This was not my best game in any sense of the word, but I survived it, so I can't bitch too much.

1901:
Trying to figure out who to trust was tough. I got plenty of sweet sweet words from all around, but France and Russia were excellent at generating the paranoia. In the short term, I let Russia have Sweden, but England convinced me that working with him was a better deal....

so by 1902, I had Sweden, and England had Belgium. Russia claimed he was going to move south, but...

by the end of 1903 it was pretty obvious he was moving on me. England and I suggested a Triple with France, he agreed. In 1904 Turkey stabbed Russia, and it was pretty much the end for him. His diplomacy was based on trying to convince me that all his moves against me were 'misunderstandings', which just ticked me off, so I was more than happy to

By 1906 I was in contact with Turkey, and OH MY GOD, did I want to shank him by the end of the year. England feared that Turkey would be a hard nut to crack and wanted to make peace while we moved on France - while France had been more than a bit of a manipulative dork at points, he was far less annoying than Turkey - my biggest regret of this game is that I didn't convince England to stick with the plan, and agreed to stab.

1907 saw the elimination of Russia and Austria. I should have stuck by my first instincts and supported him into BUD, but I was too afraid of coming into conflict with England.

Turkey.... reminded me of my two and a half year old son. If you gave into his whining and gave him something, he immediately asked for more. Even before he stabbed in 1908 my trust in him was nonexistent, but he taught me a valuable lesson in giving into people who make irrational demands - I won't make *that* mistake again.

Primarily to piss Turkey off, but also due to fears of a solo - which France fed by kamikazing on England and leaving his centers to Turkey - I publicly posted that I was going to set up a four way, and that there was zero chance that I'd move on France. He, as Russia before him, played the misunderstood victim card, and while it worked better for him than it did for Russia (as I wasn't in any position to beat on him as much as I yearned to do), I was pretty much committed to his downfall at that point. If I had a reasonable chance to throw the game to England I would have done so just to spite him - *that's* how annoyed I was.

Nonetheless, he ended with 12 centers, so despite filling me with bile and rage, his way obviously worked for him. However good his diplomacy was, his tactical skills weren't as finely developed, and he didn't make anywhere near the progress he apparently expected in 1909.

All in all, while a frustrating game in many ways, it was a valuable learning experience - I'm primarily a player who tries to reach compromise and find ways to make mutually advantageous agreements, but that only works if the person on the other side of the table is willing to do the same. Playing Chamberlain gets you nothing but further demands, so screw that noise ;)

link? I've got too many games going and I'm guessing I got popped out of the game really quickly (a while ago), so I need to see the map to remind me. Sorry for the lame-o reply :)

found it:
gameID=35272

I'll post tonight. Gotta big meeting in a couple minutes.

I will do this probably sometime Friday. I simply don't have time until then with my problem sets. Sorry!

When the game first started I was very displeased to be playing France again because I had recently been eliminated as France in the 8008-point Shogun: Lord of the Kwanto (gameID=30463). It’s awfully difficult to pull off a Sealion and it’s just as hard to convince England to attack Germany, and attacking Italy is slow, cumbersome and taxing. I figured if I was going to survive this time I had better learn my lessons from Shogun and play accordingly. I didn’t end up winning, but I did improve my skills as France nonetheless.

In 1901, Italy, Russia, England and Germany each made an effort to be my friend. Russia started pressing hard for information about England’s moves that I simply didn’t have. It was clear that England would be coming after me once he denied me triple builds. Germany’s forces on my border were another obvious indicator of their intents. Tactically I committed to Germany, Russia and I eliminating England fairly quickly—and we would have, to our benefit—but Germany’s 1902 change of heart ruined the whole plan.

In 1902 Germany turned back from Russia, but instead of attacking England, he came after me with England. Germany was afraid that I wanted to consume all of England and then march on Germany and was very indecisive. This indecision was ultimately helpful as it provided insight into Germany’s flexibility. In response I was hoping that Russia and I could turn England and Germany on each other, but at that point Russia was caught up in all sorts of trouble in Eastern Europe. I felt helpless and rued being France. At the end of the year I was hearing all sorts of retroactive justifications from England about his stab of me and it was just annoying, especially because he had no interest in using Belgium to take Holland.

In 1903 I did my best to defend (with some tactical advice from Russia), saved all my centers and then, England started swearing that Russia was his primary target, but it was all a clever ruse. Everything was pissy bullshit at this point. I knew Italy was eventually going to turn on me because he and Turkey were cooperating, I knew Russia wasn’t going to really go anywhere because he was fighting with Germany, England, Austria AND Turkey, Austria wasn’t doing anything interesting because Italy was doing so much better, and England was lying while Germany kept changing his mind. Nobody would help me—or wanted to work with me. It was a gunboat game as far as I was concerned and England and Germany just liked each other more than they liked me. Reminded me of East Timor.

Then in 1904 England and Germany wanted me to attack Italy. Right, of course they did. Because that would have taken me two years and three extra builds to actually pull off—just, lol. It was obvious that it wasn’t in my best interests despite the fact that Italy would eventually attack me, since he had started working with Turkey. Regardless, England had vacated Picardy, and Germany was vacating Gascony and Burgundy, so I really had no other choice. Italy did build two additional fleets at the end of the year and I was barely ready for it.

From 1905-06 things were looking a lot better. England and Germany had both moved toward Russia. Unfortunately Turkey was making great progress against Russia as well and Italy and I were stalemated in battle, and I was totally unprotected against England.

Then in 1907, of course, and as I predicted, Germany and England turned on me again. England blamed me for leaving my northern front totally unprotected. Goddamn it man. I had no other choice. If Turkey hadn’t turned on Italy I would have been totally wiped out. Knowing that I was probably toast, I decided it was time to let Turkey win. Sweet, sweet revenge it would have been.

In 1908-1909, Turkey made good progress against Germany and all of a sudden Germany and England decided it was time to make friends again—so that Turkey wouldn’t win. My kamikaze strategy had worked and Germany was willing to include me in a four-way draw—only because he hated the idea of Turkey winning so much.

England, squirrely as ever, really wanted to eliminate Turkey with my help. Ha! It was exactly the same type of lie I had heard in the Shogun game where I got eliminated and I wasn’t going to fall for it again. For the record, I was perfectly willing to work toward eliminating Turkey, but I had absolutely no faith in Germany or England to fulfill their ends of the bargain, especially after England blamed me for leaving myself so undefended.

In the end, Turkey’s vote for the draw was all that I needed to be satisfied with a four-way. It would have been too dangerous for me to trust England and Germany any longer, and if I had attacked Turkey I would have taken ALL the risk and reaped few rewards.

In the end I learned how important Austria and Russia’s futures are to France. If Russia and Austria fall quickly, France is usually next.

Overall, good game, everybody.

Very interesting to see other perspectives.

1901: My primary goal was to team up with Russia to take out Austria and Turkey, in either order. After discussions with both, we decided upon Turkey first. Lepanto was in place by end of 1902.

1903: After feeling very weak compared to Austria, I took Turkey up on his offer to make peace and we stabbed Austria. Russia was good with that as well. Keep both weak while he and I grow. France moved to WME and then backed off, but my trust with him was lost, so I built another fleet.

1904: I get Trieste and Serbia and Russia gets Budapest. Turkey expects to get Greece in the fall and maybe Rumania, I can't quite remember. Instead I bounce in Greece and support Russia's Rumania into Bulgaria. Things are shaping up really well for the Italian/Russian alliance.

Except for FRANCE moving into Piedmont, Gulf of Lyon, and North Africa! So yeah I built 2 more fleets. What did you expect? I foolishly had moved Ionian to EM to get a jump on Turkey that wasn't even worth it and it doomed Tunis and doomed me. If I could just have that one unit's move back, it all would have gone differently from there. Well, maybe.

France, at that point I was still quite good with you. And was NOT working with Turkey, but rather was headed there next. Granted, I didn't have a problem with England and Germany chopping you up into pieces so that eventually when I did move west I would be moving against England and not you. Really I expected to move west to support your last few units in a stalemate line against England.

1905: Russia NMRs and dooms himself. I quickly renegotiate with Turkey because what choice do I have? I try and convince Austria that I'll support him into Budapest so that he, Turkey, and I can hold the line against the late forming western triple. Ultimately Austria doesn't trust me and doesn't move and misses a chance to be at 2 units. But hey, there was a decent chance I was just trying to trick him as well, so that's how it goes.

1906: I continue trying to get myself and Turkey in position to hold a stalemate line against the western triple. In my opinion it was going well and we could get it done. Turkey wasn't confident in it so stabbed me to make peace with the western triple.

I also tried talking England into stabbing Germany so that Turkey would feel he could expand north instead of west. Plus that might convince France to back off of me and get a piece of Germany. But no luck. He really wanted to go back after France so I kept holding my line against France knowing that eventually England would take the pressure off of me. But by then it was too late, Turkey had made his move on me.

So doomed by France and betrayed by Turkey, I did what I could to help Germany grow. What else could I do at that point?

Was a fun but irritating game. I was so close to being in a strong position and France messed it all up. Clearly I failed at diploming with him. Oh, and I heard that England and Germany backed of of France due to Russia growing. So really it was Russia's fault. Of course Russia was growing because he was working with me, so I doomed myself. Shouldn't have given Russia so good a deal that he became a big threat to E/G making them back off France.

Good game

Okay, so first of all, when I saw I got Russia, I was very unhappy. I am terrible at Russia. Absolutely terrible. I don’t know how to do it, and while I learned some from this game, I still would love some advice.
Ok, so in 1901, the first message I got from Germany was essentially “I am going to bounce you in Sweden, but since I am telling you, it is cool.” I respected him for telling me, but that didn’t mean I was going to accept it. We eventually worked toward an agreement that he would let me have Sweden as an effort to set up a move against England. This was less important than the fact that Germany had shown themselves to be a “read and react” player, which seemed like a good thing. Further, they had established this pattern of putting thoughts out on the table and then talking them out.
Turkey wanted to do a really nonconventional opening where they got Sevastopol and I got Constantinople (!). The main problem was that it put an army in Sevastopol and my fleet’s capture of Constantinople could easily be blocked by the army chilling in Bulgaria. I know that if I were Turkey I would have stabbed in this situation. Nevertheless, I appreciated the idea and found Turkey interesting to talk to.
Meanwhile, Italy went straight to “Italy-Russia alliance… who first?” talk, so I said I didn’t care, only that it happen quickly. I suggested trying to convince Austria to support their fleet to Aegean Sea in Spring 1902, as this would give us options.
England had obviously predetermined that they were going to attack me, and France wasn’t willing to say anything useful no matter how much I pried. I think I developed a sort of apathy to France’s success that came back to bite me later because they were not really open about working together yet I needed them when England and Germany started working together in earnest. Austria was very neutral to start.
I got two builds in 1901, which was great, but there was no clear 7th center in sight. Germany and France were promising to attack England, and the fleet builds were promising, but Germany did not feel completely on board. In fact, they came toward me, but luckily France’s move toward England made it possible to renegotiate peace in the North for me with me in Norway. To do so, though, I agreed to essentially cut my balls off and never be able to expand again. I think this was my second biggest mistake. I should have taken England’s concession and hit them hard. But I was too worried about the South. In the South, Turkey insisted on moving to Black Sea every single move which was ridiculously annoying and was really what caused me to be passive in the North. Further, Germany was pushing for this :If one of us talks to another about stabbing the third, we tell the other and team against the original stabber.” I should have known this was B.S…. Germany was talking about stabbing England the next year. I eventually decided to turtle up.
In 1903, I had to do something, but I had Turkey in the Black Sea and my balls cut off in the North, so I basically asked Austria for permission to go into Galicia in Spring so I could stab into Silesia and Prussia in the fall, and then I told Germany that I was going to Galicia, then once I got there, I talked to them about a “misdirection move” where we would bounce in Silesia and I would go to Prussia, which would leave me able to move on Austria in Spring so I could be more effective. It seemed as if Germany was ok after we talked about it (really a very similar situation to the Sweden thing in my mind), so that is what happened. The good news about this was that I didn’t have any real enemies and it was 1904. The bad news was that I didn’t have any real friends.
Turkey had recently flipped Italy onto Austria, which I thought forced my hand to take Budapest and then, after Turkey stabbed me to Armenia (which seemed inevitable with their insistence on being in the Black Sea) get support from Italy to Bulgaria in fall. The south looked beautiful with Italy and I in great position to take out Turkey despite my loss of Sevastopol. The problem, though was that France had inexplicably started going all out on Italy and England and Germany had that at this time when France was most exposed was the best time to attack me.
This was right when I started college, so my communication was way down, so I was already in trouble, but then I missed a turn. I don’t know how. But I did. Had I not I would have had Sevastopol back (although I would have lost Bulgaria) and been able to get a 2 on 1 in the south and probably could have even flipped the North, certainly slowed it. (Not to mention that my weakness was slef-perpetuating as it made Italy-Turkey seem like a bigger threat and thus France “more important”, which, for the record, was BS. There, I said it.)
But with the missed move, my game was essentially over. My only chance was to make a stab on England viable for Germany, so I tried my best, but it was to no avail. They clearly just didn’t want to work with me, but instead of saying that, they started making all of these clearly ridiculous rationalizations, which was really frustrating. This is by far my least favorite thing that people do. Had Germany done as I suggested, they could have been a legitimate solo threat, but they were content with the four way, clearly. Had they just said that, I would have been chill. But don’t give me this crap about how Turkey is going to attack you when the only way they will reach you is if you are attacking me and I thus cannot defend myself from Turkey. It is self-fulfilling.
Anyway, really fun game all, and I look forward to reading your comments! I hope to play with you all again!

First, I'd like to say it was a very enjoyable game. Got to play with some people I hadn't in a while and some new people, too.

I don't remember the game well enough to go turn-by-turn, but a couple things of note:

France was coming at me hard from the beginning and even tricked me into leaving the Channel open, so I don't feel too bad about not being honest with him.

My relationship with Turkey was rocky throughout (although I didn't show it as much as Germany). We went back and forth for a long time deciding between France or Turkey. France was more stable, but I thought Turkey would be too hard to crack. In the end we went with Turkey. This was a serious mistake in a game that, otherwise, I thought I did well in.

Once France was going to give Turkey the game, we decided to work with France again. I would have like to see if Turkey would have broken, but I seriously doubted it and we were all tired and busy irl, so we drew. For what it is worth, I don't think I would have stabbed France again.

I'll try to post over the next day

uclabb, just wanted to make sure you saw my post since I posted it while you were probably working on your post.

You and I were in great shape, if only France hadn't come after me. (And the NMR didn't help of course.) Ah well, another time.

I would love to hear from stratagos or abgemacht why they chose to pull out of France and come after me. I didn't quite understand that. It seemed as if you were giving up 5 easy centers for almost no reason. Had I not NMR'ed, the move to Prussia would have bounced (as the bounce was arranged), so at best you two would have got Sweden and St. Petersburg, and that was questionable at best (and pulling out of France was probably not even necessary to achieve that goal). It seems to me that had I not NMR'ed, you would have just been setting up a sweep of the board by France, Italy, and I.

uclabb - it was incredibly obvious that you were in the process of stabbing me with your "misorder" to PRU. I wasn't about to let you eat me from behind while I was trapped in France.

I don't understand. We had coordinated a bounce. I literally couldn't stab you. My prior move to Prussia was (first of all, actually a misorder, i was really in a rush during that time because of school starting) clearly not backed up by any other units and clearly was only an annoyance to slow the resolution of the West, not a stab. How could i eat you from behind with one unit that is arranged to bounce with you? It makes no sense.

Short version: I didn't believe you. I stated that I did *not* want you moving to SIL, you did *not* warn me about PRU, your very next set of moves were attacks that you lied about - c'mon, dude....

Oh, wow! What's the world coming to? Somebody lied in a game of Diplomacy?! Shocking! Positively shocking! <hehehe>

22 Aug 2010 (To: You, from Russia) - Autumn, 1903: Would you be super mad about a move to Silesia in route to Bohemia?

22 Aug 2010 (To: Russia, from you) - Autumn, 1903: It would be.... Extremely limiting for me if you did that

@Draug - I know! Who woulda thunk it!

Anyway uclabb, whether your intent was to stab me or not, I certainly took the move to PRU as an indication of one. At that point it make perfect sense to pull out of France to face the threat to the east

@uclabb, if you weren't planning on attacking Germany, then why did you move St Pete to Finland? Looked like you were planning on building a fleet in St Pete. Between that and the previous move to Prussia, you were really threatening Germany. And then you did try and take Sweden.

Frankly, I thought you were very lucky to not lose Norway at that point. If I was them I would have tried to take Norway, with a very small risk of it ending up a trade for Sweden.

I don't know. I just didn't get the whole mess up there. I just wish France had decided it was time to pay England back rather than stabbing me and wasting both his and my units.

Good game - enjoyed it.

My early strategy was to join with Russia actually copying a set of move I saw Dunecat do as Russia - basically swap Con for Bul. It would have been fun and I wouldn't have stabbed Russia, but I couldn't persuade him. OK let's try to take out Austria early. Everyone seemed enthusiastic but it didn't happen.

So I am facing a Lepanto - Italy was in EMS and Austria was in AEG and Russia wants me to leave BLA open - yeah no chance. Having said that - I enjoyed the Diplomacy immensely with Russia - a talented player I thought.

I finally persuaded Italy to attack Austria and then the gift of an NMR from Russia which allowed me to take 2 centres - which was crucial for me.

Then France comes piling into Italy and suddenly Italy and I are defending against the Triple Alliance. That allows me to strengthen a weak position in the centre.

So now an important choice - it's clear that E/G ate planning to attack France, so no I need to make my move on Italy because otherwise I am facing an unfettered Italy and a hostile Germany.

Sure enough G/E attack France - this allows me to roll up Italy.

At this stage, I think about the situation. I definitely have a problem with G - we just can't get on. My worry us that I don't have asecureline which holds against attack from the north and from the west.

This is interpreted as a bid for a solo. Well done France for stirring that up - but it really was nonsense. I had 10/11 centres - I couldn't possibly get there with a hostile G/E. But they stopped attacking France, so a 4 way draw it was. Given that France's moves had helped me with Italy - I was fine with him taking a part in the draw.

Good game - everyone - hope to see you all another time.

Sorry - a few typos - on the iPhone

Here is what I think about the whole situation again: We arranged a bounce in Finland and Silesia. If I were stabbing you, I would not have moved to Silesia and Finland. I would have tried to exploit the knowledge of two of your moves. Further, you are the one who failed to bounce in Finland as planned, not me. You made the aggressive move to Skaggerack, not me. Your initial "reason" for attacking me in your EOG was because I was getting too big, when I hadn't gained a center in 3 years. So now you switch to this BS excuse. It is cool to say "I was tired of him wasting my time by arranging bounces and tying up my units" if you want. But don't make me the bad guy and do what you complained about Turkey doing (which I didn't find, personally, although the whole Black Sea thing was a nightmare).

He said this... she said that... focus on the prize...

Uclabb - I understand that you believe your move to PRU was justified, but to me it was both an intolerable threat and proof that working with you wasn't going to work - its not an 'alliance' if you move in ways that screw me just because I'm having success.

Whether you are 'good' or 'bad' isn't really relevant - I had to pull out of France to protect myself, and I would have been an idiot to turn back around after that - why give you *another* chance to move on me when you'd already acted in a way that proved that I could not trust you?

Once you made your choice I had very few options but to ensure you were not in a position to hurt me. That mandated your elimination

Martinick - perhaps you find it to be a viable strategy not to respond to the 11 SC player who is attacking you, and keep beating on the 6 SC player. Where I come from that strategy is known as "being a chump"

Sorry for the snark, but I seriously do not comprehend players who don't get that attacks are generally perceived as a hostile act that needs to be responded to

stratagos- all I am saying is that there is no point where you were actually in danger. If you hadn't wanted me to do something, you should have just said no. You never ever did that. It is just crazy to me that a player who came out and told me right away that he was going to deny me Sweden and then we talked about it and came to agreement then was unwilling to talk to me about moves that I told him about so that we could come to an agreement about them.

Further, I followed through with every single move I said I was going to make, so it is hard for me to understand how I "mandated" your elimination. You chose to attack me (which, again, is fine), but all I am saying is that you chose that, not me. There was none of this "you made your choice" bullshit.

Uclabb - I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on this. I specifically told you not to move to SIL, and only moved there myself because I was certain you were going to betray me - not because you asked for a bounce.

I'm a pretty black and white kinda guy, so all our communications past the move to PRU from my POV were based on the assumption you would both attempt to deceive me and would take advantage of any weakness. No matter what I may have *told* you, I never had any interest in working with you past that point - with the exception of the offer to back off so you could deal with Turkey. Your response to that was to move to SKA and attempt to support England into DEN. So, yeah, not feeling I made a bad decision here.

I think you have put it well yourself - you a "black and white guy". IMHO Diplomacy can be played at a higher level than that. Some attacks are designed to eliminate the opponent, others are just to shift the balance of power. Vengefullness (if thats a word) is fine if it deters people from attacking you. After that, it's of less use. My move on you could not secure War - it was purely to improve my level of security in Austria and Italy. It did achieve that aim. You decided to respond by an all out retreat from France, partly due to France's clever play fanning the flames of an Turkey solo.

So I end up with a 4 way draw rather than a 3 way - yes it's a shame but as I said earlier France's earlier moves gave me my opportunity - so fair enough.

@uclabb My move on BLA was of a similar vein. I couldn't allow the balance of power to shift so you could just move into BLA. That's why I respected your game, because you continually pushed me not to move there, but didn't take it as such a grave insult as to declare all-out war. I wouldn't have used it to attack you, but it did become clear that it was such a running sore, it had disrupted the trust between us. The truth is that if you hadn't NMRed the game would have been completely different.

@martinck1 - In case you've forgotten, you didn't just move on WAR, you moved on pretty much any center of mine that you could reach. If you want to describe that as a war with limited aims, that's just peachy, but I find it rather hard to believe you'd be as happy about it were the shoe on the other foot - especially since your stated reason for the move was to improve your security.

@stratagos

As Curtis said - "focus on the prize".

In your position, my thinking would have been:
1. Can Turkey win? Answer: If I hold War, then he needs to take the easy 15 centres plus Spa, Por and Mar. That's why I didn't try to take War. It's my contention that the Turkish win was impossible even with a hostile France as long as:
2. Is England reliable? Answer - you seemed to have a very good alliance - no problem.
So I would have taken out France with England's assistance. The fact that some Turk was a bit annoying wouldn't have been important to me. The fact he also got a 3 way draw wouldn't have mattered, because so would I.

The fact is that we were in the end game and a few centres either way was irrelevant. As we both concluded, we see the game differently. However as Germany, I would ended with the prize of a 3-way draw and you ended with a 4-way draw.

From a purely point-or-GR-based reward system, I cannot fault your logic.

However, I do not *operate* under a purely point or GR based reward system. My primary driver can be defined as "satisfaction", and the satisfaction in 'punishing' you for your actions is much greater than any bump to my GR / points. With all due respect, expecting players to act in a way that *you* perceive as logical is an excellent way to leave yourself vulnerable to surprises.

Since you based your argument on the increased benefit of a three way compared to a four way, no matter how 'annoyed' I was with Turkey, obviously the points / GR are important to you on some level. Whether it's a big deal to you or not, it has *some* meaning, or you wouldn't bother trying to convince everyone I made an erroneous decision.

Therefore, by denying you the three way and cutting your take from the game by 33%, I achieve the satisfaction of 'punishing' you the only way that was realistically available to me at that point.

As I said - we have different views - this is where our Diplomacy got to, so best ended. At your request, I described how I would have considered the game from Germany's perspective. As Turkey, France contributed to my result, so I was happy to see him in the draw. I am not driven by GR rankings - I recently kept a 1 centre Italy in a 3 way draw because he helped me stop someone winning.

Sorry I haven't responded yet. I can make a longer writeup.

I knew italy/russia had something going, and felt squeezed, but it is easiest to start with italy and support turkey. Everything was working great until turkey swung italy against me. Then I had the austrian worst nightmare... turkey, italy, and russia hit you all at once. And with that, and a couple pity saves from germany, then I was gone.

Will give more in depth later when I get time :)

This is an example where anon worked against someone - had I known fortknox was fortknox, I would have known I could count on him, and would have tried to support him as long as possible...

martinck- I agree that my NMR was devastating and game changing. Had it not happened, we would have simply had a renegotiated alliance with my fleet destroyed, me in Sevastopol, England and Germany pushed back, and we would have been money. No hard feelings here.

fortknox- i did actually want to work with you, as I could tell you were (or at least seemed to be reliable) the only problem was that I truly do not know how to do a Russia/Austria... it is one of the big reasons I am terrible at Russia. How do you do it without eventually getting boxed out (ie losing all of the Balkans to a soft stab, and potentially more to a strong stab?)? I just don't get it. If anyone could help me learn about this, I would greatly appreciate it.

@uclabb
i find R-A's work well if austria takes all the balkans, while russia takes all of turkey.

(France here.)

For the sake of posterity, Germany, what would it have taken to get you on my side long-term against England? Was that never in the cards or was my diplomacy lacking? What felt manipulative and annoying?

Likewise, England, if I hadn't attacked you, would you have ever seriously worked with me against Germany? Or was that simply out of the question?

@Dunecat - re: Manipulation. Primarily, Belgium in 1901 - you never actually stated "I'd like BEL", but you made it impossible for me to take it, even though I explained that I'd like it very much. I would have respected you more if you would have simply said "I'd like to discuss who gets it" or "I really really want it, and here's a good reason why you should let me have it"

I wouldn't say it was never in the cards, but once Russia placed himself at the top of the kill list, it was much more important to keep in England's good graces than in yours. That's not a reflection on your diplomacy, just a pragmatic decision based on who could help me pound on Russia more.

Long term, frankly, I was hoping to solo, so I would have killed you all if I would have seen the chance ;)

@dave bishop (or whoever)- I agree. It seems to only stable split of the South in Russia in Turkey proper and Austria everywhere else. But it seems to me that everything else inevitably falls before Turkey proper, so the timing is all wrong if that makes sense. Once Austria has their stuff, they don't seem to have any incentive to work together with you any more. How do you make that not true?

Oh, and stratagos, you clearly were not playing for the solo. That is cool or whatever, but that is not how you played.

I didn't go all out, but I certainly would have taken the opportunity if I would have felt a reasonable chance of success. There is a difference between 'exploiting opportunities' and 'idiotiocally going for a solo, even if you haven't a chance in hell of success'

Note that I am *not* saying that anyone did this in this game, but I *have* seen people do it - and end up eliminated in the end for their pains

If you are referencing me not stabbing England instead of moving on you, see the whole 'not trusting you' discussion. It was going to come to blows between us no matter what happened; bringing friends to the fight just makes sense

@uclabb
When I've done the R-A I've normally done a deal where Russia take Rum initially, but returns it to AH when AH supports Russia to Const (russia has now already taken ankara), so both sides have an incentive for similar times.