Germany elects to take Belgium from England, which means England will disband, and Germany will have only 5 units to fend off the A R I triple coming out of the east. I will likely not survive unless England elects to disband MAO and team up, but that doesn't seem likely whatsoever.

1903: Interesting. It turns out that England sees the writing on the wall and wants to work together, finally. We arrange to stab Germany in fall, and to split the Low Countries. England will also move back east to defend against the Russian fleets.

Italy seems to be the odd man out in the eastern triple, however, as he doesn't get any of the SC's in turkey and his hold on Greece is tenuous at best. I have had excellent diplomatic relations with him throughout the game, and would hate to see him taken out needlessly. I should probably float the idea of an alliance between Italy, England and I to combat the RA menace coming from the east.

Spring, 1904: SP '04: Well, England elects to build fleet Liverpool yet again. Combined with the curious moves in Scandinavia, I am not sure what to make of England's intent.

Austria eviscerated Russia, taking Rumania and Sev. Moscow and Warsaw should be pretty easy to take by the end of this year. I think it might be time to form a group effort against Austria.

Without even reviewing the early moves and diplomacy exchanges, England, I can see why I felt so justified in pursuing your elimination. The EF alliance can be one of the stronger in the games, however, so I am curious why you would pursue the EG two front war model, rather than a traditional unified front advancing eastward.

Well, to be honest I just prefer an E/G to an E/F as England. Especially considering that this was a solo tournament I find that England has to take Tunis which I believe is easier to acheive with the destruction of France than it is to take and hold Warsaw while trying to go against France late in the game.

However I do pick my opening ally based on who I feel has a play style similar to me, both in quantity and quality of press, game philosophy, paranoia level or lack there of, etc. I consider this factor as more important than geography.

Well, suffice to say, I feel you would have done much better forming a WT with Germany and I. You could always have stabbed me once I was fully engaged in the med against Italy, after all.