EPTTL Mafia Plays: Diplomacy - Page 21
| Forum Index > TL Mafia |
|
Xatalos
Finland9675 Posts
| ||
|
mderg
Germany1740 Posts
| ||
|
Xatalos
Finland9675 Posts
 | ||
|
Alakaslam
United States17336 Posts
Oh I don't know about hapa, I mean me | ||
|
Meapak_Ziphh
United States6786 Posts
| ||
|
Xatalos
Finland9675 Posts
| ||
|
Xatalos
Finland9675 Posts
| ||
|
Alakaslam
United States17336 Posts
| ||
|
Hapahauli
United States9305 Posts
That would make 5 with MZ, right? | ||
|
Xatalos
Finland9675 Posts
| ||
|
Xatalos
Finland9675 Posts
| ||
|
Xatalos
Finland9675 Posts
| ||
|
Alakaslam
United States17336 Posts
On June 01 2014 07:24 Hapahauli wrote: I should be able to join this one. That would make 5 with MZ, right? If you used your real birthday, my neighbor's is the same as yours Happy birthday in advance | ||
|
Umasi
United States1399 Posts
Thoughts on the game~~ I'd have been a lot more willing to try to stop russia if france hadn't been so condescending. When you said something to the effect of 'Here come the Italian fleets  Tbh you can't really do anything though. You're just stuck in your current positions while Russia is totally free to take your centers.'I decided I wanted to make you lose as much as I possibly could. And in the end, I managed to get the med in a position that I could coinflip every turn to see if I could break through. And maybe I'm just sensitive to being condescended to, but the entire 'russia will stab and I am an impenetrable force' mentality was very annoying. The other thing I did notice is that russia didn't take norway for a long time, because he had the intention of keeping england alive so france+germany were committed to killing him for longer. Germany (imo) should have arranged either A: a bounce with russia in sweden so russia didn't get out of control or B: an agreement for russia to help kill england. I think england died in late 05? Which is kinda crazy given how both france and germany were committed to killing him the entire time. (Of course, ignore me because I may be awful) Also, Austria surrendering sucked :< | ||
|
Xatalos
Finland9675 Posts
It's just that... I was pretty frustrated since the situation was so clear in my head (you could never push me back - I could never push you back - Russia would win if you continued doing that - we would both win if you stopped doing that). It felt unfathomable to me, at the time, that you would choose to sacrifice yourself just to make me lose. It's my bad and I should have considered that possibility. This isn't ranked play after all and it's not like you lost anything "valuable" by doing that kind of play. | ||
|
Xatalos
Finland9675 Posts
I don't think you were ever in a position to break through though. There was one turn where I defended Munich instead of defending Spain, and you could have broken through during that turn, but luckily for me, it didn't happen. | ||
|
Hapahauli
United States9305 Posts
Russia played very well and had just about everything go according to plan in the early-game. By the time England/France realized that Russia's growth was out of control, it was too late. The solo was sealed for Russia when France failed to convince Italy to ally with the northern duo against the Russian menace. This was a pretty simple and stomp-ish game, so I'm going to go player-by-player in lieu of more detailed general game thoughts. Austria - This game was very short-lived for you, and looking at the public message boards, it is easy to see why: + Show Spoiler + AUSTRIA (Spring 1901, May 15 2014 16:35 (GMT)) How do put in orders? How do I finalize orders? I'm confused. AUSTRIA (Spring 1901, May 15 2014 18:18 (GMT)) What is this balkans everyone is talking about? AUSTRIA (Spring 1901, May 15 2014 20:16 (GMT)) everyone, finalize your moves! I'm bored. AUSTRIA (Spring 1901, May 15 2014 20:16 (GMT)) Don't kill me guys! Acting like a newbie in full view of everyone is a surefire way to get you killed. In a game where credibility is so important, you immediately signaled to everyone that you were easy to exploit and would likely be a worthless ally. Even if you're new, you need to be confident and atleast act like you know what you are doing. Else players will not hesitate to carve you up like a ham, as in this game, where everyone in the south was ready to attack you from turn 1. Turkey - This is the 3rd game in a row for you Slam that has followed much the same pattern - you launch an early attack on someone and get stabbed by everyone else around you. I initially thought your lack of early-game success was due to your paranoia, but I actually think it is because you are too rashly trusting of the first person that tells you what you want to hear. I.e. in TL 3, I (as Russia) offered you the Balkans, and you were more than willing to attack Turkey recklessly, exposing yourself to both myself and Italy. In TL 4, it seems like it played out a very similar way, with you overextending to attack Austria while Italy and Russia carved you up. You need to be more patient. Don't blindly trust your flanks. Attacking is OK, but you need to take the time to evaluate your "allies" and see if you can really trust them. For example, Russia building an army in Sevastopol in 1902 should have been a blaring siren that he was planning to attack you. After all, what the hell is he going to do with that army other than move it to Armenia? Instead, you gave up the Black Sea, and subsequently the game. England - From what I heard from other players, your early-game diplomacy/messaging with your neighbors was not nearly enough to build any level of trust with them. That was pretty much the game for you. I think you could have made a play somewhere in the mid-game warning your assailants of the Russian threat, but for whatever reason you either did not do so or it wasn't effective. Tough game, but you've gotta communicate more with your immediate neighbors. Germany - I think you fell victim to strategic short-sightedness, and a poor understanding of Germany's strengths as a nation. Firstly, Germany's main asset in this game is flexibility. A German player can make very standard moves, be friendly with everyone, and not have to reveal her hand until 1902. This allows you to grab two early builds and decide on the alliance you want to take with a ton of extra information at your disposal. By attacking England early, you threw away this advantage and made your plans very rigid. You were committed to attacking England and could not adjust to things on the other side of the board. Whereas if you took a more flexible approach, it was easy to see that attacking England would be a terrible idea given how quickly Russia was growing. I do not like that early attack on England at all. Aside from the flexibility issues I mentioned above, attacking England early is a very pro-Russian move, as it gives up Sweeden to Russia, as well as eliminating one of Russian's northern threats. If you want to attack England, you need to make sure that Russia isn't winning the south, else you're going to quickly get murdered by your eastern neighbor. That's exactly what happened this game: you attacked England without giving consideration to what was happening down south. Russia had everything go well for him, and you promptly got murdered by him when Turkey and Austria fell. One of Germany's main objectives is to slow down Russia enough so that Germany can attack Russia first and not the other way around. You want to deny Sweeden to him, keep England as his northern threat, and generally make his life miserable in the north without actually declaring war on him. France - We talked a ton on IRC, but overall I think this game went very well for you early on. You came out with a healthy amount of SC's in the early game and your natural ally in the East (Russia) wheelhoused the south. However the main flaw in your game was that you had no diplomatic influence over anyone except for your direct ally (Germany). Russia grew out of control in the early game, and you were unable to convince anyone of the threat he posed. Umasi mentioned your "condescending tone" above, and I agree with him a lot. That was also the reason you lost in TL 3, as you couldn't build trust with anyone past the early-game. Overall, you need to be far more diplomatic in your communications, and you need to pay much more attention to the rest of the globe. Never assume that things are going to plan elsewhere, or you can end up with a game like this. Italy - I think you played a solid game overall. You made a very strong early game alliance with Russia and pretty much achieved all of Italy's early-game objectives. You definitely did make a "mistake" in not turning against Russia at the end, but as you explained it here... http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/mafia/446923-tl-mafia-plays-diplomacy?page=21#414 ...I can't really fault you for such a decision as long as you were aware of its consequences. Russia - Well played yo. | ||
|
Xatalos
Finland9675 Posts
It seems like I too rigidly decide my plans early on overall. I've opened all of my games with a committed attack so far. This is also linked with the fact that my communications with those who I view as "enemies" from the start (in this game Italy since I was planning to expand either straight to Italy or England -> Italy as it turned out) are somewhat lacking... Limiting my options later on. Regarding Slam: In fact I think his and my problems are somewhat similar. Although I've never really been backstabbed, unlike Slam's unfortunate series of being backstabbed, we both seem to decide our plans too quickly and limit our options. In Slam's case it's just a bit more... extreme? | ||
|
Xatalos
Finland9675 Posts
| ||
|
Alakaslam
United States17336 Posts
I saw "dude you are paranoid" and was like "what the hell is everyone else doing then? I offered alliance to everyone and took the first taker, how is that paranoia?!?" So this game I was even more than more "come my door is open, we are allies, I am not paranoid" than even ever before. Like of course Sevastopol was a weird build, but "hey slam u paranoid" So I dunno @ I don't keep my word very well | ||
| ||
