Nobody wants to go first?

I can't write much now as I am at work and I am supposed to be working ;-) I'd like to start off with a couple of comments about the whole premise of these games - the *blind* invitational.

Anon is a great way to play. It is definitely my preference. For my tastes I think it is the closest you can get to "pure" diplomacy. Most anon games I play truly are anonymous and I have no idea who is who. Occasionally some players make a few comments that give away their identity, especially if they are well known in the forum, but, generally speaking, the reveal at the end always comes as a surprise for me.

Everyone was well briefed before the game... DO NOT discuss any other player's identity. The rules were clear. And as far as I am aware everyone stuck to the rules .... well, actually, someone did whisper something to me at the end about who they thought MM was, but the game was pretty close to over, and I can honestly say I made no comment in reply.

I have to admit though, even though I never discussed it with anyone, the identity of MM was obvious. Every other player in the game really was anonymous (to me), EXCEPT for MM. It is bit ironic actually, the one player who so craved anonymity that he created this special "blind invitational" series of games, simply cannot be anonymous. I cannot think of another player on this site whose writing style is SO distinctive. It is not as if I have played many games with MM either. I have played with him once before, over a year ago. And yet I could tell who MM was from the very first message I received.

But I swear, I didn't say a thing to anyone, and I did not let it affect my in game decisions. Its not my style. I treat every game as a totally new experience. And treat every player as if I know nothing about them. So in the past if you stabbed me horribly in one game, don't worry I won't hold it against you in the next game. Indeed to some extent I treat each new phase as a new game. Right or wrong, that is my approach.

MM I know at one point I did make a joke in one of my messages which gave a pretty strong hint that I knew who you were. I am sorry that this might have been a bit close to breaking the rules, but at the time I *thought* the game was basically over. And that there was no harm. I hope this did not annoy you too much. Little did I know at the time that the game was NOT over, but in fact it was just about to be over for ME - almost but not quite. But I do apologize for breaking the rules (sort of).

Anyway... Thanks MM for inviting me to the blind invitational. It was great honour and a great challenge for me, even though the game was quite frustrating for me, and I think I did let myself down with some sloppy play. I am still counting my blessings that someone how I made it into the draw. I was very lucky in that regard. Cheers.

I'll have to finish this EOG off later, I am afraid. In my next post, I'll get into the nitty gritty of the game itself. Later.

I wasn't a part of this game, but I am curious why it was drawn. Looks like Russia was in a good position to continue his conquest.

No, I (Germany) had two builds which you can't see on the map because we drew during the builds phase, so I was safe from Russia. Plus he probably would have lost StP in the next year. It was two roughly equal sized dependent alliances squaring off on the stalemate lines (EG versus RI).

I'll say more later, but I wasn't about to stab at Italy again, he was a game long ally and even though I took a shot at him once, it was to give the solo a chance, but as soon as it was clear that I could not solo, I would never eliminate a long-term ally to take a four-way draw to a three-way draw, which is one of the benefits of allying with me (especially since I don't solo too often these days)! ;-)

EOG from Germany:
The game turned into 2 versus 2 right after the start. Italy and Austria played , what looked like, some kind of botched Key Lepanto, and soon after a Russia/Italy alliance swept over the east, and were shaping up to be like a kind of turbo-charged juggernaut. Unstoppable. Russia/Italy were THE threat in this game. The England/Germany alliance developed and stayed together in large part as a response to the challenge presented by Russia/Italy. England/Germany, however, also got rolling quickly, neutralizing France about as fast as is possible, followed by England getting into the Med early on, while Germany took Sweden and turned toward Russia. Thereafter the two alliances were pretty much set, with allies dependent upon each other for mutual security. It was perhaps all a bit predictable. There was, however, a little intrigue which spiced things up toward the end, with England stabbing Germany (me), and then Russia trying to solo. It was well worth a try, but didn't quite succeed. Soon after the old alliances were restored and realizing that we faced each other across stalemate lines (once again) we drew.

While I *say* it was a bit predictable, there was a *lot* of negotiating across the divide, so while the alliances lasted all game, leading to a four-way draw, they so nearly didn't. The main challenge for me in this game was balancing the two big powers either side of me. The whole game I was conscious that Russia and England could simply decide that it would be much easier just to ally with each other and crush me. The solution to this dilemma, offered to me by Russia was to side with him against England, but which I really did consider, but all I could see was Russia then switching sides to support England and going for the solo. Russia and I talked about the at length throughout the game, but balancing his diplomatic efforts was an equally determined, talkative, and convincing England. Perhaps if England had been a lesser player I might have switched, but England was determined that we could break through Russia/Italy's lines, and it was certainly it was worth a try. At one stage we looked like we might just do it (maybe/maybe not). The thing that impressed me about England right from the start was the he was a communicator, like me. And really that is what I look for in an ally. I like allies who will talk a lot. I like to brainstorm. Each turn I like to consider a range of options before settling on the best plan. And that is what we did. Russia/Italy were formidable opponents, and I think without a resolute ally like England (and very good tactician) we could have been in real trouble. So thank you, England. You were a great ally. Even if you were a bit pushy, and even if you did stab me at one point. You are fine player. Respect :-)

EOG Germany (continued):
The Early Game:
The first year or two so often turns into a two (or three) versus one affair. My first goal is to make sure that I am not the *one*. It's a bit like musical chairs and I want to make sure I get a seat. I am not usually a wait-and-see type player. So the first thing I did was sound out both France and England about attacking the other, throwing in the possibility that a third power might join us. France said he was not interested. He want to wait and see how things turned out. England said sure lets go for it. We both tried to convince Italy to join us in attacking France, and he hinted that he might well do that. That pretty much sealed the deal. France was going down.

Russia asked me to let him into Sweden with the proviso that he would then move on to Norway, leaving me Sweden. It sounded like a good deal, but asked him to stay out of Galicia (to be honest I didn't feel strongly about this Austria wasn't very communicative, but I thought I should throw some sort of condition into the deal so he would know I wasn't a push-over).

Italy told me that he would go to Pie, and definitely stay our of Tyrolia. He went to Venice instead. This meant England and I would be on our own against France, or even worse France would be free to join England attacking me. But this didn't happen. England opened to the channel. Brilliant.

Russia went to Galicia, and in retaliation I bounced him in Sweden (it wasn't really retaliation; it was a good excuse). My reason for this was to keep in England's good books, and more importantly to slow Russia down. Austria totally messed up his opening moves (being stabbed by Italy didn't help his cause either), and Russia took Budapest by end of 1901. Italy had warned me that I should bounce Russia in Sweden. Now I understood why. Russia/Italy were on a roll, and Russia especially was going to get BIG quickly.

England and I made a deal in Spring 1902. He could have Bel and I could have Paris. We took both. France can be quite a hard nut to crack, but England and I coordinated our moves really well (and we were a bit lucky). We both recognized the RI threat, but taking Paris so quickly looked like we would keep up with them.

It was during this early stage of the game the Russia really turned up the diplomacy. Initially he took a tough hard-line with me (which I found surprising, I was expecting him to be more charming), saying I had reneged on our deal by not giving him Sweden and what was *I* going to do to make it up to *him*, without really offering me reasons how this would benefit me. It was like I owed him. The deal I offered him was "I get Sweden and Norway" and in return I'll fight England. This offer was laughed off the table. Each phase after this comprised negotiating about Scandinavia. Even as I built a fleet in Kiel, which I then sent to the Baltic. Even after I was coming after him. Over time Russia's offers became more and more generous. Eventually he was saying "you get Norway and Sweden, just fight England with my help". As Russia's offers were becoming more tempting, but as I much as I thought it over I could never bring myself to take the plunge and side with Russia against England. I had recently played a game as Russia in alliance with Italy, and I had used pretty much the same strategy against Germany: I got him to attack his English ally, and then I turned on Germany. All I could see in Russia's offer was the same fate for me.

Middle Game:
I got into StP and even took Moscow (in Spring, I was out by Autumn alas). It looked like I might just gain the upper hand over Russia. But with Turkey's last SCs falling, Russia seemed to have never ending reinforcements. This is where England would say I made "suboptimal moves" - maybe I did or maybe I was facing more units than I had myself, and Russia is no dummy (we're talking MM here). I was pushed back.
Meanwhile England was trying to break through into Italy. At this stage of the game, EG definitely had the upperhand over RI. But it probably didn't matter as RI always had a southern stalemate line they could fall back to.

This is where I started getting a bit nervous about England. I couldn't break through Russia (and I was down a man after England took his northern fleet down south), and he had positioned his army in Bur next to mine in Mun. It occurred to me that he could so easily switch sides and either support Russia into Mun or Russia support him England into Mun. Just as I was supposed to moving forward I pulled my units back, trying to create more security for myself.

The Stab:
Soon after England stabbed me. Right after giving me a huge speech about trust and principles and blah blah blah. I didn't want to hear it. "Enough already whatever you say". Boom Russia supported England into Mun. God I am such an idiot. I let my guard down for a second and now I was paying the price.

Russia tries to Solo:
England thought he could reduce the game to a three-way draw, but I assured Russia I would rather see him win than England share in a draw. I had three northern fleets. Working together Russia and I could mess up England bad. Russia went for it. Why wouldn't he?
England's stabbed me and yet he go no builds. I supported France's last unit back into Brest, Russia supported me back into Mun, and I took Belgium from England.
Meanwhile Russia stabbed Italy. The race to the finish line was on. England changed his tune immediately offering me very generous concessions.

Russia was still hopeful of a solo (with my help. It was worth a shot). Next I suggested that Russia support my Swedish fleet into Norway while I gave him both Mun and Ber. But I just took Norway and didn't give him Mun and Ber. I was back in the game and Russia's solo was off the agenda.
England supported me into Brest and pulled away preparing for another joint assault on Russia.

The End:
England was hopeful of breaking into Italy again, which looked like it might just work with Italy in a weakened state after the Russian stab. But Russia gave Italy his SCs back, and with two builds ready to go, the stalemate line was secured. It was time to draw.

I owe Russia my life. Thank you. I was dead-meat there at one stage, but Russia my game long rival saved me. I think he was right to go for the solo with my help. It didn't quite work, but it was the best offer on the table. Better than a three-way.

There you go that is the Germany's story. A bit long I know.

Hello All! As said in global, thanks a lot guys for the game and thanks MadMarx for hosting a great invitational! I'm new to diplomacy, discovered it only recently f2f by chance and then found this site, have been playing since. I think this was one of the most enjoyable games I was in so far!

So on to business: England's EOG

I'll try to convey as much as possible how I was feeling during the game. I agree with Germany completely, it looks like a 'boring four way', but it could have gone different on so many occasions and the negotiations were pretty elaborate and intense..

1901
- Spring -
In the first year I had extensive contact with Germany, France and Russia. Going into the game I had a preference to open EG against France. Luckily Germany appeared to be a trustworthy player to me, but better yet, he was willing to discuss strategy at length. The first turn communiqués with him let me suspect I might be able to form a long term alliance. Russia promised me he wouldnt open North, which was golden giving I wanted to move south. At this point I was hoping I could get a two build England. Russia also piloted his wish of grabbing Sweden.

Also had good communication going with France in the first turn, this made me feel pretty bad about my opening. I promised France to DMZ the channel, I didnt. I really wanted to blitz france together with germany. I felt I couldnt negotiate access to the channel, as my army movement would have given my intentions away anyway, so I choose to stab myself into the channel increasing my chance of getting it and thereby I choose for unrepairable relations with France.

I didnt have a lot of communication with Italy, Turkey and Austria beyond the usual. I was surprised Turkey didnt ask me how I was going to open or try to convince me to open north. I guess Russia appeared friendly to him?

- Fall -
In the fall it was pretty obvious that Austria would fall quite quickly, Russia into Gal and Italy in Trieste. I discussed it with Germany and he hinted on bouncing Russia in sweden, to keep him manegable. I was really impressed with Germany and how he dealt with Russia all game. He bounced Russia, which in retrospect probably prevented Russia from soloing and by doing so probably angered Russia quite a bit. I was also very happy Germany moved to BUR, held word and thereby also commited himself on the map visually to moving against France further.

France was quite dissapointed in me, - sorry mate! -, I had to decide how germany and me could take him down as efficiently as possible. France could grab three builds BEL, SPA and POR. I could either bounce him out of BEL or try to take NOR and BRE, grabbing one of his home sc's and landing an army. I hoped France would just try to maximize builds, and choose Brest, which worked, Germany got into BUR. Germany and I were on our away taking down France, he still had two builds however. France has been very though to beat all game and it actually took till the last turn to do it.

In the eastern theatre of war Austria got outplayed rather quickly, but I guess its hard to really motivate yourself to defend as good as possible when you just got double stabbed. ;) I was surprised to see there was no cooperation between Austria and Turkey and I am really curious to the EoG's of the eastern powers! I think in 01 or 02 Germany and I were nervous about the tempo in which Russia and Italy were gaining sc's..

1902
Russia expressed the will to take down Germnay with me and wanted my support into Sweden. I tried to postpone a definite "no" as long as possible. I needed Germany to help me with France, our comm was good and our units too entangled. We made good progress in defeating France who was putting up a good fight!

In the end I choose to not support anybody into sweden, keeping myself open to a possible cooperation with Russia, and Germany could take it himself anyway!

1903
In this year I wanted to rush across the stalemate line in the MED as fast as possible, postponed taking out France, Italy was the main threat. Also my comm with Germany was so good, I decided I would ally to him permantly and helped him into STP. I did get nervous about all the fleets that he built north, mine being all south. Looking back I should have objected even more strongly to his fleets in the north, I expressed to him I was worried, he countered it was the fastest way to take STP, which was true. I was worried that they might get obsolete in the long term when fighting I/R, which became our target and my goal in this game ;) -sorry I was so pushy about it mate-.

We wanted to get IR to turn on each other. They could retreat behind a stalemate position in the south east of course, we needed to rush across that. (For ref we needed to take one of the provinces in:
http://devel.diplom.org/Online/StalematesAtoY/southern-progressive.htm , part II pos 1).

I got really impressed by the play of I/R at this point. Russia gave Italy a lot more Turkish territory this turn, so that Italy could keep me from crossing the stalemate line with his builds. Also I was surprised on how steady their alliance was, they refused to stab each other, while I thought together with russia I could def take out Italy easily.

IR tried the same with me, Russia was hammering me with communication that I should attack germany etc etc. I didnt want to as I saw that Russia would benefit a lot more than me, if I turned, but most importantly Germany and I were working very well together and had a fair chance to break the stalemate line. Germnay and I had an advantage I believe, as Italy and Russia had all their troops in the south east, while germany and I were already in position to start moving on IR. As said we needed to enter one of the provinces across the stalemate line succesfully, the best option was VEN.

1904 -1905
Logical moves from both sides, I had absolutely no intention of stabbing Germany, despite Italian and Russian pleas. I wanted to take VEN, destroying stalemate, and saw a good chance of doing this, convoyed a unit to PIE.

I did get a bit annoyed with Germany for not destroying the northern Russian fleet, three turns in a row with units that were idle anyway, a first slight crack in our cooperation, leading up to the events of spring 1906. I felt the northern Russian fleet would get us into trouble at some point.

Then in autumn 1905 there was a turning point. Germany didnt move as agreed upon, most noteably he didnt move MUN -> TYR, I supported with PIE, and he didnt support me into SPA. The turn resolved, I saw he didnt move as discussed, and I saw my plan would have worked. :( In that turn he would have gotten TYR, Italy's other armies were still to far away to help prevent the fall of VEN. We could have taken VEN in spring 1906 and I would have supported Germany in, breaking the stalemate line, at least I believe. Correct me if I'm wrong guys! :)

At this point in the game I didnt know why Germany didnt go through with the plan, as in my eyes it would have succeeded and we remained DMZed. It can quite possibly stem from my somewhat lessened communication in this period due to RL. Maybe Germany got spooked? There was absolutely no reason to, up to this point I would much rather draw four way than betray him in any way.

1906
I was so extremely dissapointed by the previous set of moves and germany's 'slight betrayal' that I thought I would spice things up a little. I approached Russia, tried to set up Germany in such a way that he would be most vulnerable and stabbed. A very poor stab to say the least. :( I made a whole list of errors. It was instigated by emotion and I should have delayed it for another year. I should have finished france first, able to use two extra builds against Germany and I should have moved to Norway instead of Holland. And I was unlucky bouncing the wrong province when in HOL. Also, the stab was far too dependent on Russia, I knew he would take advantage of course, as noted earlier, and not let me keep Munich. I tried to negotiate that despite knowing better. I think the stab could have been far more effective if I would have done it a year later with two extra builds. A good lesson for me, I guess.

1907
Russia did take advantage of the situation of course. Luckily, luckily for me Russia also grabbed an Italian province.. That gave me amunition to try to get the italian to move on Russia, as he might solo.. Italy moved against Russia, he was slightly out of position, I tried to elongate the game a bit by trying to get Germany and Italy to go for a three draw, eliminating Russia, a long shot to say the least haha.. I think Russia realized he was in a precarious situation all of a sudden, possibly three powers against him..? He had no problem winning over his former ally though, they pressed draw and held position. Again, IR very impressive coordination to get Italy completely on position again.



Well, very enjoyable game! I learned some good lessons and want to thank my fellow players for the game! Thanks MM for organizing the invitational! You asked for feedback on the invitational in the other EOG's. I thought it was just perfect, dedicated high level players, completely blind anonymous, I really had no clue who everybody was. Except for you of course ;)

@France, Austria and Turkey: Not a lot of comm with you guys, hope to meet you in another game so we can change that!!

@Russia and Italy: great comm with you all game despite our opposing positions! Haha, I loved Russia's mid game long shot at a solo, taking advantage of an emotional englishman :)

@Germany, my game long ally!! I really enjoyed our cooperation, great discussions on moves all game long! I was happy that we were able to repair relations again in the end of the game, ending it with a positive vibe between us. It must have been pretty hard resisting the russian's temptations, while balancing in the middle of the map securing your spot in the draw. I am happy you gave me some feedback right now, I can be a bit pushy yeah, sry bout that.. ;) I have to reevaluate how I communicate some stuff I think. I am still really curious what exactly triggered you to not move to TYR in autumn 05? Was it my lack of comm? Did you fear a stab? I really hope we will meet again in a game!

England out!

well not a lot to say since i was gone before i could blink with my eyes.
since i was really busy with my work i was a bit slacking with my press. most likely that's one of the reason i got splattered right away.
the idea was to start a lepanto with Italy and to make Gal a dmz. well as you can see none of that worked as intended. and the relation with turkey was poor. that can be my fault but in '03 i was out. well played by Russia and Italy on my side

French EOG:

Well, it turns out that my initial diplomacy with E & G didn't have the desired effect. I was aiming for 2 builds and a say in Belgium, so a DMZ with England seemed sensible. I know MA has explained his reasoning, but I still think specifically agreeing a DMZ and then not respecting it is a crap move. Germany was more cagey, and later admitted that because I had not such a concrete plan, he chose the other ally.

Then in the Fall, I was too smart. I reasoned that a smart England wouldn't go for Brest, because I would defend it, therefore I didn't. So although I ended with 2 builds, my position was wrecked.

The E/G (understandably) was impervious, so I tried to fight as hard as I could.

I decided my aim was to stop an English solo, and survived for far longer than I expected. I even got some help from Germany when it looked like the E/G had fallen apart, but when they made up, I had no chance.

Still, a good game, and (as always) i learnt something

Oh, and I feel I need to respond to the German EOG. I wasn't 'not interested' in attacking England, but I wanted to see how his opening panned out. An F/G v E puts all the risk on F. Perhaps I should have made my position clearer

Sorry Pete, I didn't explain that properly. You're right though, the initial suggestion was an early attack on England or "wait and see". In your reply you opted for the latter straight away. From my perspective this killed the discussion. The opening negotiations aren't just about exactly which moves will be played, but rather what sort of diplomat you will be. All things being equal I will favour the diplomat who talks - someone I can brainstorm with. Now I have played you before and I know that you are an excellent communicator. But being anon, I didn't know it was you. I couldn't tell. I think if you had at least "entertained" the idea of an early attack our negotiations would have been more fruitful.
Opening are tough though. England's move to the channel was bad luck for you. But I think perhaps knowing that he had a Germany who at least "seemed" interested in attacking France, and maybe an Italy who was interested too, nudged him into making the move (which is risky for England too. But everywhere you look there is risk in this game).
With me however you supported yourself to Bur. Things were looking in Englamds favour.

Italian EOG

I’d first like to state that I loved the way this game was set up and that it was one of the most challenging games I’ve played. MM you are one of the best allies I’ve ever had and the only one that hasn’t fought me even a little on DMZs.

1901:

I got on to messages from Austria and England. England was typical just a friendly message with the hops of helping each other in the future. Austria wanted to try a lepanto. I was fine with that but wary. This being my second game as Italy (that finished at least) I only had my experience as Austria to go off of. This made me very nervous about Austria because I usually take Italy out as soon as possible when I run the lepanto as Austria. I sent a message requiring a DMZ. I also sent a message to Turkey and Russia. Turkey wanted to wait and see how things played out but was open to working with me. Russia jumped on the opportunity to ally with me. At the end of spring I had three possible allies and good communication with both France and Germany.
In fall Russia had great position on Austria, my ally was chosen. Turkey opened up typically. I still wanted to use him but keep him small until I either needed his centers or I could stab Russia. Austria was ready for the lepanto and was happy to see it was working. He was nervous though about Russia. Russia looked to grabbing three centers and out of fear of his growth and me planning on stabbing him I asked Germany to bounce him out of Sweden.

1902:

Austria was as good as defeated and Turkey could do little to stop Russia and me. The E/G was quickly dispatching France and looking to move toward me. I sent a future DMZ request to Russia along with a suggestion to dividing centers in the south. Russia agreed to both and was worried with his struggles in the north.

1903 and 1904:

Russia and me were just wrapping up in the south and started moving to set up a stalemate line. We knew we had several options and needed each other to stop the E/G.
\
1905: This year was just the two big alliances trying to make the other fall apart. Germany and me also had talks about taking out our respective allies and taking a two-way draw.

1906: This was supposed to never happen if England had taken out France and drawn liked agreed this game would have been over. England and Russia had different plans however. England had fully backstabbed Germany in spring and Russia moved toward me breaking our DMZ in one spot. He convinced me that I didn’t have to worry after I went off on him but in fall I saw I was right. I quickly made peace with England so that I could turn toward Russia. I also kept communications open with Russia.
1907:

Russia’s advances were quickly stopped in the north and I was doing my best through diplomacy to get Russia to back off and to get England off my other side. Germany was worried that England was going to move in on my backside. I was worried to and luckily Russia was more than happy to help. In fall Russia and me worked out a plan to get me several builds in case England moved his fleets toward me. It worked and the stalemate was complete and we all pressed the draw button in the builds phase.

Great game everyone can’t wait to play all of you again. Sorry Austria for backstabbing you in 1901. This game really showed me how paranoid I’ve become toward my allies (especially long term ones) and how that paranoia isn’t always bad.

I hope to write mine up tonight at the latest.

Sorry my memory is so bad, and that I'm short on time, but here goes:

1901: Everyone was talking nice, of course, but to my surprise the amount of press was extremely low. Austria and Italy both seemed nice enough, but each only sent a couple sentences. Turkey sent a few more, but didn't really say more, was just more entertaining (which I always appreciate). So, I had to do something, and since Italy and Turkey both seemed like strong options for allies, and since Austria immediately wanted to DMZ Galicia, I ultimately could not resist sliding in there immediately. I had no idea Italy would attack Trieste, was a pleasant surprise! At that point, Turkey was a little nervous about attacking Italy in such a strong position, and since advancement would need to be made soon with Austria falling so quickly, the game was strongly suggesting Italy and I team up, and I often do listen to the game, especially when there is no compelling reason not to. Turkey taking Black Sea did not help his case either.

1902: Germany bounced me out of Sweden, and unbeknownst to me, this was the start of endless years of me begging England or Germany to stab the other, since Italy and I were looking very good in the southeast, the hope was to break up the other two-person alliance, the logical way of course would be to get England to help kill off England, and I have no idea why England was seemingly so scared to do so, it made so much sense (from where I sat). Anyway, these are pretty poor details, but Italy and I clicked, I'm a flexible ally and as Italy said, I was happy with all his suggestions and we did pretty much whatever we wanted, no major setbacks really.

1903: Okay, Germany heads my way, leaving himself totally exposed to England, while England virtually had a stalemate position handed to him on a silver platter, but I could not convince him to attack Germany. Sometimes the more you push, the more the person thinks you are out to get him, but oh well, I tend to give it a try. Germany made some great autumn moves, really exposed me, getting into StP and Liv while I had nobody in War/Mos, but I felt a need to build in Sev to insure we finished off Turkey and could then shift everything outward, knowing Italy and I did at least have the southeast stalemate position between the two of us.

1904: I lost Mos in the spring, of course, but would have a shot at taking it back in the fall (which I luckily did do) while Italy and I sprinted at the EG. I had been hoping EG would destroy my stupid northern fleet so I could rebuild an army, so I thought it was pretty clever that they kept me stuck with it, which looks like is to the credit of the German.

1905: There was a really long/cool convoy that got England into Pie, but Italy and I somehow managed to defend against it just fine and I again got lucky getting into position to take StP, and finally I got my northern fleet destroyed, which was fine by me.

1906+: England got upset by some moves by Germany, and was ready to eliminate Germany, finally. I was happy to comply. Germany completely freaked out and swore up and down he would help me solo. That sounded nice, but at that moment I was wishing we were playing F2F or a live game since I figured with 48 hour phases that any bitterness I could count on from the German to help me solo would be gone in a mere season or two, but it was still something that seemed interesting to pursue. We could have easily killed off the German, but that seemed pretty tedious, in my head I could already see that playing out the moment England stabbed Germany so I got bored with actually doing that, and figured I might as well take a long shot at a solo. I hated stabbing the Italian, we'd done so well together, but I knew the moment the solo came off the table I would defend Italy in this game with my own life in exchange for being such a great ally, and that rationalized going for the solo. I will often (but not always) take a shot at a solo by stabbing a long-term ally, knowing that if it doesn't work out I will do everything I can to keep them in the draw, I pretty much never eliminate a long-term ally in a game to take a four-way draw to a three-way draw, and I didn't even feel like taking the German out in here and we weren't even allies, so perhaps I am a bit too soft of a player these days. Speaking of, the thread on the forum about WACcon reminds me of at least part of the source for my reasoning. When playing with Edi Birsan on this site, I remember two things above the rest. The first is that Edi was adamant about this being a "social game". To Edi a major aspect of this game was meeting the people and hanging out with diplomacy players, he was adamant about messaging every person in every game every season, and having an aspect of that be friendly and chatty, even if he was stabbing the hell out of you, he was a class act and I can't imagine him cussing anyone out even if they were doing something he didn't approve of, something I see far too often on this site. I am not immune to play the anger card from time to time, but I try to keep it within the context of the game and hope people can see it as such at least by the end of the game, but I am clearly no Edi, I'm merely aiming for a hundreth of his class. Anyway, Edi also said he'd draw a game at any time others wanted, partly because everyone in the game would know how things really played out and he had nothing to prove to anyone outside of himself. To me, I relate this to a situation where you are at the very end of a game, trying to two-way draw, and you see the opportunity to stab your long-term ally for the solo. Once you do that, and victory is clearly yours, a victory that everyone in the game can plainly see, to actually go through with the solo, can, in some instances, be more about beating your chest and arrogantly bragging about your accomplishment, while if you agree to the two-way draw, with nothing to prove to anyone else, knowing yourself that you played an excellent game, what's the harm in going through with the draw? This is my own interpretation here, and of course I play my own way and am not trying to copy Edi or anything (as if I could, even if I wanted), but that sort of humble approach to the game is certainly one I admire and try to emulate from time to time, however unsuccessful I may be.

Okay, sorry for all that rambling, it's past midnight and my mind isn't too sharp! Thanks for the game, everyone, and I especially thank you for all the great EoG's and of course for signing up for my Invitational, look forward to playing you all again sometime!

England gave me a hard time about not destroying that northern fleet of yours when it was locked up in Bot, but at the time my reasoning was that it was better there than as a new army, I am glad to hear that it did put you out a little. Thank you.

I am also interested to hear that you thought early on I was leaving myself SO open to England. I was really conscious of this. If fact I built THREE northern fleets to try protect myself from England in case of a stab. This makes me wonder then: how should Germany ally with England AND attack Russia at the same time. What do you think I should have done to cover myself better?

Also during the game I was under the impression that you thought it was England who leaving himself so open (which to some extent he was and there was perhaps an opportunity at one stage for me.... nah... probably not. Russia was too strong).

Russia I won't delude myself that i survived due to my own skill. You were VERY generous too me. Thank you a thousand times for giving the solo a go even when the odds were not on your side. It saved me. You're a good social player as well as an evil cut throat devil incarnate (or so they tell me ;-)). Really you were generous. I mean that.

As much as I count my lucky stars that I survived, I don't expect quarter from any player. I am not an emotional player. I congratulated England on his stab. Offering Russia a chance to solo seemed like the best way of dealing with my predicament. Why fight with BOTH England and Russia when you could both fight each other. As I hoped would be the case this gave me a small chance to hang in there.
But still I think you were right to take the chance. It was the best offer on the table. But the roll of the dice went a little in my favour and I took it and ran with it the best I could.

I am interested to learn how I might have played to secure a better outcome. Later I'll post some questions to the other players about some other possibilities we might have considered. For example should Italy and I have conspired to stab our respective allies?

spyman, I think I'm getting my games mixed up a bit in here, with a quick look back, it does look like England left himself open to you, but at the same time England could have made a move on you. Perhaps that's the trick, both being a bit vulnerable, to keep you both honest?

Yes. I was vulnerable to England and he to me. They cancelled each other out. As the game progressed my vulnerability increased while his decreased. That is why I pulled my units back (this is answer to McrsAurelius question about why I did not go to Tyrolia as agreed). I was restoring the balance.
The other thing that stopped us stabbing each other is that we were both vulnerable to you (more so Germany than England). I still think that stabbing England in the early/mid game would have been a mistake. But maybe I clever player than I could have pulled it off?

typo... maybe *a cleverer player than I...

spyman, to be honest, I would have been with you 100% taking England out if you had stabbed in the mid game (as well as in the early game)... Well, unless England promised to help me solo, then I would have had to consider that! ;-)

MadMarx you always say you don't really plan ahead. That you are an instinctual player who goes with whatever you feel each turn. It works well for you. Me, I plan ahead. Or rather I get psychic visions of the future. Every time I contemplated stabbing England and helping you I had a psychic vision of all of my territories colored purple with me begging England to forgive me ;-)

This is how I was hoping things would play out. My grand strategy. I built the three fleets early on and at a time when I could *just* get away with it diplomatically (after all I was throwing everything I had at you, thus England would have no reason to suspect) - my idea being that if all went well, when time came I could build one more fleet and then turn on England, with devasting consequences for the man dressed in pink. Key to my plan was holding either Moscow or Warsaw. If that had succeeded I think I could have convinced Italy to stab Russia, while at the same time turn my forces toward England. England, who would also be fighting Italy would simply be outflanked, and with Italy attacking you (R), you would not be able to help him.

But... I couldn't hold Mos, and I couldn't take War - I might have if you had played worse or been a bit unlucky, but no you played great moves. At that stage, assuming England was rational maximizer, it made perfect sense for him to join you in attacking me. That is why I pulled back. My only regret is that I pulled back in a half-arsed fashion rather than a proper stab. And then to make things worse I allowed him to guilt trip me into not retreating to Nwy after I lost StP.. it was after that he launched his failed stab.

So you see McrsAurelius (E), my pulling back was the most rational move I could make. Putting your blind trust in another player, handing them power over whether you live or die, is terrible strategy. I know you believe that you are so honorable and loyal that you would never do that etc etc but I can't read your mind. I have to assume that you will play the best moves for you and not the best moves for me. If I had taken to Tyr like you wanted, it would have made it much harder for Russia to potentially solo, thus clearing the way for you and Russia to conspire to reduce the game to a three-way.
C'est la vie.

Well If I look back at the board, in 1903 I maybe could have moved on germnay and gain one or two sc's, giving Italy and Russia a good chance to role over to my side reducing it to a three way, but risking a solo from either Russia or Italy with me not really able to interfere adequately to prevent that. I would have gained two sc's, while I was still working on france with germnay and that would yield about the same amount of sc's.

Then in 1904 and 1905, coz i left norway, especially in autumn 05, germany could have stabbed the shit out of me gaining two sc's (NOR and BEL) having me to destroy two units. Italy would have rolled into the MAO then and I dont know if Germany would have survived that, no stalemate line available and a solo and sc hungry Russia on his ass.

In the end I got quite pissed (or pretended to be pissed, you decide ;) ), as I was the vulnerable partner in 04 and 05, in the EG, and then Germany 'secured a defensive position' and didnt move as discussed, while I was the one all open to him actually.

@MM: you said: "it does look like England left himself open to you, but at the same time England could have made a move on you." I think germnay wouldnt have survived if he attacked me, do you honestly, with Italy def first in MAO and you with all your troops on his eastern flank? And yes, if I would have stabbed at the right moment I guess I could have maybe attained a hold out position.. But I believe you also need STP for that right? How would I have ascertained that, with germany on me and behind that you to take over STP first?

@MM: "I had been hoping EG would destroy my stupid northern fleet so I could rebuild an army, so I thought it was pretty clever that they kept me stuck with it," I agree for the first couple of turns when it was of no use for you. But undeniably its presence assured you could take back STP in 1905. If it was destroyed earlier, germnay could have parked a fleet in STP, support hold with another and it would have been impossible for you to regain it, right?

In the end I believe the game was destined to end in the four way or three way with me, Italy and Russia. I stabbed to spice things up a little and as little vindication for an ally's broken word. Sometimes a perturbation of the board can deliver unsuspecting results, but instead within one year equilibrium was restored: fine with me.

I am not gonna wipe out a game long ally to reduce to a three way from four!

@Spyman: The reason I gave you the whole rant and stab, was that I felt I was the one in a vulnerable position (look at the 1905 board and see your positional advantage, you could have taken two of my sc's without me gaining one, all by your self. I was always dependent on russia) and than all of a sudden, you needed to secure a better position.. all this when we were able to punch a hole in my eyes for sure.

As a final note. Truth be told, I was pretty dissapointed at austria's and turkey's defence against IR.. I feel I could have had a decent shot at some more conquests if they would have held out one year longer. The EOG confirms my suspicions that A and T werent giving it their all, at least comm wise. That is a pity.

Well it was a good game, thanks guys for the EOG statements, I can take some good stuff out of that to learn further!

I hope I meet some of you again in future games!!

Thanks!

the austria turkey thing is most likely my fault. and as stated i never thought of the option that Italy would stab me. but it was a brilliant one

spyman, I may be an instinctual player, and I may not plan ahead precisely, but I think you are twisting how I play into something it isn't. First, I always have an idea of where I want to go, I just don't like to get locked into the exact path, exact moves, each season new moves may present themselves as more worthy than moves I would have expected to submit a mere one season earlier. Also, I pride myself in long-term alliances, so it's not like each season I throw everything in the past out the window and am looking to stab every season. I am a very loyal player, and when I find a good long-term ally, I stick with them. So, even though I play by feel and makes things up as I go along to some extent, I do that within an alliance, and one of the main things I like to do is to accommodate my ally's wishes each season and then adjust my orders around their orders to as much of an extent that makes sense, though I'll always want to chat a bit about how we can submit orders together to best benefit the team, meaning I'll put the team before myself and hope my ally does the same. SO, even though I like to wing it, I wing it in the context of advancing my team, finding long term alliances that advance both me and my allies to the end game in a very strong position, and once you are to that point, a draw or solo becomes highly probable for me, with me drawing about 3x-4x as often as I solo of late.

@Mrcs: Yeah, with Germany between us and Italy, Germany could have been eliminated by us from the mid-game on relatively easily, but again, as I think I said, perhaps it was a bit too easy and thus not worth the time, it so clearly could have been done. The German knows he could have died, and possibly should have died, and I often don't have a problem with that when the person being eliminated is not one that I worked with long-term in the game, but in here it ended up going a different way and wasn't a big deal to me. Oh, and as far as my northern fleet and getting StP back, I didn't even want StP back, I wanted you to take it with a fleet and then proceed to kill off Germany for the three-way, but this whole concept was sooo many years in the making that in the end it didn't matter, and perhaps I ultimately felt a little bad that Germany was allied with you for so long and you decided to kill him off after all that, who knows?! ;-)

"spyman, I may be an instinctual player, and I may not plan ahead precisely, but I think you are twisting how I play into something it isn't. "

I was kind of kidding (I have no doubt that you look ahead, of course). My main point is that if I had have turned on England early on you would have attacked me. It's not a matter of reducing it from four to three, I believe you would have attacked me because you would have tried to win. Naturally. And that is one reason I did not go with your plan.

My other reason is that I too wanted to win, and I didn't think that siding with Russia at the point was my best chance of winning. It might have my best chance of getting into a three draw (taking out England), but there is no way that *early* in the game trade off a long shot at a solo for a good chance at a three way. Flawed as my plan was I had a strategy (outlined in my previous post) and I chose that over turning on England early/mid game.

Sorry, didn't read the entire thread, but one thing struck me as interesting.

"Sometimes the more you push, the more the person thinks you are out to get him, but oh well, I tend to give it a try."

This happens quite often in my games too. Usually I just keep on persuading them until they succumb to my pressure. But for some people, this only makes them dislike me.

Is there a good way to solve this? The problem is that you find out you're having this problem only after having pushed for one or two seasons. How can you go back? Fall silent? Just deflect, and start about something else?

I was Turkey, and I didn't even know what the fuck happened.

I was in talks with Austria, but he was rather...inactive with his press and I didn't really know what he wanted. With him dead, and R-I surrounding me I had no chance.
Honestly I don't know what I could have done.