Diplomacy is a hybrid of a turn based strategy game and a game of mafia.
7 nations must use strategy and negotiate with other nations to try and gain supply centres. Once 18 supply centres have been taken by a single nation the game is over.
How to play!
Here is a video explaining the basics of game play!
That guy has a lot of commentaries and beginner walkthroughs if you want to know more!
Once the signups are full I will host the game on the site. You will need to join the game. I will post the password in the thread.
Time:
Moves will last 24 hours for move turns and 12 hours for retreat and adjustment phases. If you can't spend at least 5 minutes at these intervals this game is not for you.
On March 24 2014 14:52 Alakaslam wrote: Any way to obs this some days
Who long does it take too
You can obs the game by looking at the build and movement orders. Much of the game is contained within Pm's though so I'm not sure how fulfilling that would be.
Each move cycle lasts 24 hours, each retreat and adjustment phase Lasts 12 hours. Combined each 'cycle' lasts 48 hours
Just make an account on the site and add it to your "Watched Games" - makes it pretty easy to check up on once or twice a day to see what's happened ^^ and you can read the public broadcasts, which is occasionally interesting.
Yeah the only way to do it would be to send a third party all pm's and keep everything under wraps until the end of the game. But that's all together too much work.
Sorry guys. For various reasons, I wanted to quit playing, so I let darthpunk take over. If he decides at any point, I'll come back and finish it. Not your guys fault, just something completely unrelated.
On March 27 2014 08:55 Umasi wrote: Sorry guys. For various reasons, I wanted to quit playing, so I let darthpunk take over. If he decides at any point, I'll come back and finish it. Not your guys fault, just something completely unrelated.
Edit: Oh right. That's how it works. Well awesome, i basically lost my first turn rofl. Insanely bad game engine, is it really so hard to program one that doesn't let you move illegally??
Edit 2: So i basically am one turn behind everyone. Well i guess that's kinda GG considering it's the first turn of the game..
On March 27 2014 15:51 raynpelikoneet wrote: Wait what the fuck is this bullshit?
Edit: Oh right. That's how it works. Well awesome, i basically lost my first turn rofl. Insanely bad game engine, is it really so hard to program one that doesn't let you move illegally??
Edit 2: So i basically am one turn behind everyone. Well i guess that's kinda GG considering it's the first turn of the game..
no it's not. you just need to negotiate even harder than before.
Hi guys, I stepped in for Artanis - if anybody wants me to not take this spot, let me know and I'll step right back out. ^^ Not gonna think too hard on the game until I get a few confirmations that people are okay with it! (Also my expectations for glorious victory aren't too high, but - shrug!)
I gave it a day before responding - if anybody else wants to play they can have it, but if you can't find anybody, I'll play. (Give it another day or so ^^ haha)
On April 10 2014 02:04 strongandbig wrote: this is a website implementation though right? how long does it actually take to play a turn?
How long it takes to play a turn largely depends on how personally involved you get in the game. The moves themselves take very little time to plan, but it's the diplomacy/messaging/communication of the game that can be very involved in certain circumstances.
I find that the early-game is generally very involved, and that messaging slowly drops off as the game goes along as players are eliminated and alliances become forged. So I'd expect to spend atleast an hour in the early-game doing everything for a turn (spread out over the course of the turn), and the time commitment slowly dropping off.
EDIT: For example, in the current TL game, I spent atleast 2-3 hours on the initial turns. 99% of the time was on messaging with other players. The early-game is very volatile, and you generally need a lot of effort early on to secure the advantage. In the past few turns, I basically log on, quickly enter my moves, and log out. Little diplomatic tact is required for the all-consuming Austria-Hungarian empire.
Hmm.. So apparently you can't communicate outside of the web client? I take it you can chat privately in the client?
I'm not sure if I understood how the convoys work. It's kind of like a movement booster while combining several troops and sacrificing their combat power?
Are the movements made "blind", at the same time with your opponents?
If there's a retreat turn (or anything besides movement), I guess some of the players just skip the turn?
On April 10 2014 21:23 Xatalos wrote: Hmm... It's too bad that I'll be AFK for like 5 hours soon. I guess there's a good chance that the game won't start before then.
When everyone joins they ask you for confirmation if i remember correctly. First phase is 24h anyways so no worries.
On April 10 2014 23:52 strongandbig wrote: is there obs for this? it seems like it would be more interesting and easier to keep up with than a mafia game
k Umasi asked me to replace him [sort of] so I'm back in (and signed up in the game) lol :0 1 more I think.
(and yeah snb, watching the moves as a nonplayer is interesting - to me, at least - but you miss out on all of the actual communication that isn't public, and have to make pretty heavy assumptions about _why_ certain moves are being made haha.)
On April 17 2014 00:22 Alakaslam wrote: I will still check in now & then but please if someone can. I will likely miss moves and will be randomizing moves
Until someone replaces you please try to make as good moves as you can.
Hey, do you need to be a TL mafia player to join? I use to play Diplomacy face-to-face with friends a couple years ago but the group broke up (not over the game ) Also, I'm new to that site, but I don't mind being a sub.
On April 17 2014 01:02 jubil wrote: Hey, do you need to be a TL mafia player to join? I use to play Diplomacy face-to-face with friends a couple years ago but the group broke up (not over the game ) Also, I'm new to that site, but I don't mind being a sub.
I dot know how o let you sub but please do
You are Austria in the second worst possible position
Yeah, this is definitely a fun game and I'd most likely be up for another. Too bad that jubil's replacement spot isn't the best, but he's still alive, I guess
Austria's a fun country. There's an insanely high chance of you dying in the first few years, but if you get through that, you generally do very well for the rest of the game.
I think it's generally the case that the center countries (Austria/Italy/Germany) have a higher chance for a solo victory / elimination... On the other hand the corner countries (England/Turkey) more rarely get eliminated, but they more rarely win a solo victory as well.
That's not quite accurate. If I were to make a "tier" list for diplomacy countries, it would go something like this:
A "Tier" - Russia, France, Germany
The "best" countries in diplomacy are Russia and France - they are border countries with access to several neutral territories, and have no huge barriers in getting to 18 centers. It's very feasible for a good player to secure an early-game advantage, and snowball the game to victory.
Germany a bit less safe than Russia/France, but arguably has more explosive potential. There are so many supply centres in striking distance of Germany's home production centres, that a good player can blitzkreig players off the board left and right.
B "Tier" - Turkey
Turkey is one of the safest countries on the board (with only two immediate neighbors and a corner fortified position) and has access to the Balkans. The reason why it's a tier below Russia/France/Germany is that it's expansion paths are fairly one dimensional, and growth is more of a slog than an explosion.
C "Tier" - England, Austria
These guys are on the lower end for vastly different reasons.
England, despite being a corner power, is surrounded by the 3 best countries in the game. England looks very attractive on paper, but very easily gets "locked out" of the continent and stuck on 4-5 supply centres for an extended amount of time. In addition, England's expansion path to 18 centres is somewhat awkward, having to either conquer the long, sprawling sea across both sides of the board, or to waste time convoying armies onto the mainland.
Austria has two major barriers to victory. The first is Austria's propensity to get wiped off the board in the opening years by greedy neighbors. If Austria survives, she'll get to 10-12 supply centres pretty easily, but quickly stalls out after that. It's just insanely hard for Austria to get to 18 centres, as Austria has a hard time fighting for the seas vs Italy/Turkey (since Austria can only build one fleet at a time), and can't reliably take northern territories with only armies.
D "Tier" - Italy
Italy just sucks =(
While Italy is the safest nation in the game, it's so hard for an italian player to find prospects for expansion. You can try to attack france, but the mediterranean is a stalemate nightmare. You can try to attack Austria, but a vindictive Austrian player can very easily ruin your life. Most Italian players favor working with Austria to attack Turkey, but even then, you can run into problems vs a Russian/Turkish alliance, and you won't get to 5 supply centres until 1903-4 at the earliest.
Tiers aside, the best player generally wins in any game. Communication and strategic skills can overcome any national disadvantage you may have. The Tier list however is pretty accurate in high-level play.
Germany and Austria are the most fun to play. Germany is safer than you might think given that Russia has no incentive to attack you early. Neither does Austria (too busy trying not to die to Russia/Turkey/Italy. As Austria, you can actually survive the early game pretty well as long as you don't try to gamble on getting 2 neutrals (which you don't really need as much as you think anyway).
Turkey is so boring you don't get to influence too much. Trouble with allying with Austria or Italy is that if they're smart they know you don't have anywhere room to expand after Russia is dead...except for going after them.
On April 29 2014 09:57 Hapahauli wrote: Austria's a fun country. There's an insanely high chance of you dying in the first few years, but if you get through that, you generally do very well for the rest of the game.
Despite my reaction to luzn horribly, HELL YES IT IS
I was role playing charlescomm by like 10 hours in or less
Nice :D The current game might also end pretty soon. We'll see.
I agree that Italy is the "weakest" country, but I don't really agree that it's the safest If any kind of stalemate lines or western/eastern alliances are born, Italy will usually die quickly. Italy might even die in the first turns if Austria for some reason decides to go for Italy rather than the Balkans. I'd say that Turkey/England are the safest (as in harder to eliminate during the game).
Btw I think England is actually quite high in the site rankings, higher than Turkey or Germany?
On April 29 2014 17:50 Xatalos wrote: Nice :D The current game might also end pretty soon. We'll see.
I agree that Italy is the "weakest" country, but I don't really agree that it's the safest If any kind of stalemate lines or western/eastern alliances are born, Italy will usually die quickly. Italy might even die in the first turns if Austria for some reason decides to go for Italy rather than the Balkans. I'd say that Turkey/England are the safest (as in harder to eliminate during the game).
Btw I think England is actually quite high in the site rankings, higher than Turkey or Germany?
Have you played Diplomacy before, Hapa?
I've been playing on and off since I was a kid. My parent's liked the game a lot, so I had the copy of the game at my house. Most of the game's I've played have been in-person though.
As far as England goes, the list I have more refers to high levels of play. England certainly has its practical advantages (i.e. being able to build 3x fleets in a turn, having control of the North Sea, etc).
Again, relative strength of certain countries matters very little unless we're talking about very high-level play.
Though Richard Sharpe (the maker of Diplomacy) was quoted once saying something to the effect of "It is impossible for Italy to win at high levels of play."
harsh haha. I'm fine with drawing with you two, but I'd appreciate if you'd walk me through how it's impossible to advance in messages :0
edit- (also, gg - though; grumble grumble, I'm a little disappointed that I spent this long fighting my way into a position where the juggernaut just lazily asks for a draw. Oh well.)
On April 30 2014 00:50 Obzy wrote: harsh haha. I'm fine with drawing with you two, but I'd appreciate if you'd walk me through how it's impossible to advance in messages :0
edit- (also, gg - though; grumble grumble, I'm a little disappointed that I spent this long fighting my way into a position where the juggernaut just lazily asks for a draw. Oh well.)
Well there are just too many stalemate lines for anyone to make progress. You're already near stale-mate germany by grabbing munich (a huge mistake for Russia to let that go last turn), and the Mediterranean is just a stalemate nightmare.
It is possible for someone to turn the game by backstabbing another person, but 3 person draws are just really stable. If one person grows too big, the other two gang up on them to cut them down to size. Then another person grows too big... etc. It's just a vicious cycle.
Oh... The game is almost over. Only France's acceptance is needed anymore (and he already gave it before).
It was overall a nice learning experience. At least I learned to understand most of the rules/tactics, openings moves etc. in Diplomacy during the game. The human factor is a bit similar to Mafia, so the basics of diplomacy wasn't *too* hard to grasp. Although I guess it's impossible to understand that part completely
Drat, I checked this thread too late to sign up, I dunno why I didn't realize people wouldn't wait for the "official" end of the last game to start a new one, lol
I guess I can just play the sub game again I suppose.
And, I thought I was doing pretty well in volume of messages, although I did stop once the position was truly hopeless, but that's insane from Russia, well done
I don't think i can improve much other than to lie more and not be so nice..
Oh and not forget my moves and pay more attention. ^^
The problem in the first game was i didn't know how the moves work (because i didn't read any guides, tutorials and shit as i just wanted to see how i do without doing so) but then Umasi and DP helped me out with that. I kinda only made one mistake which was flip-flopping around. In second game the problem was purely a decision-making-mistake and i still don't really know where and when i should have attacked you Xatalos.
I think it's often more harmful to make a weak stab than not to stab at all. I never left you an opening to cause any significant damage, and if you had just stabbed me for the sake of stabbing, it would have probably caused England to win. England pretty much roflstomped the western side of Europe and I don't think he could have been stopped by any single country alone (let alone by countries fighting with each other...). In hindsight, I should have focused my diplomatic efforts to stall England instead of weakening Germany/Italy.
On April 30 2014 20:19 Xatalos wrote: I think it's often more harmful to make a weak stab than not to stab at all. I never left you an opening to cause any significant damage, and if you had just stabbed me for the sake of stabbing, it would have probably caused England to win. England pretty much roflstomped the western side of Europe and I don't think he could have been stopped by any single country alone (let alone by countries fighting with each other...). In hindsight, I should have focused my diplomatic efforts to stall England instead of weakening Germany/Italy.
Well i needed 2 builds / turn so i could build a fleet in CON and an army to SMY. I never achieved that when it was possible to attack you. In case that would have happened at the right time (before you got enough troops and/or moved up to Scandinavia (i was hoping for that ^^)) i could have pressured you from BLA and in former Austria and i think i could have overpowered you.
The problem was i needed Italy first, at least a lot of it. Also France needed to holds but he didn't take my advice when England built the fleet in LVP (damn i even told him to take that into account).
When i got to Italy and had enough troops there it was basically too late to attack you.
On April 30 2014 21:55 Xatalos wrote: I remember in my first Mafia game as town I had like 30-40% of the game's posts....... I think that was a bit too much haha
I had that as mafia. It was definitely not too much.
It's a double-edged sword because your plans leak more easily if you talk a lot. But... It's also valuable to know what everyone else is thinking. Dunno. Mainly I just like to write walls of text :D
I'm ready for another game, since the current game is basically finished (although it'll take a couple of days until the draw can be proposed). Other interested players?
On May 10 2014 00:48 Xatalos wrote: I'm ready for another game, since the current game is basically finished (although it'll take a couple of days until the draw can be proposed). Other interested players?
Ja
I roll Austria though don't be surprised if I kind of just sit and be a jerk
Not that I wouldn't try and be nice, I just would find myself being a jerk
I can't join this time. :/ There is no way i am going to find time to do a game now. gg guys, France fooled me pretty hard early on haha! ^^
Apparently a lot of games end up in a draw in Diplomacy.
EDIT: Based on the couple of turns i played i learned another thing about "how to play" Diplomacy but not willing to share yet. I'm gonna crush you all when my work schedule eases up a bit.
Could you guys post a link to the game in this thread or smth when you start another ne so i could follow it?
Haha yeah, your starting position was pretty... unfortunate... with France wanting to attack you and Russia wanting to take Scandinavia... And then you exposed yourself for France to attack :D
Sounds interesting. Was going to say that it's too bad I didn't do that well this time around, but I guess it's more useful to analyze a game where things didn't go as planned
On May 10 2014 08:05 Hapahauli wrote: Yeah I just read that. Still no big deal though. Just gotta get on Skype and finalize our move orders for a couple of turns.
Quite annoying that they have such a limitation in private games... meh.
I'll also try to make some post-game video/writeup if anyone's interested.
On May 10 2014 03:59 raynpelikoneet wrote: I can't join this time. :/ There is no way i am going to find time to do a game now. gg guys, France fooled me pretty hard early on haha! ^^
Apparently a lot of games end up in a draw in Diplomacy.
EDIT: Based on the couple of turns i played i learned another thing about "how to play" Diplomacy but not willing to share yet. I'm gonna crush you all when my work schedule eases up a bit.
Could you guys post a link to the game in this thread or smth when you start another ne so i could follow it?
Sorry <3
I was really honest about allying with you when I was very suspicious of Germany. But then I chose to change my mind right before the deadline after assessing the paranoia situation for a long time
I'm up for another game
Edit: oh wait I'll wait for the next game, got a lot of work to do =(
On May 12 2014 22:43 Koshi wrote: So you guys played for 5 months and it is a 3-way tie?
Yea, after 5 months of intense battles and ridiculous backstabbing by everyone against everyone else. Hapa and incognito got fedup declared us equals and just decided to call it a tie. Their argument was convincing so I just agreed to gank Xatalos, (whom they've convinced me, wasn't our equal ) and be a part of the tie
On May 12 2014 22:43 Koshi wrote: So you guys played for 5 months and it is a 3-way tie?
Errr that was a pretty short game. I think it was less than 2 weeks long?
On May 13 2014 00:44 Xatalos wrote: It's too bad I was in the middle of you three :'( If I only wasn't able to be attacked from 3 directions....
Well you kinda set yourself up for that no? That's one of the dangers of allying France. You simply let France/Russia grow too big too fast, and didn't have the diplomatic influence you needed to have in the south.
Hapa: Yeah, I guess I did. I trusted Austria&Italy to remain allied and cause you enough problems so that you couldn't focus on the north (giving me the chance to claim Scandinavia without much resistance). Unfortunately, you allied with Italy instead and butchered Austria, leaving me in the middle of 3 hostile countries (and a practically defeated Turkey who wanted to somehow fight against you together). I guess I should have seen it coming since Italy never complied with my requests and overall never seemed very interested in working with Austria.
On May 13 2014 08:27 Xatalos wrote: Hapa: Yeah, I guess I did. I trusted Austria&Italy to remain allied and cause you enough problems so that you couldn't focus on the north (giving me the chance to claim Scandinavia without much resistance). Unfortunately, you allied with Italy instead and butchered Austria, leaving me in the middle of 3 hostile countries (and a practically defeated Turkey who wanted to somehow fight against you together). I guess I should have seen it coming since Italy never complied with my requests and overall never seemed very interested in working with Austria.
Yep.
I was thinking about what to write for a general overview of the game, but the game comes down to one simple thing: No one realized that Italy and I were allied until it was far too late. After carving out the south, it was simply a matter of letting the dominant power in the north (one of France/Germany/England) into the 3-way draw.
Russian strategy is pretty diverse but comes down to a couple of key objectives:
Secure the south at all costs, usually with an alliance or two.
Keep Germany weak, as he is your primary mid-game threat.
...and that's pretty much it. If you can secure those two goals, Russia will generally have a promising mid-game. And that's largely how I approached this game.
In the south, I made the decision pretty early on to try to pitch for a long-term alliance with Italy. It just offers so many positive benefits to a Russian player:
You can generally trust Italy more than your neighbors, as he does not border you.
Italy is generally happy to accept a Russian alliance, as it offers Italy the best early-mid game prospects.
It's one of the tactically strongest alliances in the game
It offers Russia so much diplomatic flexibility, as allying with Italy does not preclude you allying with another neighbor (Turkey or Austria) in the short or long term.
And more!
The first wave of diplomatic communications further strengthened my desire to ally italy - Austria's messages were rife with paranoia, and Turkey rebuffed my initial non-aggression pact offers by demanding control of Sevastopol in exchange for peace. While I eventually talked both of them down and was ultimately secured my boarders (and Rumania) by the first turn, I was pretty convinced that neither would make a good long-term ally.
Ultimately, Italy and I established a very trusting relationship and slaughtered the south with some good coordination and well-timed stabs. Turkey and Austria never realized what was going on until it was too late.
In the north, my efforts were first to prevent an English/German alliance, ultimately secured by negotiating a 3-way attack on England by myself, Germany, and France. However, Germany taking out England too quickly isn't good for me. So I slowed down German expansion by allowing England into Norway. Furthermore, France displayed some early paranoia of Germany, and was quite receptive when I approached him in Fall 1901 about a future backstab of Germany. Ultimately, France grew too big to quickly and stabbed Germany, securing me against my mid-game threat.
Ultimately, the game fizzled into a draw, as France/Italy grew too big too quickly for me to attempt a solo. I probably made a mistake in the south and coordinated too closely with Italy. For example, our 1902 double-stabs of Italy/Austria were perhaps the tactically best way to get rid of both countries, but also made Italy too big to stab later in the game.
...as for what you can do as Germany in your situation to prevent getting surrounded like in that last game...
The most obvious point is that you really mis-evaluated what was going on down south. Italy and I were allied from turn 1, and it didn't seem like you ever realized it. Even if you didn't know about our alliance, you have to spend much more time talking with Italy. Italy is a pretty natural German ally, and can take the place of Austria as a southern buffer state if Austria gets carved up. Italy really did not trust you this game (maybe Incognito can talk more about that), and it seems like you didn't do a very good job working on him.
Also, it doesn't seem like you were very aggressive/ambitious about creating anti-Russian sentiments down south. I made friends with everyone in the south pretty quickly and without resistance, and by the time you started stroking paranoia about me in 1902, it was too little too late. I was basically feeding Turkey his moves every turn, and Austria was completely blinded by the prospect of getting 3 neutrals in the balkans.
Germany NEEDS to keep Russia down to avoid getting slaughtered in the mid-game. If you want to do it effectively, you need to be very active with your diplomacy from the very beginning of the game.
Lastly, it seems like you got very complacent with France. After linking the "SeaLion" article to us, you sorta just assumed everything was going to plan. I was shocked how easy it was to convince France to stab you. Like he was openly talking to me about stabbing you as early as Fall 1901, which is a diplomatic catastrophe for you.
Yeah... I was definitely lazier in this game than in the previous game, and it showed in the results.
Even though you accused me of spreading anti-Russian sentiment, actually I did almost nothing of that kind (besides the anonymous message and the one slightly anti-Russian message to Austria&Italy). To be honest I probably helped you more than undermined your efforts (by helping you to secure Scandinavia and encouraging Austria to trust Italy and to attack Turkey).
There's no question that you deserved to win and I deserved to lose
Basically what happened this game was a combination of experience and poor communications.
Alakaslam got slaughtered early because of his paranoia, which made me (and Russia) very wary about trying to form an alliance with him.
Oatsmaster unfortunately just got screwed. He wasn't proactive early on, and a combination of a scheming Hapa/Incog and a weak Austria meant there wasn't much he could do to stop his fate. Perhaps due to his freshness to the game, he was unable to convince Russia to form the dreaded Juggernaut.
Xatalos talked too much and didn't realize information was leaking. He also seemed to have too rigid of a plan and didn't adjust to account for the alliances that were forming. He presumably proposed a Sealion to France, but a combination of miscommunication and some doubt planting squashed that attempt. I talked to France suggesting that Xatalos wanted to get everyone fighting and wasn't prepared to commit to an alliance, using the example of him proposing me an anti-French alliance and his earlier suggestions that he was going to ally England. I'm not sure exactly what went on with the miscommunication, but I talked a fair bit with France on the first couple moves, which I think messed with possible coordination with Germany (unfortunately time zone coordination may have also played a role in this). This game shows why going with 1901 Sealion moves for Germany is extremely dangerous if you can't count on France to pull through. Without the Fleet build in Kiel, it just makes it that much more awkward for Germany since Fleet Berlin is heavily anti-Russian and there is no good continuation on an English attack. On the south side, its tough to put up with an Italian stab of Austria. Not much he could have done given that I really wasn't going to ally Austria, but the moment the Sealion failed and France got 3 builds, Germany should have surveyed the damage and changed courses, as that would be the best bet to salvage a botched first year. You definitely do not want to be sandwiched by a strong Russia/France, but I don't think Xatalos saw the urgency of the situation, and so from then on it was a lost cause.
Rayn unfortunately got screwed by France :\ I wasn't in contact with him much, but I presume that the early game negotiations weren't enough to get him any strong allies.
JxN had an awesome first year. Not much to comment on here, but I think that if Germany decided to ditch the Sealion 1902 and offer England/me an alliance against France, it may have been tough for him. As it was, I was busy with Russia in the East, and Germany pretty much stopped communications with me after the Austrian stab, so it was easy pickings from there.
Hapa and I were in coordination for the entire game. I did send out feelers to all the other countries to find out whether any other alliances were feasible, but there just were none. Xatalos gave me a good first impression, but unfortunately Germany/Italy have little common interests in the beginning of the game (its a good long-term alliance though). Austria was clearly paranoid, and Turkey is a very awkward alliance for Italy. So ultimately Hapa seemed like the logical ally for the South.
I was initially undecided on whether to attack Turkey or Austria first. The good thing about Italy is that you can play pretty non-commital first year. However, after talking to Hapa, we realized that we could execute a double-stab on Austria/Turkey and fight them both simultaneously given that there was no way they could be communicating with each other. So Russia played on Austrian greed to supported Austria to Bulgaria, vacating Trieste and allowing me to stab there. The greed also lost Greece for Austria (which could have almost certainly be guaranteed), leaving him at 4 centers.
At this point, Russia is obviously anti-Turkey, and I am obviously Anti-Austrian. However, nobody knew we were both allied, so this allowed me to cooperate with Turkey (and learn/influence his moves) while Russia got information from Austria. Given that Austria just took Bulgaria, it was also highly unlikely that Turkey/Austria would catch on and join together to fight us. Tactically, there is no way Austria can recover Trieste unless Russia changes his mind and supports him. With only 4 units and nothing in Vienna, even dislodging would mean that I could simply retreat (forward!) and occupy a different Austrian center. After considering the larger situation, I convinced Hapa that it was just better to give up the ruse and stab Austria right away, as we could cut him down to 2 centers most likely, with a chance of cutting him down to 1 if we got lucky. At this point, the south is pretty much over. Austria is in shambles, and I have info on Turkeys moves, which doesn't allow for much of a defense. That probably has to be the quickest partition of the South I've ever seen in a game.
As for general tips,
a) Avoid diplomatic isolation like the plague. In this game, your goals are to a) Survive, b) Draw, c) Win in that order. You can't win unless you can secure a good position in a draw, and you can't draw if you don't survive. You are also unlikely to survive if you are diplomatically isolated. It is extremely tough to come back if you have no friends by the end of Spring 1901 (but not impossible if you play extremely well).
b) This is not like playing Mafia. If you try to play Chezinu style, you will fail. The number one objective is to establish trust with players to give you options as well as people to ask if you need help. If you make sure that people can count on you to help them when they are in need, they will be willing to help you. Austria was extremely paranoid this game and failed to give me compelling reasons to ally with him. Its not that Austria is a bad country (its actually very solid if you can get up to 5-6 centers), but that poor communications destroyed any hope of an alliance.
c) Talking too much can get you killed. Xatalos offering everyone alliances gave me fodder to suggest to France that Germany was untrustworthy. To his credit, Xatalos didn't make hard promises to everyone (which is a no-no), but you don't want to look like a mercenary. Its a small game, and everyone (should be) talking to everyone. If word comes around that you are trying to pit everyone against each other and sit back and watch, they're going to catch on and punish you for it.
d) Talking too little can get you killed. So Xatalos talked a little bit to everyone, but he didn't invest enough into making long-term relationships. While its ok to sniff out what other people are doing, you also want to make sure you are not making solely transactional alliances (designed to get 1 short-term objective). If you can invest time into making 1-2 strong alliances, they will trust you for later in the game when you need help. There's also the added benefit that they might tip you off if they heard that someone else was going to backstab you.
e) Focus on long-term alliances. Aside from the Austria/Turkey alliance and the Italy/Turkey alliance, which are very unstable and difficult to maintain, almost every 2-country alliance in the game is feasible. While certain combinations are more powerful or stable than others, your choice of who to ally shouldn't be based solely on the game board. It should primarily depend on who can be a trustworthy long-term ally. After all, tactics only matter if you can trust your allies to do them correctly. So while the map plays a role, you want to ally people, not countries. Even extremely geographically favorable alliances such as Russia/Turkey can fall apart if the relationship between the two players is tense, the gains of conquest are split inequitably, army positioning invites stabbing, or other events conspire to induce suspicion between the two players. This game was basically decided early because nobody besides Russia/me formed a long-term alliance, and England/Austria were isolated early on, with Germany/Turkey to follow shortly.
...as for what you can do as Germany in your situation to prevent getting surrounded like in that last game...
The most obvious point is that you really mis-evaluated what was going on down south. Italy and I were allied from turn 1, and it didn't seem like you ever realized it. Even if you didn't know about our alliance, you have to spend much more time talking with Italy. Italy is a pretty natural German ally, and can take the place of Austria as a southern buffer state if Austria gets carved up. Italy really did not trust you this game (maybe Incognito can talk more about that), and it seems like you didn't do a very good job working on him.
Also, it doesn't seem like you were very aggressive/ambitious about creating anti-Russian sentiments down south. I made friends with everyone in the south pretty quickly and without resistance, and by the time you started stroking paranoia about me in 1902, it was too little too late. I was basically feeding Turkey his moves every turn, and Austria was completely blinded by the prospect of getting 3 neutrals in the balkans.
Germany NEEDS to keep Russia down to avoid getting slaughtered in the mid-game. If you want to do it effectively, you need to be very active with your diplomacy from the very beginning of the game.
Lastly, it seems like you got very complacent with France. After linking the "SeaLion" article to us, you sorta just assumed everything was going to plan. I was shocked how easy it was to convince France to stab you. Like he was openly talking to me about stabbing you as early as Fall 1901, which is a diplomatic catastrophe for you.
I was initially pleasantly surprised by your well thought-out early posts, but after that you didn't seem to put too much effort into sustaining the alliance. Germany/Italy can be great if the Sealion works because France is a nice natural target if Italy has fleets to spare. The problem is that you offered too much and made yourself look like a mercenary. And when you're thinking about long-term alliances, you want to look dependable, not mercenary-like. So while I was still open to an alliance, I always had a thought in the back of my mind that maybe I couldn't trust your words. That maybe you were just talking empty words and didn't actually mean it.
Since I wasn't committed to an alliance with you, I decided to talk to France just to see what was up (and try to find out if you were telling France the same story you were telling me). I was just trying to find information and wasn't really committed to any one alliance in the North. But it just so happens that after the failed Sealion, you were pretty screwed so we decided to add France to the 3-way instead of you.
Another thing was not talking to France enough. While it seems like you two coordinated, you didn't build up trust to the same level as Russia/me. And since you didn't do that, it gave me the opportunity to talk to France myself and make sure that relationship didn't develop.
On Russia and Sweden: As I understand it, you gave Russia Sweden in exchange for a non-aggression pact, which is a questionable move. I suppose you understand that Russia/Germany can't be long-term friends. The key to Sweden though is that you use it as a bargaining chip for your interests. For Spring 1901, that primarily is ensuring that Russia doesn't move to Galicia (keeping with your theme of trying to protect Austria). Since bouncing Sweden doesn't carry any meaningful cost, you can always play the waiting game. If Russia makes moves you don't like, you just announce your intention to bounce. Furthermore, if Russia seems like he's going to get too powerful in 1901, you can still bounce.
I think you over committed in 1901 to the Sealion without considering what was going on with the rest of the board. Russia was clearly in an excellent position after Spring 1901. Neither Austria nor Turkey was attacking him, he had leverage over Norway, and chances at a stab on Turkey. You were astute enough to cry foul for a potential Juggernaut, but yet you did nothing about it. I can't overstate how good it is for Russia to have no enemies 1901 and chances at 7 builds. I would have unquestionably bounced Russia out of Sweden given the situation. This carries almost no diplomatic penalty (sure, Russia might be annoyed over Sweden, but he can't afford to punish you over it anyway) and allows you to maintain diplomatic flexibility (unlike a Sealion). As Germany, you need to keep the balance of power. You didn't do enough to stop Russia or France from expanding rapidly, even though you clearly had the tools to do it (bounce Sweeden, use your non-committal position and France's channel move to convince England to ally with you against France).
One of your strengths as Germany is that you can make non-committal moves without exposing yourself to stabs. I think you gave up this key advantage and proceeded to roll with the anti-English move when this may not have been in your best interest given the Russian/French moves. I feel like you already had your mind set on an anti-English campaign from the start even if you didn't show it in the beginning.
You should have seen the first Austria game I did. That was my intro to diplomacy.
I openly state you can assume a norm of paranoia from me, and this will not deter me from playing. If I lose I lose.
Frankly I wanted turkey dead and had no plan after that at all, I assumed Russia was going to eventually steamroll me and was preparing to give him the game as I hate watching stalemates and repeats.
I assume(d) that due to my phone, my yoda/Froglish style of speaking, and the diplomatic skill required to win as Austria put all chance of survival out of reach. I struggle to get anyone to even understand what I am trying to say, anywhere, in written communication because... because. I have no clue why it is just like folks find every way to misconstrue what I say.
Plus I think so different to begin with that all is odd
Incognito: All true. I played my first game kind of like a "'mercenary", and it worked out great, but the difference here was that people actually communicated with each other and noticed what I was doing (mostly you&France). This made both of you less trusting of me and basically eliminated my chances of securing a solid long-term ally (once Austria, my first choice of a long-term ally based on geographical positions, was quickly butchered).
Slam: I think your biggest challenges are being too greedy / secretive. By being too (obviously) greedy with your negotiations, you alienate potential allies and announce to the other players that you're aiming to grow fast and to win a solo victory. This means that you become an unstable long-term ally at best and a clear enemy for everyone at worst. Also being too secretive about your plans and moves doesn't help in making other players trust you. If you don't trust anyone at all, you can't expect anyone to trust you either. What would you think if someone offered you an alliance where the other party gained most of the benefits and you'd have no information of his short-term OR long-term plans? I doubt you would be happy to accept..
On May 13 2014 19:29 Xatalos wrote: Incognito: All true. I played my first game kind of like a "'mercenary", and it worked out great, but the difference here was that people actually communicated with each other and noticed what I was doing (mostly you&France). This made both of you less trusting of me and basically eliminated my chances of securing a solid long-term ally (once Austria, my first choice of a long-term ally based on geographical positions, was quickly butchered).
Slam: I think your biggest challenges are being too greedy / secretive. By being too (obviously) greedy with your negotiations, you alienate potential allies and announce to the other players that you're aiming to grow fast and to win a solo victory. This means that you become an unstable long-term ally at best and a clear enemy for everyone at worst. Also being too secretive about your plans and moves doesn't help in making other players trust you. If you don't trust anyone at all, you can't expect anyone to trust you either. What would you think if someone offered you an alliance where the other party gained most of the benefits and you'd have no information of his short-term OR long-term plans? I doubt you would be happy to accept..
First game I completely offered Germany/ Italy/ turkey my all.
Russia wanted alliance and those three were silent, Russia did a timed backstab as my one closest ally to whom I told everything, (yes being quite greedy as you know!- I was very worried about Germany/Italy alliance)
And people think I just decide to be unfriendly as Austria
See we can't see the old chat logs so that I find a double edged sword. But my memory tells me I said to Germany "hey wanna ally up?" He said nothing, Italy "work together yeah?" NOTHING, now I am getting worried, Germany Italy both making public chats and first message I made was Russia "u wanna fite" feeling it made no sense for Germany to spurn ally, but sure enough he did so I worked with Russia when Russia said "no, actually I would prefer you keep Germany at bay for me"
And later I was told I hadn't left any options for Russia. Xata if you look, Russia starts with one more unit than everyone else. I had been counting centers, and planning along us having exactly the same number.
After thinking along those lines and then backstab basically Stop preaching I will NOT change, because often enough people assert false intent ok? So if you say "stop being unwilling to ally, you have never been looking or a fair alliance" then I am just going to roll my eyes. Again I don't mind losing. I hold the mindset I hold because I hold it.
I think it may also have to do with the way of communication? For example, in the first game you immediately sent me a message "u wanna fite" or something. If Germany hadn't been even more threatening with his initial communications, I would have probably just focused on eliminating you from the start.
But I definitely couldn't go to war against you both, so I asked you to join me in destroying Germany. Your communications started to improve and I even had hopes of forming an alliance with you. However, you refused to give me Rumania and instead promised that I could freely take the northern areas. The problem was just that I'd have to fight in the north with my initial units, with (almost) no help from you, and I'd need to make an enemy of England/Germany/Turkey at the same time.
I think a fair plan would have been something like this: I take Rumania and Turkey's home centers. You take the Balkans, then move into Italy and France, while I move into Scandinavia/Germany. Then we'd be set for a 2-way draw or a solo victory for either of us depending on other factors. But it was definitely undoable to let you have everything in the south and have me just slowly fight by myself to possibly gain territory in the north.
The fact that you completely refused to negotiate about Rumania indicated that you had no long-term plans to ally with me and that you were just planning to use me to defeat Turkey.
Right then Turkey proposed to me that we should make a surprise attack against you and split your areas. It was a lot more lucrative than the previous plan - it would be 3v1 (Italy also wanted to attack you) instead of something like 2v4... and with immediate rewards for me (Rumania, Budapest and Vienna) instead of uncertain rewards far in the future.
All in all, I think it's hard to play as Austria and it's unfair to blame you for your lack of success when it's all too common for that to happen. But you should just remember a couple of things in the future:
1) Friendly, clear communication with your neighbors (or even everyone) 2) Focus on survival and prepare for the worst - don't expect stuff to happen as you hope, you need to *make* stuff happen through diplomacy and still have backup plans 3) Don't overextend your forces by conquering areas that you have no hope of holding with your own forces or through a completely solid alliance with someone (for example, conquering Bulgaria in the previous game)
But if that's the case, you should just say so and maybe something could be worked out (or you could be talked out of it with tactical reasons). If I have no idea that it's some sentimental reason, I'll just have to assume that it's a tactical reason...
hahahaha your analysis made me look like some crazy paranoid puppet of the 2 geniuses Not that I am one, I just dodged the Italian bullet and got lucky that Germany wasn't around during the deadline of Year 1 and took advantage of it :D
I wasn't randomly paranoid about Germany. Germany wanted us to bounce Burgundy in year 1, and while I got him to attack England with me instead, he was obviously not trustworthy (credits to hapa for telling me that obvious fact :D). After that, he was pressuring me hard to make moves against England, and I contemplated the possibility that he might sit back while we fought. Later hapa came into the picture to seal the sealion.
I convinced England that we were allies after Italy sowed even more ideas that Germany can't be trusted and changed my moves to a defensive one, like how Italy urged me to. However, after thinking for more than 30 minutes (it's my first game after all and I'm a newb), 5 minutes before the deadline, I changed my moves and committed to the sealion and screwed England over really badly after deciding that Italy was being a manipulative asshole
I dodged a bullet there.
Then, as we were planing our attack on England, I realised that we could end up not getting a single build with our current moves if England defended correctly and told Germany to change them. Since he wasn't around by the deadline I told him that I'll be changing mine to ensure I get at least one build in the north. As a result, Germany's move bounced and he basically achieved nothing and I got 2 builds, all while not being hostile with him hahahahahahahahaha
As I told Germany later on, that was what made him lose so quickly. It wasn't really due to a timezone problem since the deadline was in the afternoon for Finland that day.
After England I had a choice between backstabbing Italy and Germany, and Hapa had a convincing argument for it, telling me that there was an opening before Germany got his bases. I've got 2 builds while Germany has none. With my troops near to England, it's easier for me to stab Germany instead of Italy. Moreover, it was safe since Italy was already committed in the south.
There was some drama later on due to my noobie miscalculations and lack of communications in the South but it only lasted for one turn That first year for me was so good and so bad for Germany that even when I did anti Russian and Italian moves for one turn, it still didn't cost me the game.
So it was clear that Hapa and Incognito planned well while England got screwed over by me, and Germany didn't establish trust and got careless (busy) during that deadline.
Alakaslam. I have to tell you this: If you can't even write properly so that people can understand you, you probably end up losing every game.
Fehyttguuuufrn
Phhffiffltriggi
Swtorxxcggvjkbfh
==========Original Message================= if you want my help you're going to have to write properly...
==========Original Message================= U sez u tax Italy to German neighbor
I disbleevz u
==========Original Message=================
what? i don't understand you.
let me just say: hold on there!
==========Original Message================= Y u tell fibs
On May 14 2014 15:51 JieXian wrote: hahahaha your analysis made me look like some crazy paranoid puppet of the 2 geniuses Not that I am one, I just dodged the Italian bullet and got lucky that Germany wasn't around during the deadline of Year 1 and took advantage of it :D
I wasn't randomly paranoid about Germany. Germany wanted us to bounce Burgundy in year 1, and while I got him to attack England with me instead, he was obviously not trustworthy (credits to hapa for telling me that obvious fact :D).
LOL I forgot about that. You seemed so happy about that Burgundy DMZ when you first talked to me =P
I convinced England that we were allies after Italy sowed even more ideas that Germany can't be trusted and changed my moves to a defensive one, like how Italy urged me to. However, after thinking for more than 30 minutes (it's my first game after all and I'm a newb), 5 minutes before the deadline, I changed my moves and committed to the sealion and screwed England over really badly after deciding that Italy was being a manipulative asshole
I dodged a bullet there.
Maybe Incognito ended up doing something different, but he and I were discussing what anti-English move to suggest to you that year. I wanted you to do well, and I was actually pretty convinced that England would go and cover London based on some messages I had sent England earlier. Fortunately for all of us, he didn't =P
JieXian: I severely miscalculated with Italy. On the first day I thought we (me/Italy) were allies, while in truth he was allied with Russia, and suggested that he should move to Piedmont and threaten you from there, and apparently he used that to make you distrust me. Later on I realized that Italy's diplomacy and actions had been clearly anti-German, but it was pretty much too late at that point. He had already managed to turn you against me and committed to helping Russia instead. I should have seen it coming earlier and decided my diplomatic aims differently. Oh well.
On May 14 2014 15:51 JieXian wrote: hahahaha your analysis made me look like some crazy paranoid puppet of the 2 geniuses Not that I am one, I just dodged the Italian bullet and got lucky that Germany wasn't around during the deadline of Year 1 and took advantage of it :D
I wasn't randomly paranoid about Germany. Germany wanted us to bounce Burgundy in year 1, and while I got him to attack England with me instead, he was obviously not trustworthy (credits to hapa for telling me that obvious fact :D).
LOL I forgot about that. You seemed so happy about that Burgundy DMZ when you first talked to me =P
I convinced England that we were allies after Italy sowed even more ideas that Germany can't be trusted and changed my moves to a defensive one, like how Italy urged me to. However, after thinking for more than 30 minutes (it's my first game after all and I'm a newb), 5 minutes before the deadline, I changed my moves and committed to the sealion and screwed England over really badly after deciding that Italy was being a manipulative asshole
I dodged a bullet there.
Maybe Incognito ended up doing something different, but he and I were discussing what anti-English move to suggest to you that year. I wanted you to do well, and I was actually pretty convinced that England would go and cover London based on some messages I had sent England earlier. Fortunately for all of us, he didn't =P
hahahaha no man I wasn't happy, it was my first time and I didn't know what to make of it. So yea I appeared happier than I should have :D
And I think we'll have to hear from incognito himself
On May 14 2014 16:25 Xatalos wrote: JieXian: I severely miscalculated with Italy. On the first day I thought we (me/Italy) were allies, while in truth he was allied with Russia, and suggested that he should move to Piedmont and threaten you from there, and apparently he used that to make you distrust me. Later on I realized that Italy's diplomacy and actions had been clearly anti-German, but it was pretty much too late at that point. He had already managed to turn you against me and committed to helping Russia instead. I should have seen it coming earlier and decided my diplomatic aims differently. Oh well.
Yes, he used it to make me distrust you but it didn't work since I went along with the sealion in the end. The distrust was mainly caused by you yourself but actually both of you tried to make me fight the other guy, for obvious reasons
I'm curious - what made you distrust me then? I think all of Italy/England/Russia tried to turn you against me, but I don't think I ever did anything anti-French after we started working together
Not with your moves but way you talked to me since Day1 , I've mentioned a few things. like asking me to leave burgundy empty by bouncing it, and not offering anything in return, no planning or anything. And when I said that it's useless and we should attack England instead you started pressuring me really hard.
I guess my initial communications with you were a bit lacking since I was planning to attack you with England in the beginning. As it turned out, there were several reasons to attack England instead, so I started to focus on communicating with you instead. By "pressure hard" I assume you mean the fact that I tried to ensure you were following the Sealion moves? Russia also did the same thing towards me at least.
On May 14 2014 22:36 Xatalos wrote: I guess my initial communications with you were a bit lacking since I was planning to attack you with England in the beginning. As it turned out, there were several reasons to attack England instead, so I started to focus on communicating with you instead. By "pressure hard" I assume you mean the fact that I tried to ensure you were following the Sealion moves? Russia also did the same thing towards me at least.
Soo there you go. You were indeed planning to attack me with England. And as a result you sounded untrustworthy. You know, like how mafia sound like mafia? Your scumminess leaked through :D
I have no idea how Hapa talked to you so I cannot comment on that fairly. I guess you were completely honest and that read was probably a mistake, since after all we did end up being allies :D I guess it all started earlier when I was suspicious of you.
I'm not sure how it makes me generally untrustworthy that I was planning to attack you in the very beginning though >.> I think it's only natural to make some tentative plans at the start.
Well, it depends. I did trust you to move according to our plans after you actually *had* attacked me earlier (not just thought about attacking). It's not like someone is your eternal enemy after opposing you once...
On May 15 2014 00:09 Xatalos wrote: Well, it depends. I did trust you to move according to our plans after you actually *had* attacked me earlier (not just thought about attacking). It's not like someone is your eternal enemy after opposing you once...
hahaha of course!! I'm still chatting nicely with you after all.
On May 14 2014 15:51 JieXian wrote: I convinced England that we were allies after Italy sowed even more ideas that Germany can't be trusted and changed my moves to a defensive one, like how Italy urged me to. However, after thinking for more than 30 minutes (it's my first game after all and I'm a newb), 5 minutes before the deadline, I changed my moves and committed to the sealion and screwed England over really badly after deciding that Italy was being a manipulative asshole
I dodged a bullet there.
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 14 2014 16:25 Xatalos wrote: JieXian: I severely miscalculated with Italy. On the first day I thought we (me/Italy) were allies, while in truth he was allied with Russia, and suggested that he should move to Piedmont and threaten you from there, and apparently he used that to make you distrust me. Later on I realized that Italy's diplomacy and actions had been clearly anti-German, but it was pretty much too late at that point. He had already managed to turn you against me and committed to helping Russia instead. I should have seen it coming earlier and decided my diplomatic aims differently. Oh well.
I actually wasn't clearly anti-German. My discussions with France were merely to get a feel for the northern diplomacy situation. Germany can be extremely flexible first year, so I was just using the Piedmont talk as a discussion point for France. Its true that by sowing distrust it could compromise your alliance, but honestly there isn't anything France can do with it directly (no possible stabs as with the southern countries). I discussed it with France more to build trust with him than to actually undermine you.
I didn't really have anti-German feelings until the failed Sealion. Had France gone through with supporting you to NTH, I would still have considered joining you against France if France committed too many troops to the north. That didn't happen though, so I just went along with France and decided you were too weak to be worth keeping as an ally. I was open to allying with you until your failed Sealion. Like I said in my previous post, I really think that failing the Sealion puts you way behind. Unlike doing your standard non-committal moves, committing to a Sealion is extremely high risk, high reward play for Germany. Yes you still have 2 builds, but your builds become extremely awkward for Russia/France and leave you in a horrible position to go on England. That is what makes your negotiating position more difficult. Failing to get into NTH kills off your ability to go after England, which forces everyone else to recalculate their diplomatic strategy.
Also: I'm obviously not playing in this one, but if anyone has questions or wants to bounce ideas/talk strategy, let me know and I'm available. I think it would be nice if we could build up a solid group of experienced players so that games are not as brutally lopsided like the last one.
On May 14 2014 15:51 JieXian wrote: I convinced England that we were allies after Italy sowed even more ideas that Germany can't be trusted and changed my moves to a defensive one, like how Italy urged me to. However, after thinking for more than 30 minutes (it's my first game after all and I'm a newb), 5 minutes before the deadline, I changed my moves and committed to the sealion and screwed England over really badly after deciding that Italy was being a manipulative asshole
I dodged a bullet there.
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.
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 14 2014 15:51 JieXian wrote: I convinced England that we were allies after Italy sowed even more ideas that Germany can't be trusted and changed my moves to a defensive one, like how Italy urged me to. However, after thinking for more than 30 minutes (it's my first game after all and I'm a newb), 5 minutes before the deadline, I changed my moves and committed to the sealion and screwed England over really badly after deciding that Italy was being a manipulative asshole
I dodged a bullet there.
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.
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
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 14 2014 15:51 JieXian wrote: I convinced England that we were allies after Italy sowed even more ideas that Germany can't be trusted and changed my moves to a defensive one, like how Italy urged me to. However, after thinking for more than 30 minutes (it's my first game after all and I'm a newb), 5 minutes before the deadline, I changed my moves and committed to the sealion and screwed England over really badly after deciding that Italy was being a manipulative asshole
I dodged a bullet there.
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.
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
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.
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 14 2014 15:51 JieXian wrote: I convinced England that we were allies after Italy sowed even more ideas that Germany can't be trusted and changed my moves to a defensive one, like how Italy urged me to. However, after thinking for more than 30 minutes (it's my first game after all and I'm a newb), 5 minutes before the deadline, I changed my moves and committed to the sealion and screwed England over really badly after deciding that Italy was being a manipulative asshole
I dodged a bullet there.
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.
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
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.
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.
Heh fair enough. Understandably the diplomatic situation influences which moves would be good/bad, so its perfectly fine to accept an English attack vs a more passive opening.
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 :/
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)
I admit that I may have sounded a bit arrogant in our (early/midgame) conversations. I would have most likely had more success in the game if I had built better relations with you from the start and focused on convincing you to team up against Russia.
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.
"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."
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.
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.
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?
About DP - I don't know if he ever communicated after being attacked by me and Germany? At least I didn't receive any messages and neither did Germany (I think). Maybe he messaged something to Russia? Not sure.
See I think hapa is more right than the ppl last time
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"
Slam, the first thing you did was tell me you were watching your borders for a lepanto. Although this did have the upside of making me not want to lepanto, it had the downside of me ever considering working with you, and me immediately trying to find allies against you. Although italy can't really ally with turkey anyway for any sustained period of time, it's that sort of thing that you could work on. Being immediately hostile made me immediately hostile, kinda thing. At least, from my perspective.
Although admittedly I have less than zero idea how to play Italy, other than 'Italy-Russia is the second best alliance in the game, and helping a juggernaut kill austria is suicide', so I likely would have been hostile to you anyway.
I understand some alliances don't usually work; I completely spurned i's offer of alliance against Russia- a move I regret. I think our alliance would have been tighter than usual.
Maybe it's also a matter of.... perspective? Like for example it should be quite concerning that Russia built an army in Sevastopol. Yet that didn't make you hesitate to completely expose yourself to a backstab. But on the other hand, you were (at least partly) very against me taking Rumania as Russia because I could "attack you from there" (which isn't even *really* the case since the fleet couldn't move further than that). So maybe it's kind of a mix of being too trusting & paranoid?
Okay, that game was a bit... Unusual, in various ways :D Several events somewhat harmed the game's integrity, such as DP's ragequit, Chezinu's unpredictable actions and Oatsmaster's AFK'ing. However, there are no absolute rules in Diplomacy and in fact all of these things should be just prepared for and properly dealt with by the other players. There are no modkills or bans either, just self-moderation by the players. With that in mind, none of those things can really be judged as objectively "bad".
There were also a couple of ill-timed stabs, such as mderg's stab of DP and my stab of Slam. Those were most likely both mistakes that gave away our momentums and chances of soloing in the long run. And so the game ended with a bit of a lame result that might still be better than a long stalemated battle, anyway
I'd like to ask for opinions about a second game. I'm willing to host, play, coach, whatever, depending on the circumstances. We could possibly launch another PM campaign or even host a public game with partly TL players, although that might be unfair for the non-TL players. So, opinions?
(Although I said there are no bans, you can PM me if you don't want to play with a specific player in another game. If there are 2+ such requests and there's a valid reason, I'll heavily consider limiting the access, although frankly it might not be the best thing when the potential pool of players is already quite small.)
On January 29 2015 18:22 mderg wrote: I don't really have the time to play for the next week or so. If the new game starts after that, I'm definitely in.
When exactly would you be able to play? Remember that the first day is extra long anyway.
I guess we're still looking for one more if it's a long time
On January 29 2015 18:22 mderg wrote: I don't really have the time to play for the next week or so. If the new game starts after that, I'm definitely in.
When exactly would you be able to play? Remember that the first day is extra long anyway.
I guess we're still looking for one more if it's a long time
Well, that's long enough that if someone else wants to join instead, they can Not going to actively search for new players though, I guess. Let me know when you can play. Or if there's another player, we can start right away.
Before Risk, before Dungeons & Dragons, before Magic: The Gathering, there was Diplomacy. One writer enters international competition to play the world-conquering game that redefines what it means to be a geek (and a person).
“Don’t you realize that some of us traveled a very long distance to win this tournament?” a player from France said to me with disgust. “And because you won’t stab2 this guy, you’re going to die and bring all of us down with you.”
“Are you going to be paid for writing this story?” a Scottish player asked me. “Because I am losing three days’ wages to be here so that I can get screwed by you.”
"It looked like Diplomacy wasn’t long for this world. Until the nerds saved it."
""I hated Brian, the other players all hated me, and I hated myself most of all.
Screw that, fill your own games. If you have a 3 way like that and I'm calling it, and the game is UNRANKED, accept a draw or state your intent plainly so I/we can surrender. If you are gonna waste my time like that, go meet in a basement somewhere, I hear face to face is more fun and it's easier to travel when you have no life/responsibilities.
Yes, Italy usually can't face down France like that, and it's a rare and interesting occurrence. But 1: Aust should have stabbed, or made clear the alliance early (friendly game? Think about it. Ranked I can totally understand what went down.)
2: Italy could have been offered a Lepanto
What especially bothered me was J acting like a good ally, when he was purely using Italy to stall me, but not conquer me. Italy could have guessed this when the army in Tunis lies dormant so long, why not convoy it to Turkey so she can break the stalemate?
But when you have AFK and newness happening anything goes, and I guess a bastard game is a bastard game. It couldn't be broken by either side the way things went and only Russia working with the south would break the north. He did not say that was happening until it was obviously the way to go.
At that point Austria could have stabbed or helped Italy break the stale. But seeing that by then I had enough fleets that that army was needed, it was staying.
Failed orders also suck though, both support both to place? Really playdiplo.com?
On February 23 2015 10:57 sicklucker wrote: salty?
Go read the shout box, check out the orders, and I can explain what was said and what I said to some extent.
Saltiness is kind of inappropriate here; I would say indignant. I don't appreciate communicating more than mafia to accomplish less than a shred of what is accomplished in mafia. What Eden did was really bad for Hapaderg & I, so I avoid doing that sort of thing (outing)
This means I stuck with a game I knew I had no chance of advancing for the sake of another player.
Against a player who was in it for (why?) with a dishonest ally who was hell bent on solo.
This while I was (and am!) working on one of my companies largest accounts in my area. No.
When I hint that things are pointless, and that I may need out, it's time to be straightforward. I don't play ranked games for a reason.
Salty would be if I had gone down fighting and raged about untrue things, I don't think I have any illegitimate grievances here.
On February 23 2015 10:57 sicklucker wrote: salty?
Go read the shout box, check out the orders, and I can explain what was said and what I said to some extent.
Saltiness is kind of inappropriate here; I would say indignant. I don't appreciate communicating more than mafia to accomplish less than a shred of what is accomplished in mafia. What Eden did was really bad for Hapaderg & I, so I avoid doing that sort of thing (outing)
This means I stuck with a game I knew I had no chance of advancing for the sake of another player.
Against a player who was in it for (why?) with a dishonest ally who was hell bent on solo.
This while I was (and am!) working on one of my companies largest accounts in my area. No.
When I hint that things are pointless, and that I may need out, it's time to be straightforward. I don't play ranked games for a reason.
Salty would be if I had gone down fighting and raged about untrue things, I don't think I have any illegitimate grievances here.
Yeah I apologize for dropping out of the game. It had been a while since I played and I belatedly realized I didn't have anywhere near the time available to play it like I'm capable of playing. I stuck it out 'til I knew I was a goner and then figured the least interfering way to go out was the best one.
The NMR by Germany and surrender by France (and Hapa) were unfortunate, but otherwise it was a nice game. Turkey fought well until his demise, much better than could have been expected based on his first moves, so I don't think there's much to complain about that.
Unfortunately it looks like each game of Diplomacy results in casualties (of play motivation) Are there many players left willing to play another game? Personally I was considering a break or perhaps a ranked game (weirdly enough it can be more relaxing when there's less guilt about being more merciless, haha...). Maybe I could play another game though.
It's never my intention to make other players hate playing :/
I think I just don't look at the game the same, because I was never looking at it as if I had to beat everyone else to win, which probably made it harder to understand my play.
maybe you enjoyed the game because you made it to the 3 way? hahaha
I'm in if there are enough people.
Slam, we didn't stab each other because we were allies from the beginning.
On February 23 2015 21:34 Xatalos wrote: The NMR by Germany and surrender by France (and Hapa) were unfortunate, but otherwise it was a nice game. Turkey fought well until his demise, much better than could have been expected based on his first moves, so I don't think there's much to complain about that.
Unfortunately it looks like each game of Diplomacy results in casualties (of play motivation) Are there many players left willing to play another game? Personally I was considering a break or perhaps a ranked game (weirdly enough it can be more relaxing when there's less guilt about being more merciless, haha...). Maybe I could play another game though.
In Hapa's absence(?), I'll try making some sort of a post-game analysis of the game. Rather than looking at the big picture, I'll look at the players separately.
1) Turkey
Unfortunately, your elimination was already assured after the first turn was over. The reasons are very clear: isolation and lack of effort. As far as I know, the only one you communicated with was me and even those communications were very lacking. Worse, they showcased that you didn't intend to put much effort into the game:
"I shall go west and be your friend"
"since im newb what do you think of my orders? im not even sure If there legal.
cons >> bulgaria fleet >>aegean sea snyra >> greece via fleet on aegean sea"
"I submitted yestererday. Didnt log in today 2 bizzy gettin lynched. Dont know how to change my orders so pointless to strategize"
It's unfortunate, but there's no way anyone would entrust their future success to an ally with limited willingness to communicate and/or to think about their own moves. The only possible result here was your quick elimination. If you play another game, I'd suggest that you would learn about the basic rules of the game as well as put some effort into your communications. Those two changes alone would have made your position infinitely better in this game.
2) Germany
You clearly had some experience with Diplomacy and, to be fair, you might have had more success if you didn't NMR just when Hapa was hesitating between attacking you or me. However, Hapa wouldn't probably have even considered attacking you at that point if you hadn't already driven yourself into a corner diplomatically - by antagonizing all of France, England, Russia and Austria through your communications (England), actions (Russia) or lack of trust-establishing level of communications (France, Austria). Having all of your neighbors as enemies or at least willing invaders as Germany is a pretty tough position.
What I'd suggest would be appearing more trustworthy in your communications (not telling blatantly different stories to everyone) and looking more closely at the bigger picture. Looking at what was happening in the east (Turkey being crushed, Italy/France fighting) it was pretty clear that I'd be coming for you next and France would be of no help to you. That being the case, England was surely the best possible ally you could hope for.
You did actually suggest an alliance to England at that point, but three different factors caused it to be useless. 1) England could no longer trust your motivations and was already preparing to attack you sooner or later 2) the fleet build was easy to see as anti-English, which certainly didn't help the already tense diplomatic situation 3) being offline for the critical turn where England had to decide between going after you or me was certainly some very bad luck. All in all, several unfortunate factors caused your swift elimination, but most of them were avoidable and you might have even survived all the way to a draw with slightly improved play.
3) France
Slam, I don't think communicating with other players is really a problem for you at the moment. You certainly have the ability to communicate in such a way that people would want to ally with you on a subjective level (even Italy felt bad about attacking you and I felt bad about letting you get cornered as well). However, I think your tactical ability (army/fleet movements) and strategical ability (long-term planning of diplomacy and tactics) need quite a bit of work. In the two previous games you've made such a series of tactical blunders that for you to be considered a reliable ally, something needs to happen. A simple tip: try thinking of possible moves from your opponent's perspective and keep those in mind while making your own moves. In addition, it's good to constantly look at how the whole board develops and how you could possibly direct events in ways that would be favorable for yourself. Here are some good videos for learning: https://www.youtube.com/user/Triumvir412/videos
In regards to this last game, I think you actually did somewhat decently until your surrender. You could have pretty likely stalemated Italy/Austria for a lot longer and forced the game into a 5-way draw if you didn't make any significant tactical mistakes. However, apparently you had IRL issues and couldn't bother with the game anymore. That's too bad. Up until that point I think this was your best game so far, so there's that at least.
4) England
I discussed with Hapa quite a bit after he left the game and he felt frustrated with his own performance, but I don't think it was too bad. The first year certainly was bit of a mess for you, but by the time the second year started you were already recovering pretty well. Your attempts to break the alliance between me and Austria (and Italy) weren't the greatest, but I guess they were worth the try. I think it's decently likely you could have survived to a 5-way draw if you didn't have to suddenly leave the game - as long as you could have controlled Slam's actions well enough. If we're looking for areas of improvement, then I don't think there's too much to improve... But I guess the things you already said yourself could use some work.
As for Mderg, unfortunately it didn't go so great. I think you failed pretty severely in your communications with Slam and possibly even partly caused his ragequit... Although it's hard to say. In any case, I think you should have put all your efforts into solidifying Slam as your ally and having as much control over his movements as possible. Instead, you refused his offer to be your puppet and unnecessarily antagonized him (or that's my impression of how it went, anyway). After that there really wasn't all that much you could have done anymore.
5) Italy
Well, you're one of the winners, so it's hard to criticize your play too much. It worked, after all. Generally speaking, though, it's not a very good idea to immediately attack France. It's very difficult to gain any centers that way and you're very vulnerable to an Austrian stab. In the end, it all worked out, so there's not much more to say about it.
6) Austria
I think you pretty much did everything right and had everything go well for you throughout the game. Italy attacking France, me attacking Turkey, Germany not even considering attacking you - it's hard to ask for more as Austria and you played your own part in making it all happen. You might have even been able to solo the game after Hapa left and I&Italy were somewhat vulnerable, but it would have certainly also been risky, so it's hard to blame you for sticking with our alliance and sealing the 3-way draw instead. Well played.
7) Russia
I played very conservatively and mostly aimed to eliminate Hapa after his initial anti-Russia campaign. Unfortunately, Hapa left the game halfway through, but we still managed to eliminate England anyway. I think my play was decent and there weren't many big errors (although maybe objectively looking the anti-England stance was a bit too much), but I feel like I blundered a couple of times (mainly by threatening Germany after he bounced Sweden and driving him to hastily ally himself with England, and by becoming too lazy with my communications towards France and Italy as the game progressed). In the end, a 3-way draw is still a 3-way draw and Hapa's legacy got destroyed. Hurrah
On February 24 2015 00:17 rsoultin wrote: I actually enjoyed the game?
It's never my intention to make other players hate playing :/
I think I just don't look at the game the same, because I was never looking at it as if I had to beat everyone else to win, which probably made it harder to understand my play.
Was one of the first to offer a 5 way.
How I see Diplo is observing change and manouver. Lose that and you've lost me.
I don't mind losing straight up, I do kind of mind backstabs, I really really don't like stalemates that go unresolved.
I reiterate, had jiex let you buff up I'd be much less put out.
On February 23 2015 21:34 Xatalos wrote: The NMR by Germany and surrender by France (and Hapa) were unfortunate, but otherwise it was a nice game. Turkey fought well until his demise, much better than could have been expected based on his first moves, so I don't think there's much to complain about that.
Unfortunately it looks like each game of Diplomacy results in casualties (of play motivation) Are there many players left willing to play another game? Personally I was considering a break or perhaps a ranked game (weirdly enough it can be more relaxing when there's less guilt about being more merciless, haha...). Maybe I could play another game though.
^^ lol, yeeeeaaah I know that I didn't play that game to win it, Xata, and the attack on France was highly irregular.
I just have a good feel for who to trust and who not to trust. To be fair, although I was vulnerable to Austria pretty much the entire game, lack of my interference in Turkey strengthened him, so at that time it benefitted him to leave me be. Keeping France locked up in the Mediterranean so he had to defend himself and couldn't devote all his resources to the fighting going on in Germany also heavily favored Austria. Essentially, I made it more valuable for him to keep me as an ally than to stab me, and my sheer number of fleets would have made it hard late game to turn on me had we decided to continue playing
There was actually a method to the madness. What do you know?
Also, Hapa...dude, if you're gonna tell people different stories, then expect me to believe you, that's just amusing. Maybe Germany was worse about it than you were, but I generally don't give people who I know are bullshitting me the time of day. Also, you could do without the condescension some
Nope, I told mderg to take my centers quickly and beef up.
He didn't understand why I would offer that, and I said "enough, I will force you to, now you will have to fight Italy though"
Like if he had said, "ok. Holland will go for Other stuff, but I will convoy into Belgium and within a few turns I will be at Paris/Marsailles/using fleets for Brest and bringing them around to replace your fleets when I take spain/port", I would have submitted turns.
Submitting orders doesn't take any time, it's thinking of what to do and trying to read possibilities that takes time.
@hapa, Rsoultin is not M2K, she is more like Mango. If I had always done exactly what was Ideal, we would have perpetually stalemated except the fail order. That was so embarrassingly bad I tried to act like it was intentional to "let rsoul through to England" via spain- something that could never have worked.
they (m2k and mango) are professional gamers who are/were the best in their game.
Well slam you do realise that while you're accusing me of manipulating Italy, she made it to the 3 way draw without a having a single base taken by me?
What she said was true, she did make herself indispensable after you declared your anti Austrian sentiments publicly. As for the earlier part of the game, I didn't want to stab her after seeing the most Austrian trusting opening I can think of.
Most of all, while you claim unfair treatment toward Italy, you do notice that Italy herself is satisfied with the outcome and is in no way complaining right?
This is like accusing me of robbing the Bank of Rsoul when Bank of Rsoul has not reported any robbery, the bank owner is happy about the profits of the financial year and I don't have any sacks or stolen gold, cash or bases in my house or bank account.
Moreover, to complete this analogy I actually played a part the profitable financial year of the Bank of Rsoul.
On February 24 2015 02:57 JieXian wrote: they (m2k and mango) are professional gamers who are/were the best in their game.
Well slam you do realise that while you're accusing me of manipulating Italy, she made it to the 3 way draw without a having a single base taken by me?
What she said was true, she did make herself indispensable after you declared your anti Austrian sentiments publicly. As for the earlier part of the game, I didn't want to stab her after seeing the most Austrian trusting opening I can think of.
Most of all, while you claim unfair treatment toward Italy, you do notice that Italy herself is satisfied with the outcome and is in no way complaining right?
This is like accusing me of robbing the Bank of Rsoul when Bank of Rsoul has not reported any robbery, the bank owner is happy about the profits of the financial year and I don't have any sacks or stolen gold, cash or bases in my house or bank account.
Moreover, to complete this analogy I actually played a part the profitable financial year of the Bank of Rsoul.
On February 24 2015 02:43 rsoultin wrote: ^^ lol, yeeeeaaah I know that I didn't play that game to win it, Xata, and the attack on France was highly irregular.
I just have a good feel for who to trust and who not to trust. To be fair, although I was vulnerable to Austria pretty much the entire game, lack of my interference in Turkey strengthened him, so at that time it benefitted him to leave me be. Keeping France locked up in the Mediterranean so he had to defend himself and couldn't devote all his resources to the fighting going on in Germany also heavily favored Austria. Essentially, I made it more valuable for him to keep me as an ally than to stab me, and my sheer number of fleets would have made it hard late game to turn on me had we decided to continue playing
There was actually a method to the madness. What do you know?
Also, Hapa...dude, if you're gonna tell people different stories, then expect me to believe you, that's just amusing. Maybe Germany was worse about it than you were, but I generally don't give people who I know are bullshitting me the time of day. Also, you could do without the condescension some
Yeah, it was pretty hard to believe Hapa's suggestions when he made different ones to every one of us (me/Austria/Italy/Germany).
I like you xP But I also like Slam. Stop antagonizing each other. Btw Slam, offer still stands...you and me against Jie next game And anyone else in the game can just pick sides or get eaten lol ^^
I'm fully aware I subordinated myself this game and I think that's what Slam is alluding to. I don't see Italy as being a strong country that can solo really except under very specific conditions. Just chose my side early.
On February 24 2015 02:43 Alakaslam wrote: Nope, I told mderg to take my centers quickly and beef up.
He didn't understand why I would offer that, and I said "enough, I will force you to, now you will have to fight Italy though"
Like if he had said, "ok. Holland will go for Other stuff, but I will convoy into Belgium and within a few turns I will be at Paris/Marsailles/using fleets for Brest and bringing them around to replace your fleets when I take spain/port", I would have submitted turns.
Submitting orders doesn't take any time, it's thinking of what to do and trying to read possibilities that takes time.
@hapa, Rsoultin is not M2K, she is more like Mango. If I had always done exactly what was Ideal, we would have perpetually stalemated except the fail order. That was so embarrassingly bad I tried to act like it was intentional to "let rsoul through to England" via spain- something that could never have worked.
OK... I thought "Janissary" meant more along the lines of being a puppet. Well, I guess offering your own centers is a more extreme form of puppetry?
On February 24 2015 02:57 JieXian wrote: they (m2k and mango) are professional gamers who are/were the best in their game.
Well slam you do realise that while you're accusing me of manipulating Italy, she made it to the 3 way draw without a having a single base taken by me?
What she said was true, she did make herself indispensable after you declared your anti Austrian sentiments publicly. As for the earlier part of the game, I didn't want to stab her after seeing the most Austrian trusting opening I can think of.
Most of all, while you claim unfair treatment toward Italy, you do notice that Italy herself is satisfied with the outcome and is in no way complaining right?
This is like accusing me of robbing the Bank of Rsoul when Bank of Rsoul has not reported any robbery, the bank owner is happy about the profits of the financial year and I don't have any sacks or stolen gold, cash or bases in my house or bank account.
Moreover, to complete this analogy I actually played a part the profitable financial year of the Bank of Rsoul.
It was stagnant and I quit.
If I had the same time & drive, it would have gotten to the point where you would have had to stab or accept 5 way and you (should?) know this and STILL posture.
Xat I really don't see how you can call me the antagonist in our relationship when you leaked my anti-English plans to England before the first turn was even over. I fucked up by not working hard enough in my press with France and Austria, but I disagree pretty strongly that I made a mistake with my handling of you and England. I trusted you and got burned, shit happens. I committed to working with England after that because I think direct press leak like that has to be punished on policy.
I will admit that as Germany I do tend to play a more aggressive game. The problem Germany has is that it normally comes out of any 2- or 3-way alliance as the weak party. Everyone has an interest in its centers in the midgame. Short of just being the better player (something I never count on), you just don't win by playing fairly. My plan was actually to attack England and France simultaneously with Russia and Italy - I can pretty reliably do this with proper time investment, and it leaves me in the best position when it works, because Italy doesn't usually have a strategic interest in expanding beyond the Mediterranean, meaning that Germany gets a safe corner (which it sorely lacks) and can afford to throw its full forces at Russia next. When it works (and it does often enough, given sufficient time investment) it's great. When it doesn't you tend to fail quickly. The trick is in trying to be everyone's top ally through press - the mafia analogy is being top town and making everyone lynch everyone else.
Tldr I fucked up with France and Austria due to time investment + a lil laziness, fucked up with England by erroneously trusting Russia. Don't really feel I fucked up with Russia beyond trusting him s01. Germany is hard
On February 24 2015 03:50 Eden1892 wrote: Xat I really don't see how you can call me the antagonist in our relationship when you leaked my anti-English plans to England before the first turn was even over. I fucked up by not working hard enough in my press with France and Austria, but I disagree pretty strongly that I made a mistake with my handling of you and England. I trusted you and got burned, shit happens. I committed to working with England after that because I think direct press leak like that has to be punished on policy.
I will admit that as Germany I do tend to play a more aggressive game. The problem Germany has is that it normally comes out of any 2- or 3-way alliance as the weak party. Everyone has an interest in its centers in the midgame. Short of just being the better player (something I never count on), you just don't win by playing fairly. My plan was actually to attack England and France simultaneously with Russia and Italy - I can pretty reliably do this with proper time investment, and it leaves me in the best position when it works, because Italy doesn't usually have a strategic interest in expanding beyond the Mediterranean, meaning that Germany gets a safe corner (which it sorely lacks) and can afford to throw its full forces at Russia next. When it works (and it does often enough, given sufficient time investment) it's great. When it doesn't you tend to fail quickly. The trick is in trying to be everyone's top ally through press - the mafia analogy is being top town and making everyone lynch everyone else.
Tldr I fucked up with France and Austria due to time investment + a lil laziness, fucked up with England by erroneously trusting Russia. Don't really feel I fucked up with Russia beyond trusting him s01. Germany is hard
Oh, so that leak actually mattered? I thought it was a justification for sure... Considering how you had schemed so much yourself with England against me and with me against England... I was pretty sure it was part of your plan all along to bounce Sweden and try to play me and England against each other regardless. Maybe you were genuine towards me then, but it's hard to tell when you might as well have been allied with England so I went ahead and leaked that part of the message to see England's reaction. In hindsight, his reaction might have meant that you hadn't even talked as much with him as you did with me. Well, that's that.
It would have been almost impossible for us to be long-term allies regardless, considering the Austria/Russia alliance and the natural difficulties for Germany and Russia to ally.
EPT![[image loading]](http://i110.photobucket.com/albums/n99/chuiu/TLmafia_new.png)
![[image loading]](http://i58.tinypic.com/jiyq76.jpg)