I still hold with what I said, but obviously as an outside party I can't say I knew who had what orders in at each point (draw, cancel...).

I understand your point of view Sarg, I understand what you were trying to do, but I just think it was the wrong way to do it. When the game ended I was angry, but it doesn't matter now.

I think you moved against England in an unrelenting fashion. You wanted to show him a lesson, but you never gave him the opportunity to show that he learned it.

And the biggest thing for me, still, is not 1910 but rather your move in 1914 from MUN-BUR as opposed to from PAR-BUR.

@jmo: That's an important point, I wish the board would keep a register/log of times and length of countries voting draw and cancel.

Regarding the Autumn 1910, you had already taken most of germany by that point, which is the ONLY reason I moved against you in the first place. Turkey correctly stabbed at that point and went on to win the game.

"Regarding the Autumn 1910, you had already taken most of germany by that point, which is the ONLY reason I moved against you in the first place. Turkey correctly stabbed at that point and went on to win the game."

@Favio: With every word you show your lack of understanding. I am glad you said the above statement. You attacked me AFTER Turkey. Yet you realise that Turkey was in a position to win the game when he stabbed me. This, more than anything else, underlines you absolute lack of judgement in this game and your absolute lack of judgement in attacking me and taking my centers despite Turkey's strong position to solo.

@sarg, when you took the North sea:

had I have support held, the only reason it died was because france moved to holland and cut support. so you can't tell me that I could have prevented all this by holding.

@Favio: I am not criticising you as a player generally but this game was definitely an off-day for you. I think that is clear not only in your misplaced aggression towards me but in your whole 'strategy' (if indeed you had one) from the onset of the game. First you place an army in Norway then you move to the Channel, antagonising France, and convoy an army to Belgium. You were all over the place, creating problems with every neighbour you had.

and yet somehow you held the line even with me attacking you...had you have not gone to the north sea, i was intending on stopping with norway. All I wanted was another fleet to hold norway with, but when you moved to the north sea, I had no choice.

"had I have support held, the only reason it died was because france moved to holland and cut support."

I don't know what you're talking about it here.

" i was intending on stopping with norway."

Why did you even think you needed to take Norway?

it was an off couple of weeks, I will admit, sarg. I had a lot of things going on that few weeks. But I still stand by most (i repeat MOST) of my moves in this game.

"Why did you even think you needed to take Norway?"

simply because you were taking all germany while still holding a line. and that you had three fleets disgustingly close to the north sea. I'll be honest, I think that would scare any England.

Ok let me attempt to explain my reasoning from 1909 to my aggression towards you in taking Norway in 1911.

In Autumn of 1908, we were both battling Germany. You were attacking him, and I was trying to get him off my land. Spring of 1909, you lose brest, but gain position on Germany. At this point I'm a little worried about Russian fleets in both the north sea and english channel, but I chose to not support hold and moved to edinburgh. it worked well enough, because in autumn of 1909, you moved everything to germany. I got rid of the germany army becuase of his disband, and I was thinking "well he just screwed germany, so I need to prepare for the possibility of him coming at me. At this point, the north sea was clear and i was just moving to NAO, NWG, and North seas, just to defend myself. Theoretically, you already have had three fleets adjacent to the north sea, so I am worried. Spring of 1910, we bounce in the north sea, I'm worried by this point because I think you are trying to keep me out of the only place I can truly defend myself, so I respond. Autumn of 1910 by moving to Barents and threatening norway and St Petes. The rest is history....

Sarg, I would still like to know why you did not move PAR-BUR and KIE-BER in 1914.

Emotion. I felt infuriated with England's ridiculous moves. I saw no light. I should have bothered though, you are right - but I just felt it futile in the face of England's aggression. I should have tried once again though and given England the opportunity, like you say, to prove that he had learnt the lesson. (Although he never showed a sign that he had, until the very last turn)

The game was lost by Russia's moves in 1913 and 1914 (especially MUN-BUR) and those moves were unrelated to England's play. Its pretty clear that Russia was upset with England and so threw the game to Turkey. I don't see any other possible explanations. Obviously, no one is blameless in the loss and jmeyersd definitely wiped me out fast, but I think Russia needs to acknowledge that he wrecked the stalemate line for no rational reason.

I didn't see Sarg's post before I posted. We have finally got the answer! Russia's lost control of emotions lost the game, although I guess he was provoked by England's agressive play.

Anyway, rematch?

1000 ?

Hundy!

You mean thousand. Hundy usually means 100

I was using hundy to indicate agreement with the 1000 buy in

gameID=71433

hundy guessed the password

hundy is the password

STOP

someone apologized in this thread

failfailfail

look at the title of the game "GUNBOAT MEANS NEVER HAVING TO SAY YOU'RE SORRY"

also, tell me if this is right:

tl;dr: in a game with no verbal communication, people missed difficult nonverbal cues at a critical juncture that led to an avoidable defeat