This one was on Facebook. I was playing France. Autumn 1904. (Unfortunately, I had to leave for nationals debate and Russia/Turkey were jackasses and ignored the pause request.) Look at Italy.

http://www.speedycomputing.net/phpdiplomacy/map.php?gameID=11564&largemap=on&turn=7

(also C/P the whole link, don't click the hyperlink)

I was seriously screwed right off the bat as Turkey once by a very trusting AI alliance. I opened to Bulgaria with a bounce in Black Sea and an army in Constantinople. Austria opens to Rumania and Albania with a move to Budapest from Vienna. Italy opens into Trieste with a fleet in the Ionian and an army in Venice. I'm thinking, "Alright! Italy and Austria are going at it, and with Russia going north rather than south, I'll get to clean up in the Balkans." Umm, no. In autumn, Rumania supports Italy into Serbia from Trieste, beating my move on it (I had arranged with Italy that they would get Greece, and I'd get Serbia, or so I thought). Meanwhile, Albania goes to Greece, and Ionian lands on Tunis. So, at the end of autumn, I've got two armies and a fleet from a strong alliance on the frontier with Bulgaria, and both Italy and Austria have 5 SCs to my 4, and Russia's interests in the south limited to keeping me out of the Black Sea. I did not last long.

Ah, the Key Lepanto. When it does work, it works well.

My favourite move, rarely deployed, is to support an enemy unit who is trying to cover a vacant SC by bouncing himself (think Hol & Ber both trying to move to Kie, then you support one of those).

@diplomat - I pulled that once on an ally, but didn't capitalize on it so we could get a laugh after he got over his initial shock.

Draugnar: An interseting move that might get your ally to trust you more.

A number of times I've begun to suspect that two players apparently neutral towards each other were actually passing information to each other. So in these instances I begin discussing strategy which with whichever of the two I'm not fighting with, only I lie about what moves I'm making so that when they try to block my moves, I've done something totally different. Obviously it's not such a common occurrence. But it's lots of fun when it does work.

Bob Genghiskhan: Other trusting alliances:
gameID=12231 Russia and Italy
gameID=12231 Austria-Hungary and Turkey (Several moves here are particularly brilliant.)

@JECE - Yeah, as long as you do it in fun and don't capitalize on it by moving in behind, it can work to solidify the alliance. And, as it happens, it ended up working out because of another move someone else pulled trying to get a jump on him. His unit ended up in a better spot to defend and he knew he could trust me not to move in behind.

Draugnar: Oh, it's more complicated if he can't move back, but I guess it worked for you anyway.

Now all my allies are gonna look at the board and wonder if I'll do the same to them.

I'm a tactical genius

JECE, I don't understand your game. I'm obviously not very experienced. Why didn't Mack Eye stab you in the back at the last minute? He could have had the solo. Or did you agree to an unbreakable alliance from the beginning?

gameID=31415

In this game I was Russia and had a strong alliance with Austria all game (until my stab at the end). In 1908 i managed to capture 6 SCs which is by far the biggest number of SCs I've ever captured in one year. I'm not sure whether this was good tactics by me or the game just happened to fall into my lap.

Also manage a convoy in 1907 from Con->Spain :P

*i was turkey

:S my bad

Time for confessions: hands up if you check threads like these to see if people worship you.

*raises hand*

I would raise my hand, if I wasn't a walking tactical blunder. I would have survived that game (svenson's) if my parents hadn't suddenly dragged me to Daylesford.

@largeham lol? you didn't miss any turns though...

I did, Spring 1908.

SynalonEtuul: We both didn't see it necessary to win and had agreed to draw from early on. The difference in points is minimal, and as for my stats, they were already entirely useless because of all the games I joined late. I could have taken the win for several turns before the draw, but felt no urge to. But no, I don't see how Italy could have stabbed at the end with any surety. For one, if Italy hadn't drawn and the phase was reaching its end I would have known Italy had no intention of drawing and taken Munich. Italy couldn't have taken more than Serbia. By 1915 we would both still have been at 17 SC's. In the following year or two, my superior numbers in the area would have captured one of Venice, Trieste, Serbia, Bulgaria, Greece and Constantinople. In the meantime I wouldn't have lost any of my territories in the West because I was well defended. Do you see something Italy could have done that I can't?

Ah I missed that. Well... you were still pretty screwed even if you did put in some moves. I had pretty much written you off at that point when France started advancing on you

True, but I like to delude myself into thinking I could have survived. :)

I was in a game where I guy had one sc left and instead of "losing" the game he just "left". Brilliant. That way he's still undefeated.

@Ebay: I understand your sarcasm. In my opinion though, I consider resigns to be worse than defeats. I kind of don't like how a resigned player that does not get replaced and ultimately gets eliminated gets a "defeated" mark instead of a "resigned". It's like they get away with it.

Ebay: Ha ha ha, that's pretty funny.

yebellz: Yet another reason to ignore those meaningless stats.