(Note: at this point in most games, the 'mid-game' is about to begin with usually 2 players eliminated or on the verge of being so. not so much this game as we had 2 very strong powers and 5 weak but still kicking countries)
-------
1904: More craziness. Russia was alternatively getting English help and suffering at English attacks. France decided to attack AH now and Italy got his army into Alb finally. So AH was on his back heels for the first time forced to retreat from Russia to defend his Western border. Meanwhile EFG traded centers but by the end of 1904, seemed that at least FG were standing up to E and though not exactly ‘helping’ each other, at least they stopped fighting each other. By fall of 1904, I was still trying to help coordinate Italian/French moves and Russian/German moves. Austria had not written me in two full game years, and England was giving me empty promises of an AET 3way draw.
--------
1905: Things started to change a bit. Germany was off his hinges flailing about with horrible orders and saying the darndest things in the global tab (go read it ;) AH was finally seeing the possibility of an English solo so started to talk to me and promised to move out of Aeg. Russia let me into Sev with the hopes that I’d move to Ukr (I did, but arranged with AH to make sure I bounced back into Sev) and EGF continued a crazy swapping of centers. By the end of 1905, AH seemed to be serious about working with me to set up a stalemate line against a potential English solo, but the fact that England was short on armies made it seems improbable that he’d actually get # 18 (Mun) so we were already trying to think ahead to that point. France was torn about continuing against Italy or fighting England, Germany was being quite random, and Russia was under the impression that this game would end in a 4 way EART draw. For me, this was the first year I felt I might survive this game to the draw… so all options were open for me at that point. It was around this time that this gem of a thread showed up in the forum:
http://webdiplomacy.net/forum.php?
threadID=655450#655450
--------
1906: Russia started off the year waxing poetic about the importance of sticking with an ally and how a 4way or 3way are really no different… quite the tear-jerker really. I think he knew what was coming, and I could not disagree more with his gaming philosophy – but I wasn’t about to tell him that ;) I do think its worth re-printing it though, it was quite well written:
“(To: You, from Russia) - Spring, 1906: Well, it doesn't bother me much, though I would have liked to have known what's going on. Austria totally lied to me too, told me he'd bounce me in War so I could build an army there. Glad to see a fleet in Ank, I hope you're ready to put some pressure on Austria with me. Being as paranoid as I am, I of course fear you have joined Austria against me. I am a loyal player and hope you are too. You stabbed me in the beginning, believing Austria's lies, and the moment Austria had a chance Austria stabbed you. I have been with you since then, and will be until the end, assuming of course you are with me. As you brought up, Austria will likely want to get rid of one of us for a three-way draw, but to me there is very little difference in a four-way versus three-way, especially if it means eliminating a long-time ally, even more so if it helps a lying bastard like the Austrian. Sorry for my paranoia, but the moves look pretty staged to me, like you and Austria are out to slit my throat, and I wanted to let you know that I don't think that is right even if it maximizes your points and/or success, I think you owe me more than that in this game and I clearly think I owe you more than that in this game (which I guarantee I will give you, I am your ally in here, again, as long as you are with me, which I hope is until we draw this game or die trying).
AH and I were in full swing – we coordinated and planned the demise of Russia. What we did not expect was England and France to work together and take the Med with so much force. I think England thought he could take out France at any point in the future and wanted to get units past the stalemate line, but in his haste, he left a lot open I think. I’m actually very curious what was going on between France and England in this time period. Another insightful point I’d like to quote, this time by Austria:
“(To: You, from Austria) - Autumn, 1906: I can't imagine E going for a 4-way. Most likely he thinks he can hit France from behind. France has shown himself to be rather easily persuaded this way and that (at least that's my take)- seems needlessly chancy though. “
And this gem from Russia/MM:
“(To: You, from Russia) - Autumn, 1906: Yeah, it does kind of suck. I think you screwed me at the beginning when we had a golden opportunity, and then in the middle my efforts benefitted you, and now you are screwing me again. I understand that kind of thing happens in a game of diplomacy, but it doesn't make it right and it doesn't mean you should do it.”
I think the most important development in 1905/6 besides me successfully working with AH was that England was kept to zero builds. Each turn I expected him to get 2-3, but somehow he managed zero. This ended up meaning that he never got to stab France the way he wanted to in order to force an AET draw. I do wonder how frustrated Ivo must have been during this period, especially when MM made that spectacular Stp to Swe convoy with German support.
At this point, MM did send me a 6 paragraph novel about his style and his ‘vision’ for what Diplomacy is to him… now that I re-read it, I can see where the rest of his commentary in the other thread comes from. In my opinion, it is a completely warped view of the game and though it sounds heartfelt, I think it is extremely self-serving for a player in his status. Of course he’d hope his allies never stab him and then he takes that idea and creates a manifesto out of it – maybe this is his secret to getting 90% draw/solos… when he’s about to lose, he guilt trips quite well. To be fair to him, I’m going to present his entire dissertation here for your review… I don’t think he’ll mind (hopefully I’m not wrong) because he’s pretty much made the same arguments elsewhere on the forum – and it really is a great piece of writing. So enjoy MadMarx’s philosophy on the game of Diplomacy:
“(To: You, from Russia) - Autumn, 1906: You asked me about that "coalition" in spring 1903, only four seasons (i.e. springs and falls) into the game. We have seen EIGHT seasons get processed since then, four full years of orders. If you remember back then, things were MUCH different. In fall 1901, you stabbed me, and Germany lied about giving me Sweden while I got not builds. At that point, Austria was more than happy to stab you by working with me AND England claimed he would work with me against Germany. England then claimed he had a misorder in spring 1902, which I did not believe, but still tried to work with England in fall 1902 since you and Germany were my enemies at that point. Anyway, I had also been chatting with Italy and France at that time. Italy claimed he wanted to work with me, but insisted on attacking France (had units in Pie/Lyo/WestMed/NorthAfrica) while he hung me out to dry in the east. France was pissed at Germany like me AND was in Munich, while England had just stabbed France by taking Brest. France was getting double-teamed by E/G, Italy was breathing down France's neck and it would take far too long to come back to help us with Austria. It was a very bleak time for me (and for the game board!) and I was busy in real life (looking back at messages, my response to you was that I had a busy weekend coming up) so to try and get I/F/G to align with us against A/E seemed like an impossible task indeed.
That said, I didn't totally give up and I did snap out of it and have been playing hard. Since then, Austria stabbed me, more than once, England stabbed me again, I eventually worked with my nemesis (Germany) and I had been working closely with you until you stabbed me again. Three of my four neighbors have stabbed me at least twice in this game, the only exception is Germany who lied to me once and then has been my enemy since so he had no chance to stab me again (at least not until lately, but we've only been working together a few seasons). I know I said I'm a quitter, but words are cheap in the game of diplomacy, actions speak much louder and I've been working my ass off trying to come back to life in here to oppose the leaders!!
Many people on this site say they don't play for points and they don't play for GR. I fall in that category. I play for fun first and foremost! I would be lying if I said I didn't consider points or GR at all, but those fall far short of playing for fun and they also fall short of some ethical considerations. Personally, I have no problem screwing someone over big time in a game, but I am not the type that repeatedly kicks someone when they are down or that would repeatedly lie to someone over and over all game long or other such tactics. There is a line in the sand that I would not cross. Personally, I would not do to me what you have done in this game, stab me in 1901, when the Jugg was presented to us on a silver platter, and then stab me again like you recently did. I have been reasonable to you all game. I was your loyal ally in 1901 and once you stabbed me I was forced to turn on you, but I was not ugly about it and we quickly realigned to take on Austria. Your actions cost us both in this game, so for you to then stabbed me later, after screwing me early, was a pretty low move in my opinion. I probably would have done what you did early on in my webdip career, but with time, I put value in this being a community and not being overly mean to anyone that doesn't deserve it, which I clearly feel I don't. Suppose I'm going off on a tangent here, and perhaps being a bit too critical, but am speaking from my heart.
Anyway, I am also the type to reward good play and/or long-term alliances before points/GR. I've been in a high pot PPSC game where I could have killed off an imcompetent game long ally for some more points, but even though he wasn't a good ally in that game, we did work together and so I made sure he survived. I have often included a long-term ally in a draw when I could have eliminated that person for GR/points. I have even allowed more than one person to be included in a draw that I didn't work with that much, but that fought hard and never gave up and/or had difficult situations in a game and I felt they deserved it. Perhaps I'm a bit soft, but that's how I play and that's how I hope others will play as well.
Okay, I'm sure some of this comes off as a bit arrogant and/or critical and/or holier-than-thou. I am merely trying to present my case for consideration by you. I think I've done well given some difficult situations, but I clearly played a role in getting into those difficult situations, the biggest one not realizing I needed to spend more time convincing you of the logic behind a Jugg! ;)
ANYWAY, as I've said, a 5-way draw isn't much different than a 4-way draw, a 4-way draw isn't much different than a 3-way draw, which means a draw with me in it isn't much different than a draw with me out of it. After what you did in 1901, and recently, I would hope you'd eventually see the light and see it in your heart to make things up to me by including me in a draw. I understand this is an extremely high pot game, but what better time to make a statement about rewarding a long-term ally? What better game to make a statement against 100% selfish play and to make a statement for rewarding a long-term ally that has made the best of a difficult situation. That's my plea. Your position in a draw is virtually guaranteed. You can take Rum AND Greece this year. You can pay back Austria for stabbing you in 1902. You can work with me again and keep me around to the end, to see a draw, and to make things right. I know that's a lot to ask, but I think it's the right thing to do, and I think in your heart that you believe it is the righ thing to do as well, or at least that's my hope! :)”
--------
1907: There were some key tactical negotiations all game-year long. FGR were trying very hard to get me to stab AH and the build in Bre gave AH and myself hope that the E solo possibility was finally off the table. I really thought hard about stabbing AH as GFR wanted, but I felt this was not yet the time. I ended up negotiating some favorable terms with AH that put my units in very good positions, but AH was becoming paranoid about a potential stab. He was still ahead of me about 9 to 5 at this point – but he was right to be worried and was trying to draw the game to a close. For my part, I was hoping FGR would keep E busy long enough for me to be able to take advantage of the situation. I still needed AH, so I stuck by him through 1907 and kept all my promises as did he. Meanwhile, England was getting desperate, he had been effectively stymied and was begging me to leave him Tun and not support Russia into StP. At the end of the year, England said he’d given up on a 3way and was going to now shoot for a 5way… with AH in munich, and now in commanding lead of 11 centers, he had become the solo danger rather than England.
------
At this point in the game, a basic shift had occured - E was no loner the solo danger and had joined with the other 3 dwarves to stop the AT combo (rightly so). so the game dynamic shifted... in most games, by this point, we'd be near the "end-game" with 3-4 players eliminated or close to being eliminated and 3 or sometimes 4 vying for final posturing to go for a solo or a draw. but in THIS unusual game, we had an 11-center AH with units in Mun, War, and Italy with two mid-sized powers, Turkey at 7, England at 6, and the other 3 powers still in play with 2-5 centers each and integral to the stalemate lines. the next chapter of my EOG will cover the last leg of the game.
Suicidal Tendencies: EOG
into the pot as not even luck will save you in this one.”
)
)
)
)