This was an interesting game for me. I played England.

Mostly as England I play very conservatively in 1901, trying to make sure I get my build and not get Sealioned. Past that it's a matter of working with one or more players to take centers from the others.

So I sent out my usual message of peaceful coexistence to all the players. Obviously, I wouldn't be able to peacefully coexist with *everyone*, but thems the breaks.

My communication with Russia could be summarized thusly:

Me: Yo, brother! Peace be with you! Make love not war!
Russia: Sure, I'll occupy Norway with an army, that will give you security.
Me: .... Uhhh, I kinda need Norway.
Russia: Just take Holland. If you give me Norway I'll help you with Germany.
Me: That, uh... that doesn't exactly strike me as an equitable arraign...
Russia: KNEEL BEFORE ZOD!

I exaggerate, but not by much - so I opened north, which was wise, because he did the same thing.

He was very, very insistent that I not take Norway with an army, but refused to tell me what he had planned - so I assumed his goal was a move from STP to Finland, make a build in STP, then use the three units to gain Sweden and Norway. STP plinks Norway to prevent me from supporting G into Sweden, then I have three units on my border - and if I used a fleet to move in, only two possible defenders

Which might have worked, if he apparently hadn't annoyed Turkey as well, and ended up with *zero* builds. He ended up eliminated by the end of 1903.

Due to Russia making his fell intents plain - although he insisted that was never his goal, but I'll let his EOG speak to that - I suggested a triple, and G and F went for it. I also reached out to Turkey to keep the lines open in case I needed an ally if the stab opportunity presented itself.

Midgame was frustrating - F kept on egging me on to stab G, but by the time I was ready, he changed his tune. By the time I was in Sev the writing was on the wall to my eyes - I wasn't going to get any more builds, and France was likely to get a bunch, so I suggested a four way with Turkey. France was highly resistant at first, but... well, let me cut and paste from my notes:

Irrespective of how well we've worked together so far, from *my* point of view the risks increase from this point out. I can't get any more builds, but you can get plenty. I am not stating that you plan to stab, but the temptation would occur to many players. While 33% is better than 25%, but 25% is better than 0%

While we have the *capability* to finish off Turkey, what we appear to lack is the *will* to do so. From his moves Germany is apparently reading the map the same way I am, and is concerned that many players in your shoes might be tempted to shoot for a solo once Turkey fell. It might not work, but it might, and its unlikely that G and I could eliminate you if you tried - so we'd end up with a three way.

In other words, from a purely pragmatic point of view, there is no incentive for you *not* to try for a solo. Ending the game, therefore, before you hit the critical threshold is a benefit to G and I, as we could (theoretically) push you back if you tried now.

Of course, if we tried that then there is a chance that *G* could solo, which is why I shot down T's suggestion we do just that.

I say these things not to say that your suggestion that we finish T is unreasonable, or that you have ulterior motives; just that there are risks involved in doing so from my side of the map
***
Then of course Germany NMRed... and France confirmed my concerns by not choosing to vote draw until after he'd seen if we moved in a way that would effectively counter his run for the solo by blocking him and taking German centers.

So we ended up with a three way after all.

And for those who feel that a draw is somehow sullied unless you're in a position where you literally cannot make gains: bite me. There was *no way in hell* I could realistically solo, and allowing France to continue to grow would just increase the odds that I ended up on the wrong end of an offensive. Sure, a 4 way draw is worse than a 3 way draw, but a 4 way draw is a hell of a lot better than someone else soloing in a WTA.

I assume *France* chose to go alone - prior to the German NMR - because he pretty much didn't have a choice. He didn't have enough centers to make a reasonable chance for a solo, but if he held out for more *he* might get eliminated.

Lol.

I certainly did do that didn't I? For me this game was pretty straightforward. E offered the triple which was fine with me as I was sure that Russia was moving north. Germany never said much but I sensed no malign intent so I was ready to go for it. I moved slowly the first year to see where things stood and I spoke with the east a lot.

E and I saw on the same page diplomatically which made me feel good about the alliance. I felt like I was secure in the early stages of the game and I received a warm response from A/T about moving on Italy.

Then after A stabbed I I seized the opportunity to help I take revenge and he graciously accepted which made my life easier. At this point I was aware that I could grow too fast and turn my allies into enemies so I supported T into Nap as I had promised. I also took Ion and then Nap the following year but I figured that I'd done nothing wrong as I'd never promised to let T keep Nap just that I'd support the move there which I did.

I'll admit that I was all for finishing the triple off. I don't like stopping games prematurely but I was sensing that E was becoming increasingly skittish and paranoid which was making me uncomfortable. So I agree to the 4-way draw even though I didn't like it. Then Germany made like a tree and leaved so I thought I'd at least wait one turn to see if E/T were paying attention. They were and so I voted draw.

I don't like playing France personally so I was quite pleased with the final result although I'm a little less enthusiastic about it since G cded but still I'm content. I think I learned a couple of things from this game and that's always a good thing and worth playing for.

I hope to play wit Stratagos and crazyter again sometime. They both struck me as good players. I particularly liked the way stratagos thinks. He's very manipulative. I like that. Hat's off to you mate.

Obviously (Austria) spent the game trying to break up the triple, without success. Anything I could have done differently? It's frustrating, because every time I've been part of a triple, it seems to break by about 1903, whereas yours seemed to have great coordination and trust.

It helps to have a Germany that doesn't talk a lot, so both E and F secretly think they can screw him over whenever they feel like it ;)

cupla questions- why did germ resign? and if you draw on a winner takes all does that mean you all lose your bets? How often does a triple happen? rare in my brief experience.

To answer in order:
1 - No idea, he just vanished and NMRed. After two consecutive missed turns the system boots you.
2 - In any draw, the remaining players split the pot evenly. The could have 17 centers; they could have 1. Hell, they could have *none*, if the draw completes before the end of the disband phase.
3 - Three way draws are common. Western Triples that last the entire game, less so. If one power either grows too slowly or too rapidly, the strongest Eastern power(s) have a decent chance to fracture the alliance - unless, of course, the West is more concerned about giving the East an opening to run a Juggernaut or the like.

And where are the other EOGs? I especially want to hear from T and R....

I played Russia in this game. To state this on the beginning - I hate playing Russia, and I always lose when I play Russia.

This is what happened from my point of view:

The talks with England were really frustrating. I indeed asked to take Norway, knowing that he will never agree to it and we will be able to settle on me taking Sweden and him Norway, co-existing together. Apparently it didn't work, and England was deeply offended by the fact that I offered it, and no further talks or explanations regarding the nature of my offer helped to sway him away from the attack I knew he was planning.
So, I had no choice, and I split my forces - two to north, to try to defend myself from England, and two to south.

In the south, Turkey was the first to send me a message, asking for a DMZ in Black Sea. Furthermore, Turkey has forcefully tried to confirm who I am going against - Germany or England, obviously sent by England to find out about my intents. Rumors began to spur before I had a chance to send messages - in fact, I played for an hour and then went to sleep for 8, coming back to hear a lot of rumors about my intents, when I only talked a little bit to England...

We agreed to bounce in the Black Sea, but Turkey didn't move there, so I found myself in the Black Sea. He offered 3 bad alternatives for me, and I had to reject them, promising to support him into Austria when the time is right. We didn't talk much later on in the game (my downfall was clear in Autumn 1901).

Regarding Austria - he started by offering me a joint attack on Turkey. Knowing that Turkey is a great threat to Austria, I agreed to it. Austria asked for a bounce in Galicia, and I disagreed - wanting to open to the south. In Autumn 1901 Austria denied me a build. My last message to him was in Autumn 1901: "It is a western triple we are facing here, and you are stabbing me. After England and Germany disassemble me, where do you think they will go?", and he replied: "A Western Triple is a concern, but it is not much of a reason to favor you over Turkey or Italy. I remain open to specific proposals on our mutual interest."

After unsuccessful tries to convince people of the Western Triple threat, I've sent the following message on global chat during Spring 1902:

-------------------
Spring, 1902: Dammit people, do I have to say it on global so you would believe me?

Stop jerking around, we see a Western Triple here. In a moment you will see German armies in Livonia and Silesia, French fleets in West Med and Tuscany, and England in St.Pet, Moscow and Sevastopol. They are already past the stalemate line - what else do you want to see before the Western Triple eliminates Italy, Austria and finally Turkey? Why do you think Germany is heavy on armies - to march on to England? Why do you think England has all the armies in the front - to attack France? And do you really think France moves its fleets to the Med to eliminate Germany?

Geez, wake up people!
--------------

In response to which Austria stabbed Italy.

Needless to say, England army indeed ended up in St.Pet, Sevastopol and Moscow, French fleets conquered West Med, Tuscany and beyond, and Germany indeed continued as I predicted and more.


To conclude, this was a very frustrating game to me. I was completely misunderstood by England (I really wanted to ally him), and I was denied builds by Austria (a stab in 1901 that cost him the game, because Turkey will most definitely stab Austria). Furthermore, even though the Western Triple was obvious to me already in Autumn 1901, nobody listened to me and thought long-term, only trying to nab one more SC one from another.

This was also my highest bid in Diplomacy, 100 's. I hope this is not the way it will continue.

@Baskinelli - with respect, whatever your intent may have been, your move to Finland in Fall 01 was in no way a defensive maneuver. Or at least I couldn't perceive any way it could have been one.

What I perceived as an attack is what guaranteed one in response. Fully granted that an army in Norway isn't exactly a positive thing from a Russian point of view, it's not a guarantee of conflict either.

My advice to you is as follows:
* Laying out alternatives is a great way to start a relationship, as it allows you to start framing the discussion - but when you ask someone to do something that is obviously not in their interest, they're going to assume the reason is that you want them weak so you can chew on their tasty naive souls.

* When you threaten war if someone makes a specific move, you are basically closing discussion by giving them a binary solution set - work with you or work against you. Given equal odds, most people are going to choose the latter, as paying danegeld today just makes the danes want more. If the perception is that someone is going to keep demanding more and more until you tell them off, and then they're going to attack, then what's the point in giving into them *now*? Better to fight back from a position of strength if war is inevitable.

* Giving people information on intents and targets is a double edged sword. On the one hand, they can give the information to your target and start a war you may not actually want. On the other, if you *don't* tell people where you're going, they're likely to assume that *they* are your target. Once fear and paranoia start working, increasingly implausible disaster scenarios start playing through people's heads, and they are - at best - unlikely to do anything that aids your growth in any way.

Stratagos, you are absolutely right. These are the exact lessons I've learned from this game, and paying 100 's for these lessons is a humble price.

I believe that one gaming style should evolve over time, learning, adapting, listening and applying the lessons.

Thank you.

I agree with Baskineli's last comment. England, France, and Turkey played with sophistication and class. Compared to them, Russia and Italy both sounded like erratic bullies, and I'm sure I came off as a clod as well. My 100 pts bought me some valuable lessons. Thanks.

I must admit that all though we succeeded in the final result except switching G for T I found the experience less that I expected. I enjoyed the strategy talks with England a lot. I found the double diplomacy discussions to be fun. Talking about how we're going to mislead others while wondering if you were being mislead is worth a smile or two.

I also appreciated Turkey although our discussions were of a different nature. Germany was a bore. I was constantly considering how to remove him from the game just because of this fact alone. It was lucky for him that our triple worked much better than I dreamed and so I eventually changed my mind and decided to play it out till the end to see what people were thinking at that point.

I was a little disappointed with England towards the end but I understand and agree with his thinking although my playing style is a bit more aggressive than his. He made sure of his finish and that was that. I like to at least see what's beyond the bend and he prefers to bank the boat. That's probably the smarter route but it would have left me feeling empty. Germany going awol took more away from this game for me. I still waited one turn to see what E/T did before drawing as I figured it can't hurt to see what's around the bend. Unfortunately there were rapids and so I banked my boat as well.

I'm still waiting to hear T's input. I'm curious as to what they have to say.

@Ebay - I understand your point, but I had reached the limits of my probable expansion. it wasn't simply a matter of minimizing future risks; it's that my hand for a say in a favorable outcome was *never going to get any stronger*. It behooved me to use my influence while I still *had* it...

sorry to take so long-I have been traveling. Thanks for the reminder and the link, strat.

Bottom line for me was I survived by the kindness of E. We bonded early when R threatened E in 1901 (you didn’t make that up, did you Stratagos?) Meanwhile R and me made an agreement to bounce in Black, but since I was T in 3 games at once, I completely screwed up and thought it was a DMZ. That could have been the end for me right there, except R was such a hardass and pretty much threatened me, and knowing he had also threatened E, I bonded with E and screwed R.

Meanwhile F seemed to be overly aggressive and that solidified my bond with E even more. Still if E hadn’t been so merciful, I would have easily been defeated.

and why did G dissappear at the end? did anyone ever find out?

Bump

I didn't threat England...

@Bask-are you saying Strat misunderstood you, or what?

I am saying that I failed to communicate myself, but I in no way threatened England. I did suggest that I will take Norway, but quickly withdraw from this idea (I was inspired by a possible settlement between France and England where England takes Brest and then DMZ vast areas in England).