TL Mafia Plays: Diplomacy - Page 20

On May 15 2014 07:44 Incognito wrote:


I was being a manipulative asshole? When? I wasn't trying to find out how committed you were to Germany. If you had actually cooperated with Germany against England, things would have been very different this game.

On May 16 2014 03:02 JieXian wrote:


Erm you told me to not move into the english channel and just take my 2 naturals and be careful of Germany. If i had listened to you the sealion would've failed completely (Since it was a success for me at least, by getting London or Belgium) :D

If I had listened to you in Year 1 and moved MAO and Spain and Burgundy I would've probably lost the game -- or at least it would've been a completely different one. If you weren't consciously doing that for your own benefit I don't know what to say..... Since we don't have a reason to hide anything after the game I guess you were just "going with the flow" or you forgot?

I hope the word "manipulative asshole" didn't come out wrong, I know that this is just a game about betrayal and manipulating and scheming and I was using it in a playful, non-serious way. The emoticon was there anyway

On May 16 2014 12:13 Incognito wrote:


For Spring 1901, yes, I did suggest playing passively and taking your neutrals. Getting 2 centers 1901 with France is a solid start and is actually quite normal. You have to understand that games usually don't finish this quickly. Yes, you got 6 centers this game in 1901, but usually if people are playing well, you don't want to grow too fast early on. That just paints a target on your back because everyone is interested in keeping the balance of power and not letting one country run away with the game.

You certainly did succeed in getting London/Belgium in this game, but I would say that is a result of luck. My Spring 1901 suggestions are solid moves that give you flexibility in 1902. Are they amazing blow-out-the-lights moves? No, but you don't need those types of outcomes to do well in the game. I would say that the moves you took in Fall 1902 were very risky given how England should have responded. While doing a Sealion is a legitimate move, a Sealion involves helping Germany into NTH in exchange for Belgium, not stabbing him by being greedy and going for London yourself. While you fortunately succeeded in grabbing London, you took a big risk to do so.

***

Trying to go for London actually isn't the best move 1902. I knew that Russia was going to let England into Norway. If you had supported Germany to NTH, you guys would have been fine. But going after London, while good short term, is bad planning long term because it slows down further attacks against England. You have no convoy set up to Wales for the fall, and you are unlikely to get another English center in 1902. And how does Germany feel after you go for London and fail to help him into NTH? If I were Germany, I would have thought about attacking you or at the very least, looking into an alliance with England. As I highlighted in my response on Xatalos, failing to get into NTH really puts Germany in an awkward position because future English attacks are not viable. Which gives him ever more reason to try to think about attacking you. As Germany, you don't want to be sitting on 5 centers when France is at 7. Especially when Russia was as successful as he was this game. You can't just look at it from the perspective of your success in getting 3 quick centers, you have to consider the strategic ramifications of those actions.

Your two best options for Fall 1901 were either to follow along with the plan and support Germany into NTH, or quietly take Belgium and join England in an alliance against Germany. Your ability to get 2 centers is certainly not bad, and is actually normal. I guess since this is your first game you are used to seeing Italy/Russia/France get really big really quick, but that's not how it usually happens in high level games. In a high level game, getting 3 builds 1901 paints a target on your back and could encourage people to hinder you to stop you from growing faster than they are.

The thing about going for London is that it is very risky. Since you made it in, you were fine. Its not a bad position, but certainly not great, as it gives Germany good reason to be suspicious of you/attack you, and it makes it hard for you to repair any relationship with England.

However, take a look at the other outcome. You essentially got into London because England made bad moves. England's best two options were

a) If he thinks you are going for London, he moves NTH-Lon, takes Norway with the fleet, and moves Edi->York.
b) If he thinks you are going to support Den-NTH (like the plan called for), he should have ordered NWG to support NTH, and convoy to Norway.

Lets look at option a)

If you didn't go for London, then you're in a decent position, since Germany will be in the North Sea and you can safely move to IRI and ENG.

But if you actually did go for London, you are in a horrible position. Since you both move there, its a bounce. England builds a fleet in London and its tough for you to make progress 1902. You can't convoy to Wales since York will bounce. You can't even do ENG->IRI, Brest->ENG because England can easily block the move to the channel with fleets in London and NTH. Furthermore, by ignoring the plan, Germany got screwed like he did in the actual game. Germany can't build in Kiel, so an English attack is a pretty bad deal for him at this point. Of course, since England has so many fleets, its a pretty good deal for him to offer England an alliance against you.

Option b)

If you don't go for London, Germany fails to make it into NTH, and this is the same position as option a) with you going for London. Except that diplomatically, you may still be able to save your alliance with Germany since you did indeed support him to NTH.

If you do go for London, its a similar position as the actual game. Germany gets screwed over, and has decent reason to go after you since you didn't follow the plan.

Overall, in these 4 scenarios, option a) looks better for England. So realistically, the move to London is a pretty risky play. If England defends well, you lose Germany as an ally, are still on the standard 5 1901 builds, and are looking at a double attack from England/Germany.

Just because you actually succeeded into London doesn't make it the best move. Just because you win the lottery doesn't mean it was a good idea to buy lottery tickets. In expectation, you lose money in the long run. So thats' the reason why I suggested the moves I did. They aren't blow out the lights moves, but the ensure that you have a solid position with flexibility to determine who you want to ally with.

***

So no, I was not suggesting moves to Spain/MAO/Burgundy in my own interest. They're perfectly decent moves. Moving to ENG is also good if you are certain that you can make it in. However, the move to London was rather bad, but fortunately for you England didn't defend well.

I will admit that my suggestion for Fall 1902 that you take Belgium and attack Germany instead of France was a result of self-interest though. England is certainly a long-term threat for France, and with your position in the channel, it doesn't really make much sense to ignore your strong position and turn on Germany. However, you certainly still want to make sure Germany doesn't get too strong by encouraging Russia to expand into the North. If you ignore Germany and let him get big, you have to worry about a joint attack by Germany/Italy after England is dead.

In essence, my Spring 1901 suggestions were perfectly legitimate. My suggestions that Germany was not to be trusted were also legitimate. The only thing that was questionable and could be considered "manipulative" were the Fall 1901 suggestions to instead turn on Germany. As you will notice however, I didn't really push too hard on that since Russia advocated taking out England (though he did want to slow you guys down by letting England into Norway) and I was just trying to figure out if you were truly committed to the alliance with Germany or if you had other intentions.

As for you thinking this is a game about betrayal, not really. See my first post-game response here. Betrayal will happen, but making alliances is more critical. I've seen many games where someone in an alliance will stab the other with their reason being "I thought he was going to stab me first so I had to defend myself by pre-empting the stab". Many times, the "untrustworthy ally" had no intention of stabbing (at least not at that point) and so the alliance crumbles do to sheer paranoia rather than due to actual threat.

On May 18 2014 00:57 JieXian wrote:


Ok, thanks for the long explanation and honesty. I see your POV now and agree with most of it, and would like to take back the manipulative asshole part if you would let me Of course I am aware that I was gambling and got lucky because I did list down the possibilities in Excel too haha.

Yes, I left out the alliance part, and I didn't mention it because I was focusing on telling you that " manipulative asshole" wasn't a real insult from me

Now that you've brought up paranoia, I also think that it's about trust and distrust.

The thing is if I had ditched the sealion, I'd have lost trust from Germany and Russia because we've already agreed to it (I'm not sure if you've already known that we have agreed upon a sealion). Hence despite having been sincere with me, I think I'd have been at a disadvantage had I listened to you in Year 1 Spring, and the statement about having dodged a bullet.

On May 19 2014 04:49 Xatalos wrote:
I think the current game is pretty interesting and not lopsided in any significant way. It's just too bad that Austria missed his builds :/

On May 19 2014 06:16 Alakaslam wrote:
Well

If I was moto kill I apologize.

I DID say I would rather just get Greece and not bounce there, but he insisted on a bounce

So I was like "well wwf man (whywefight)" and went to Serbia