Oh, and here is the link to the game: gameID=13331

Congratulations Bonotow - well done!

I'll write a detailed EOG as soon as I can get some time (hopefully by tomorrow). I have to admit I had my doubts about this whole SoW thing initially, boy was I wrong.

Despite the CDs and the resulting loss this was one of the most enjoyable games ever and I believe it was a valuable learning experience for me - more so than any other game I've played here).

I'll be happy to participate in any future SoW games in any role (player/commentator/etc.). We need to build on this format. Kudos to whoever initiated this.

bump

I'd be interested to learn what the players thought about the commentary, how helpful it was, and what its effects on the game were.

Also, did anyone actually use the mentors?

Hm...don't really remember all the way back.
This was the first time I had ever played as France, so I was excited. I remember that Turkey was very nice-unfortunately he was a little far away. England was of course cordial, and I think I ended up trusting him a little too much. I empathized with him on facing an experienced player-Germany. Germany started the idea of the western triple, which I was eager to try. All players seemed talkative enough, but some were definitely more than others.

I was feeling good and confident with five centres, and I started to invade Italy, following the triple alliance idea. Progress was steady enough, and the commentators, started talking a lot about the triple alliance. When I was attacking Italy, he was nice enough to keep talking, which was useful, when I changed my mind. Just when I got into Tuscany, Things changed and I jumped back to the MAO.
I think I should have kept MAO there, just for security's sake. I was able to make my peace with Italy rapidly, because England stabbed me.

Now here, I tried to work out a deal. and we arranged so that England would attack Brest, and I would support hold it. I was stressed about Burgundy, and wanted to keep it, so I agreed. I thought me and England could continue a relationship.
Unfortunately for me, he broke it, and went on to win the game.
Looking back, I berate myself for agreeing.
I guess I was convinced that England was facing Germany and Russia, that for him, fighting France would be too much. And I really wanted that English alliance, I guess.
Skillful diplomatic move, there.
And that's pretty much all I can remember.

Oh yes.
I remember having to make a decision about whether to stick with the triple and invade Italy, or betray England and stab him.
I was influenced by the fact that Italy had not chatted very much, and England was very talkative. Attacking a silent Italy, I thought, would be better than attacking one of my current allies.

@Centurian
I liked the commentary very much actually! Sometime it was a bit too detailed into alliances and moves that should be done. E.g. when you told everyone to ally up against me :-( Of course you were right with it, but still I think a comment like "you have to think of two points: if you cannot ally up with the others, England might win; but if you turn on him and get backstabbed by Austria, then Austria might win". But that might be non-objective as it turned things harder for me ;-)

And yes, I "used" the mentors quite some time. Asked them esp. about builds and some moves, and about the hole-board situation. Esp. for the builds it was very helpful! I found out that builds are sometimes more important then moves ;-)

Thank you for starting this thread, and I encourage all 7 players to post on this EOG thread... bonotow, maybe you could PM the others w/ the link to this thread so they post... i'd suggest you PM the mentors and commentators if you have time as well =)

a few quick points on EOG... there is no real hard and fast rule on 'how to' write an End Of Game statement... but here are some pointers if this is your first EOG.

1) try to remember and discuss the S+F1901 diplomacy. this tends to be a very key element on how the game progresses, and getting insight into what diplomatic engagements caused those early alliances to form are not only helpful to 'learn' (this is a SoW game after all) but they also provide more enjoyment for the participants who were part of those discussions.

2) in your EOG, you want to go a big chronologically if possible. some people do a detailed year by year analysis, others will split it into the early/mid/and late game analysis of who they allied with, why, what factors drove their decisions, and what questions they have about why others did things a certain way.

3) tactical moves. Bonotow did a great job with this - mention some of the tactical moves you made that were very effective and why you did them. usually other players (and observers) will be curious as to why you made those fateful decisions. Many of these moves will be make-or-break moves in a game... either great stabs, or just phenomenal moves etc.

4) since this was an SoW game - please share what you thought of the commentary and mentorships... where were they useful? where could they be improved? etc.


I also suggest that the mentors and commentators also take a few minutes to share their thoughts.

as a 'mentor' in this game - I'd add a few insights. first - that in the early years, I got a lot more questions, and in a couple of cases, I did not respond in a timely manner, so I apologize for those - but generally speaking I felt the few players who were engaging asked very insightful questions. I'd encourage the SoW 6 participants to definately make use of your mentors and dont feel bad about riposting a question to them in the PM, maybe with a deadline reminder. but at the same time, since most will have lives outside of this site, try to think a tad ahead and dont ask a last-minute question... but overall, at least in my case, it seemed to have worked out quite well.

later in the game, the questions dropped off considerably, specially at a time when I felt that the minor powers SHOULD be asking questions... i'm curious as to why that happened. was it a resignation of a loss to come, or what?

overall, i'd say I got in the ball-park of 20-25 messages over the entire course of the game.

my question to the participants is - how could the mentors in future games provide better feedback?

and my one comment for future 'mentors' is to be careful with the very vague line between providing specific tactical advice and more general strategic/tactical advice. you dont want to be giving them actual moves, but rather providing several move options for example, or talking about the effects of certain moves that a newbie might not have considered (self-bounce, self-dislodgement rule, convoys, retreats, etc). its a very vague line and you have to be careful with it.

Well right off the bat i was hesitant to play the juggernaut because i knew it would spark outrage with the other countries. so i went with DMZ black and germany cried wolf. so i was hasty to stop an alliance with turkey and ally with austria which went great but with alll my efort in the south the north took a hit and i was left swedenless and st.peteless. then once i finally buroughed into germany austria wentin for the kill and so... we know the rest.

Really i think that hastiness in my decision making caused me to leave a great chance for an alliance with turkey. also the fact tati was souroneded by the pros and that germany was heading east forced me into trying for an alliance with austria as to not perish immediatley. i think that once austria stabbed me i had little choice except to become a vassal, in Ivo's words, to austria in exchange for survival. so Contact with england became sparse and i went into a sheell with the only intention of survival

As the other 'mentor' in the game, I'd echo Babak's comments - I'd really encourage the students to use the mentors. It's interesting that Bonotow continued to ask questions even as he was driving towards victory, even if it was just as a sounding board. He deserves hearty congratulations for a well played and thought out game.

The challenge as a mentor is to be vaguely specific - once you've had messages from 2 or 3 countries, you can see what their plans are, and any advice given must avoid tipping someone off. Again, feedback from the players on this would be useful - perhaps more specific questions (can you see a defense to mocves x&y?) would be useful, as the commentators cannot really comment on specific moves

I was also surprised the smaller powers didn't keep asking about survival/draws - there was a chance of a true stalemate, and this is (for me) something the the SoW can help with

I think I have PMed every mentor and commentator and player of SoW V by now - except the ones that already posted something here as I think they should know about this thread by now ;-)

To a more detailed EOG of mine as Babak asked for:

I had plenty of conversation with everyone in the first years. I tried to settle a western triple from the start, initially only to stop early moves into NTH or ENG by F or G. I also had NAP with R. The plan of bringing an army to Bel and convoy it to Nor the year later was arranged with G and F - I think it was the only way to allow my army in Bel in the first place. The decision to really go for StPet was then settled when R did not build any unit to protect StPet and G built two armies. France was already settled to go for Italy. If one of those things had not come to life, maybe I had decided to do something else. The western triple would have ended right away, I guess.

The next moves were pretty clear, no hard decision to make in my eyes. All was settled by communicating with G and F. A very interesting post of that time I received by fortknox was “the very best moment to stab someone” ;-) Just one turn or so before I stab him  Maybe he or some other prof can point out this here once more?

In 1903 it started to get more complicated. I convinced G to support me into Swe and empty Hol. This was the hardest part of the stab! The bounce in Liv in spring 1903 was arranged with R. The stab was pretty much encouraged by R and A fighting G in Sil/Boh/Tyr. If they were not there, I doubt the stab had worked out.

Then fall 1903, my stab on G and at the same time A’s invasion in Mun. I really think this was sort of the perfect stab, wasn’t it? ;-) G lost three SCs and had two powerful opponents to face. At the same time neither me nor A could risk to have the other one taking out G completely. G turned into some sort of DMZ. Even better for me: F was about to invade Italy and was completely open. He could not easily turn back to take revenge for me breaking our triple alliance. If only one of those things had not taken place or had been slightly ill-timed, the stab would have lost most of its power I guess.

This allowed me to arrange my units into the fall 1904 position. There I performed this little crazy convoy from Hol to Pic and meanwhile bouncing Bur. I decided to do so as I did not fear G entering any move orders to take Hol and knew that an army in Pic would be worthless if F made it to Bur. Thus I decided to leave IRI open, let F move into Bre and MAO, and go by land.

Then 1905, the most important point of my invasion on France and all things about to happen afterwards. I already wrote some notes on this earlier in this thread. As Baron Samedi said, I convinced him that I would attack Brest, he should hold it, and we would start working together again. My second stab, so to say ;-) If this had failed, the solo would have been gone far away. I really feel this was a key point of the game (the second after the stab on G). I allowed G to have Hol as I knew that I could win it back. Meanwhile taking Par and Bre – a good year for England! ;-) In the east I moved to GoB by fault! I wanted to enter BAL actually…so I could move to Kiel. Well, a slight mistake, maybe not even a bad one in the end.

1906 was the year R turned to A’s third arm, so to speak. A’s moves were really incredible at this stage, I really never knew what he was about to do! I felt like he was going for the solo far too quick and I had to take maximum risk to go there even faster. Therefore I opened Lon, did not cover StPet anymore. The move from Bel to Bur was by accident – I can remember I wanted to bounce Austria actually and had to decide “Bur or Ruhr”. I cannot tell if this miss-choice of mine was good or bad in the end… France disbanding me from MAO was exactly the move I expected, and I was really happy to retreat to Por ;-) Maybe to explain my strange convoy order Bre-Spa: I was thinking “maybe F does something else, maybe he moves Spa to Por and tries to enter Wales to be more aggressive against me instead of defending what was already lost.” If it had worked out…wow, an army in Spain AND Gas AND Bur ;-)
Also in 1906 the Austrian attack on Italy – also a key point in my eyes. I already said earlier in this thread that I think this move to Ven was ill-timed maybe.
In fall I decided to take high risk again and bounced the moves to Liv and Bel. Great that it turned out so well! The French move from MAO to ENG and Spa to Mar was also good for me as this way I could win both Spa and Por! It did not matter in the end as F left Spa anyway so I did not need the support from Por in the end.

1907, the invasion on Kiel finally. Again I decided to leave my SCs open as I wanted to be quick. I chose the fleet from Hol to attack as I feared A cutting support by moving Ruhr-Hol otherwise. Then I decided to let G have Kiel back and move into Ber after him. Great it did work out in the end! I had some conversation with F at that time and promised him to not attacking him. I asked him to move to Italy. Maybe not such a good idea as A could retreat into the emptied Mar  I really wanted to disband that Austrian army!

1908, I lost StPet but knew I could win it back some time afterwards. I knew Austria would retreat to Hol but that was part of the plan! I wanted to split up G’s and A’s units so we were completely mixed up and noone could tell what would be about to happen in the next move.

1909, NMR and CD from Italy. Bad for the game, good for my solo! Meanwhile I think I have convinced R to do something Austria did not ask him to. But maybe it was just mistake from Denis? I don not know. Winning StPet back this early made life simple for me! Taking Munich was well prepared the year before. I decided to need one more army at the eastern front, maybe to go for War actually. Therefore I performed this convoy to Pru and gave Berlin to A unguarded. Winning it back the year afterwards was part of the plan. Only if A had bounced my convoy to Pru I would have been forced to disband my Berlin fleet – my invasion would have been stopped. But I took this risk as I knew: “from now on I can force a draw, no matter what happens!”. The decision to go for TYR rather then Tun was made by dices as I said earlier on this thread ;-)

Yeah, and then finally me winning back Berlin as planned by a convoy from Den. Most people might have thought of moving Pru into Berlin, but that would have been too risky. Austria did exactly the move that would have stopped Pru-Ber. Tunis was well prepared.

Yeah, that is it!
Thanks again for this great game!

I would love to hear what was going on between A/T/R in mid-game. Maybe you can inform us about that?

Greetings and thanks for reading this LOOOOOOOOOOOONG post ;-)

Sorry I haven't replied... I have lots to say, but I'm on a very important project at work, so I'll try to find time at lunch to write something out :)

Hello School of War V alums-

Please post in this thread as well your responses to this short survey, which will help us to improve our programming at the School of War =)

1) Which element of the game do you feel you have improved the most in because of your SoW experience (Strategy/Tactics/Diplomacy)?

2) What has been most useful to you personally? The in-game help from the vets, mentor input, the forum commenting, or something else?

3) What do you think might have improved this experience for you?

4) Do you feel you have become a better player b/c of this SoW experience? (more so than playing another random game)

5) How was the experience of having mentors? What kind of questions did you ask the mentors? What kinds of answers did they give? Is there a way for the mentors to be more effective?

6) What other comment would you like to share?

1) Diplomacy and long-term tactics. Thinking of "if I attack this one here, maybe also someone else has benefits in it". I think I started to look at the board more then on my own position.

2) I think it is the mixture of all factors. Comments on geral questions and the situation on the board are very helpful! You start thinking of the situation for yoursel then. Also the mentors are helpful if you have more concrete questions. Two have two Vets in the game also reviels benefit in my eyes as then at least two people know what they are doing ;-) They can reinstall communication if it fall asleep, they can show you how they talk to you in which situation. You can sometimes simply copy their "style".

3) I think it would help alot if you had the chance to participate in the SoW as two or three different countries. Like one eastern, one western and one central power. I know this would be alot of work and needed a system to set the country selection at game start. But the pupils in the game should change per game I think, as otherwise you will get some metagaming I think.

4) Yes, I do feel so. I hadn't spent so much time on one single game so far!

5) It was great. You knew that there was someone you could ask questions and who would give you a precise and neutral, rational answer.
I ask alot about builds I think. And some general inputs on alliances, esp. the western triple, on the worth of single positions and SCs, and on their thoughts on a specific set of moves I was thinking about.
Maybe the mentors should not "simply" respond to questions but also ask the students about their doings? To encourage them to also use the mentors ;-)

6) I liked it! And didn't I know how much work this is for the commentators and mentors I would ask to perform several games at one time... Hopefully the school will generate more and more vets who can then share their expericne with newer players...

First off, grats to Bonotow for the win!
So even though I have criticisms for you in this, it should be taken with a grain of salt, because you won after all. They are just my observations and opinions :)

Overall impressions:
-Lots of communication happened, though I felt like I initiated a good deal of it. The newbies that communicated with me really well (from what I remember) are Bonotow and tailborder. It seemed like everytime I popped on to review the game or see the next turn, they had something to say. The comm was above and beyond the average dip player I see (including me, lately). Good job on that!

-Most vet games I've played have a ton of alliance changes, and we really didn't see a lot of that. It seems like a lot of 'enemies' refused to talk to one another which eliminates the possibility of flipping your allegiances which can benefit you and hurt both enemies on your borders! This game it was obvious who was with who. There were two stabs, and then the allegiances where, once again, predictable and inflexible.

Specific player observations:
Bonotow: I am now starting to wonder about his 'newbie' status, because he was the one who suggested the triple, I just helped encourage france to join in. I was worried that if I tried to get E to go after F or vice versa, they'd talk and take out the 'vet' (similar to how some will take out a larger point or rank person if they feel like they are being manipulated). I thought the triple was a good idea, especially since G gets the smallest growth with the triple. I tend to enjoy staying small, non-threatening, but manageable until mid-game. I'll discuss the stab in my more in depth review, but I felt it was too early as E still had a lot of growth and I was stalled with aus. I thought this was a place of strength as both F and E could grow, and I could work with A to change the dynamic of the game in a year or two. After the stab, I tried various tactics, but could see through E's answers. Either they were short, or late, or just a gut feeling that he was constantly attempting to talk austria into just getting rid of me. I do pride myself of being able to survive, and it was easy to work with Ivo as he knew the advantages of having a buffer between him and E.

denis: I don't know if you are a native english speaker or not, but your comm was very lacking, especially at the start, and extremely terse. I don't know if Ivo had a better experience than I since he was working with you, but I don't have very much comm from you at all, and I know that turkey was comm'ing heavily with you without reply. Don't be afraid to respond back to any and all communication. Even if it is a misdirection. I often write something like "can I at least get a 'sorry buddy, you're going to die' message" to people that don't respond back. Obviously you survived to the bitter end, so you did well tactically and strategically, but it's always smart to communicate with your enemies.

tailborder: What an amazing diplomat (comm-wise)! I was wonderfully impressed with his communication skills. Unfortunately, he was stuck between one of those 'inflexible' alliances and russia didn't seem to want to do anything except eliminate him. I did cried foul the moment I saw a jugg, because I knew turkey was a good talker, but was anticipating turkey stuck between A/I not A/R when I cried it. I also normally don't cry about it unless I'm A/I because those are the ones mostly affected by it. I also anticipated turkey to be ok because russia would be focused north, not south. Alas, I hope I wasn't the sole reason he was removed from the game, but he did a good job of staying alive for a good... long... time! I anticipate he'll be just fine after this game.

Baron Samedi: He's the type of player that this game focuses on. Not saying he's bad or newbish or anything, but I realized he was rather new and I'm hoping he learned a tremendous amount during this game. France is tough to play when you are against italy and england comes knocking. Diploming between the two seemed to take a while. Unfortunately, he ended up getting it right just when italy decided to CD... another tough luck situation, I'm afraid.

Italy: First guy was distant, CD'ed, not heard of again. Second guy was strong, then vanished. Yuck! :(

Ivo: Obviously a top player, and manipulated those around him with exquisite expertise. My only question was the italian stab. I questioned it the moment I saw it and talked with him about it. Italy and france was his best tickets to fight england since I couldn't expand to make the fleets (and AH only has one port to build in). Regardless of that decision, Italy CD'ed anyway, so even if he backed out, it wouldn't have helped.

I'll discuss year-by-year in another reply when I get a chance...

I followed the game and got a lot from the commentaors and I'm getting a lot now the one thing that is/was missiang for the watchers are the mentors comments particularly pertaining to builds.

Is ther any way to publish all of this important and scarce advice so that us readers can know what was said in this area? I think these may be some of the more inportant lessons to be learned.

Yes, I would be also interested in seeing the non-Global messages from the game, to really get an understanding of how it progressed. (While the game was going on, I always checked the commentary, the orders if the phase had changed, and the Global messages, in that order.)

Unfortunately, the messages cut off after a couple years, so all I have is the past year or two. I don't know what is saved to the DB, though. If the data is in the DB, I'm sure there's a clever way to display it all...

Bonotow suggested the triple!
I was always under the impression that Germany suggested it.

@ fortknox

Hit ‘Orders’ at the bottom of the game's page, and you should see all of them (well, all of yours).

Ethically, it may be wrong to post these if the other players don't agree to have it done, since it wasn't stated ahead of time that this would happen. But I hope that the players will agree.

Live game anyone?

Wth. You were in this game denis. Nothing to say? I find it super annoying when people try to promote live games by posting in other threads. Making your own thread is enough, I will see that if i want to play.

Heh, thanks, Toby! Learn something new everyday. :)
Unfortunately, it is color coded and easy to read as is, but may be harder if I copy-pasted. Regardless, I'll be happy to share if everyone else agrees.

Let me start by saying this was a game I really enjoyed, and was also a good learning experience for me. The SoW format really helps raise the quality of play by ensuring the basics for a good game are covered. The overall environment is quite positive, which lead to move focus on the analytical and not the personal side of the play.

Many thanks to everyone involved and to my fellow players.

Haven't had time for a year-by-year review yet, too busy at work. But, to not delay and forget this, here're ten things I noticed :)

1. The Fourth Power
Having 'independent' press is a brilliant concept. You don't have to convince others that 2+2=4, and when you have missed something yourself chances are you'll read about it. Not to mention that the more numerous the publications the harder it gets to stay angry and destructive.

Information makes people more alert about the rest of the board. Combine this with the feeling of being in the spotlight and having your moves and options analyzed - and it gets really hard to stay ignorant and play crazy. Long live common sense and free press :)

P.S. There were some concerns about propaganda and the forum discussion influencing the game negatively, shaping opinions, etc. My fair statement would be that, yes, you can feel there's an influence, but at the end of the day it's the players who decide. It's always better to have more options and ideas.

2. Hope dies last
It can be a sad & lonely world when things go against you in this game. Everyone is ok to let you go, it's commonly accepted, even expected, no one even bothers to talk about it... Unless there's someone to speculate and come up with mind-boggling strategies and conspiracy theories, anything to stir up the tar pit, making it look not so dark and depressing.

It didn't really work out in the end, for most people, but at least there was some light along the way :)

P.S. Unfortunately the commentators got bored at the end... I blame them for IT dropping out... think he got disillusioned too fast :)


3. It's the British ISLES!
There was a discussion what should ENG's first builds be. The answer is FLEETS. ENG's first two armies spent the entire game on the coasts, ended up in St.P. and BER, and only once (Spring '09) was one of them used to do something a fleet could not do (support to MUN from KIE). ENG took ages to enter the Mediterranean and secure the North, entirely due to poor logistical infrastructure - not enough fleets. ENG had to build 4 fleets in a row from 1905 to 1907 to compensate for this lack, and it took these fleets some more turns to get into position.

Unless there's some extraordinary reason for it, ENG's first three builds should be fleets. Look at it this way:
- With 5 fleets ENG is virtually untouchable. Chances are E's navy will be bigger than the combined fleets of F, G and R. With 3 armies and 3 fleets ENG is just as mortal as the next guy.
- every army ENG makes will need to be convoyed somewhere to go into battle. And convoys have a cost - in moves - maybe only one, maybe more. Those lost moves, so early on in the game, can make a huge difference.


4. Western Triple???
There can be only two reasons for a WT to form:
- a solid threat from the East (which there wasn't in this case)
- FRA and GER are not really working together

For, if FRA and GER are in alliance, and there's no threat from the East, there's no reason to let ENG live. Many people say predictability is the worst crime in Diplomacy. I'm, not so sure. If you're FRA or GER, then ENG is your natural enemy. He will always be behind your back. The same with IT/AUS and TUR.

If ENG gets to 6 centers you practically can't take him out anymore. The same for TUR. It took GER and FRA too long to realize the inevitable.

5. A man's got to do what a man's got to do
Autumn 1904 was when I moved against IT and RUS. Not a full-scale stab, just to take the upper hand. The problem with wider defensive alliances is that you make a lot of agreements along the way, which are left for later, and now it's payback time.

I had an alliance with IT since the beginning and had promised GRE to him. SMY is in his area by default. RUS expected to take BER and was standing very strong in the BS/TUR. If I were to honor all my agreements I would have signed my own death sentence.

Such situations are common in Diplomacy and constitute what is probably the biggest dilemma for me in this game.

5.1 Shoot first, ask questions later
You have to pay some attention to your ally. Does the alliance make sense for him? If not, what can you do to make sure he does not turn on you. After all, if you are expecting some gains and he'll be losing centers on the same turn, can you really expect him to be ok with it?

More importantly, can you expect him to come to you asking that he takes a center off you, for example, or does not deliver on his agreement? Expecially if he knows that this can lead to war, and if there will be war he'd better be prepared.

There're some questions you can easily ask (can you support me to the enemy center?) and some that are not so easy (can you give me your home-center, can you let me keep the center we agreed is for you?).

Experience has taught me that when you ask, it usually leads to war.
Experience has also taught me that if you don't ask, it also leads to war. Too few people deal with such cases well and can convert it back to win-win.

In the end, the bottom line is that it helps to shoot first.

6. All eggs in one basket
If you go to your bigger neighbour and tell him all the other powers in the area are unresponsive, their actions don't make any sense, you haven't talked to them in ages, or you just have no need to talk with them as things are going well and you'll keep fighting them anyway and don't trust them ... you're asking for trouble. Especially if you're not the only one with similar burden to share. It's not exactly the same as a confessional, but I still own you :)
The communication volumes in the game were quite high, by my standards at least (which are not that high), but a lot of it was quite generic. Maybe due to the increased volumes, combined with the 'noise' from the commentary, decision-making for most players seemed more complicated than usual and led to a certain amount of indecision. People were wary and very cautious. This worked well for me and ENG, we took full advantage, quite risky and opportunistic at times.

TUR was the first one to fall down in such a trap, quite unlucky for him (one and only mistake, and then always on the brink), as if it were not for the Western Triple he probably would had a chance to come back. The triple looked to have saved him by putting pressure on the AIR, but actually it only ensured a prolonged death, giving the AIR alliance (me mostly) the ability to just pick the right time.

GER and FRA were the next ones. RUS had no choice.

7. A bit too arrogant, are we?
I'm as stupid as I am smart. Go figure. Mid-game I decided I'll make everyone else my vassal, stop ENG and proceed to grab a solo while keeping everyone alive till the end. A perfect win of sorts.

The moment I took this decision I knew it will cost me the game, as I do such nonsense on a regular basis (whenever a game goes well), but I always find a reason to justify it (fun/experiment/etc.)

Guess it's not really wise to be so smart and creative when coming up with new ideas and excuses how to be stupid :). And, in the end, it's the same mistake all over again, just implemented different.

Then again, this is why one goes to school - at least I can formulate the problem better now.

8. Something always goes CD.
It is a sad fact that the average game here, regardless of format, tournament or level of players involved, will produce at least one CD. I've heard people say they actively incorporate it in their game-plan once they note such an indication. I used to think it's a wrong approach, but the statistics are not in my favor.

9. There can be only one
Congratulations to ENG. Diplomatically, he did everything right. Strategically, he did everything right and at the right time. Tactically, his moves were not the optimal for most part of the game. However, he made no critical errors and, for the end-game, when it really mattered, his tactics improved dramatically to safely seal the victory.

10. I managed to 'suffocate' a large part of my neighbours for quite some time. It was probably not such a fun game for them. Well done to all who kept playing at full till the end.

School of War V gameID=13331
End of Game Statement

In the spring of 1901, it looked like England and France were going to be best friends, but that friendship melted faster than a chunk of dry ice in the desert. With an English army in Belgium and a French fleet in Brest, things looked bad for both parties, and Germany’s double-army build was obviously pro-England. However, surely because of great diplomacy, France and England kept the Channel empty the following year and pursued other interests.

Italy’s lack of initiative in 1902 threw the balance of the whole game. Austria was now more able to expand and was content to let Russia and Turkey pre-occupy each other. In the meantime, France overextended himself in the Mediterranean and opened up his soft underbelly for a brutal stab by either England or Germany.

By 1905, Turkey and Germany were on the ropes, England had betrayed France, and Russia was slowly crumbling. Russia’s inability to secure Scandinavia and his poor diplomacy with both Austria and Turkey resulted in his near-annihilation. Italy’s surprise assault on Austria didn’t get him very far.

By 1908, everyone was yelling about stalemates. Could Austria convince Russia to participate for his own sake, or would Russia take England’s side despite himself? Could Italy be corralled into holding the line in time to stop the English?

In the end, no. England snapped up Tunis and Berlin for the win, leaving Austria with 12 supply centres, Germany with Vienna and Russia with Moscow.

Good game, everyone—and good job holding on, Russia and Germany. There were many surprises (such as Italy’s attack on Austria and Germany’s failure to make progress), but in the end, Bonotow’s game was very impressive.

A fun read from you ivo. Gives me some incite on your game playing, haha. I wish you would ask, sometimes people will reasonably make concessions.

do we have all the EOG statements? i think we are still missing turkey no?

djbent...do you have any assistants to help you copy/paste this and the previous thread to the blog.

bump

bump

tralala