|
|
Message from Germany to England
The beauty of the moves made by France lay in their simplicity, the taking of MUN could have easily been avoided as it can easily be retaken. The more worrying is the situation in the east, RT were obviously allied from the start. The mistake I made was to assume that Turkey and Austria was allied.
The juggernaut will no doubt start rolling soon. It seems we are at a crossroad.
OK, it’s only the fall of 1902 coming up time to sit back and reflect on the situation.
I can support DEN and move/bounce to HOL. Unless you have support into DEN or BEL then this would mean a disband by you.
On the other hand I could support you into Sweden if you cut support from NWY.
I was a little amazed last move, it looked as though you and France weren’t really co-ordinating moves.
Your move to SKA and to DEN seemed a little illogical. if I had moved on SKA or HEL hell (TOSS OF COIN BUT IT FELL ON ITS EDGE) then you would have been in bigger trouble. I had to cut support from NTH as I had agreed this with Russia as part of the deal made when he built an army in STP.
I didn’t fancy facing you and France alone, something I am sure you understand.
For now I am more concerned with Russia than anyone else.
What is you evaluation of the situation?
Look forward to hearing from you.
Message from England to Germany
Tony -
I will write more later. Obviously you are right about an RT - it's time
for us to stop fooling around. If you are serious this time about
supporting me into SWE I will gladly accept.
An RT is bad for EG; we need to work together now.
> For now I am more concerned with Russia than anyone else.
As am I.
> What is you evaluation of the situation?
Right now? Kill Russia. Vent my spleen and protect my border.
> Look forward to hearing from you.
Your near future for now is not the English centers, but rather French and
Russian. A good sign for us.
Ben
Message from Turkey to England
Crazy moves in Scandinavia! Are you and Germany going to be able to work
together to keep Russia in check?
jason
Message from England to Turkey
Jason -
> Crazy moves in Scandinavia! Are you and Germany
> going to be able to work together to keep Russia in check?
I don't know. Obviously I was expecting Russian support into DEN, but I've been made a monkey. No doubt Germany isn't thrilled about me going to DEN, either.
Going to have to come up with something, I guess. And you *did* warn me about the RT; thanks for the warning. I should have heeded it. . .
Ben
Message from England to England
> Crazy moves in Scandinavia! Are you and Germany
> going to be able to work together to keep Russia in check?
A fishing expedition, probably on Russia's behalf.
Eric took a dangerous gamble taking NWY, particularly with the army. He is not in a good position to follow up against me, and Germany is not in a good position against me, but he is quite vulnerable to an EG. So, if Tony decides to work with me - an arrangement that could be profitable to both - Russia could be pushed back to MOS by '05. If I fail to persuade Tony to work with me then I'm done, and I will be joining your ranks soon enough.
Ben
Message from England to Germany
Tony -
> An RT is bad for EG; we need to work together now.
My thinking is, both Russia and Turkey strike me as alliance-type players,
who are now allied with each other. Bad news for Austria first, and IGE
second. But we can clean out Russia in the North and you will have a
terrific opportunity to cross the stalemate line early, by pushing into
WAR/MOS. No matter your relations with France you should be able to spare
an army or two to head east, I think, though you are better than I at that
kind of analysis.
So what do you think?
Help me into SWE. I will devote myself to the North while you claim HOL and
build another army. I, meanwhile, will be building nothing, but in the
following year(s) I will take back NWY and STP.
> I was a little amazed last move, it looked as though you and
> France weren’t really co-ordinating moves.
In my defense, I was supposed to get support from Russia. Cretin. Not you
cretin, him cretin.
Anyway I am glad finally to have some direction & look forward to your
confirmation that you will support me to SWE.
Ben
Message from England to Austria
Philippe -
Well, the help I can offer is, I can try to deal with Russia in the North.
What you could do to help me is, try to get Germany to go after Russia, too. I am negotiating for his help but it would not hurt for you to point out to him that a strong Austria is good for Germany, etc.
I was disappointed but not surprised to see the results. Oh, well; perhaps if Russia starts to get pinched elsewhere the RTI will begin to come apart.
Ben
Message from England to France
Erik -
Yuck. I was not sure whether to believe Russia; I had decided to go with h=
im when he told *you* he'd be helping me into DEN. Why would he want to st=
art lying to so many, so early? But there it is.
Anyway, what do you think we should do next? =20
Ben
Message from England to Italy
Andy -
I will do what I can. I was disappointed not to get Russian help - I had hoped your hand was further up his backside. I'd promised him BER, if STP - LVN, etc.; I think it was more promising for him than *this*, but it was his decision.
I hope you will get a nice slice of the Austrian pie.
Ben
Message from Germany to England
To tell you the truth I have offered the same alliance to France as I have to you. Once again only you have replied not once but twice.
We do seem to communicate a lot more. I am just a little weary following the discussions we held in the spring and the results of the spring move. I even expected LON - ENG as discussed, you and France could have even agreed on it. I would only have interpreted it as such so you could both go for BEL.
You never mentioned the EF relationship
As I said I could easily hold DEN and retake MUN. I can even cover HOL take MUN and run the risk of losing DEN. As it stands GR were working together. I always stated I let the board dictate my alliances move by move. For now Russia is not coming out on top.
I haven’t heard from France yet but when I do I will let you know. Even though I can force him out of MUN I can’t force him to change course. Ideally he picks up POR, retreats PIC and BUR and builds a fleet in MAR.
In my dreams maybe, let’s see what he comes up with.
I won’t underestimate the obvious simple moves in the future. They have always been the worst to counter. Many a time I make them they are guarded against by the enemy. Whenever I tried to counteract them, people never used them, how frustrating. I am usually only aware of them during a fall move like now.
We can indeed take Sweden back quite easily. My main concern in this respect is the EF alliance.
Although his move to MAO did surprise me.
My moves were based on EF working together to go after BEL/RUH/HOL. In hindsight a waste of time. I had also ordered mun - bur supported by bel (decided against it as you could convoy to bel) and ber - mun supported by kie (decided against it as you could convoy to hol). I also ordered bel - bur, ber - mun supported by kie and mun - ruh. In hindsight either would have made a big difference. I certainly wasn’t expecting the moves he made as BUR could easily have been cut and MUN easily defended. You live and learn. I over analysed the situation. So what is the FE alliance?
For now I can ensure that I stay on 5 and that you get no build but France would.
Usually when two seem to gang up on you you tend to deny one of them builds.
For now that's aimed at you. The board however dictates otherwise as does Frances games play.
I will seriously consider supporting ska - swe whilst you cut nwy support and I pick up hol.
Any insight into the moves/motivation of France will help me make a decision in your favour.
The trouble is you have little bargaining power with him right now as he holds all the aces.
An option would be to support you into Sweden. Let him stay in MUN as it is difficult to defend. Leave HOL open for next year and I stay on 5 and remove him next spring.
If I am not careful then I could end up between FR once you are gone.
Shame you aren’t in the ENG.
Talk to you soon, look forward to hearing from you.
Message from England to Germany
Tony -
> To tell you the truth I have offered the same alliance to
> France as I have to you. Once again only you have replied not
> once but twice.
Of course you have. And I have been negotiating with Russia. And with
France.
> We do seem to communicate a lot more. I am just a little
> weary following the discussions we held in the spring and the
> results of the spring move. I even expected LON - ENG as
> discussed, you and France could have even agreed on it.
I think I could have gotten agreement on it. I'd even been negotiating for
it, when Russia spontaneously offered the support into DEN.
> I would only have interpreted it as such so
> you could both go for BEL.
I agree 100%. It would have been diplomatically and tactically sound,
though as it turns out it would have cost me NWY anyway. The way it worked
out, I'm happy, as I think I am well situated for expansion in the far
North. If we have a mutually benefical operation then, when I can
reposition, I would work with you against France, but for tactical reasons
that decision is not one I have to make now.
I think it is win/win for you to help me against Russia, as it means two of
your neighbors will be fighting each other while you can either (a) join in
against Russia (or me, though I think because of your armies Russia would be
easier), or (b) deal with France, or (c) both. If you do not help me
against Russia, then I will not really be fighting him, and I will probably
remove F SKA and just try to work with France against you, as I think that
would be, tactically and diplomatically, the most logical step.
> You never mentioned the EF relationship
By design. I did not want to lie to you, so I did not say too much, or
commit too much. I wanted you to feel like if we *were* to work together,
it would be something we could do - that I wasn't some silent newbie
hell-bent on one plan or another, and also that I wasn't going to lie if it
could be avoided.
> As I said I could easily hold DEN and retake MUN. I can even
> cover HOL take MUN and run the risk of losing DEN. As it
> stands GR were working together. I always stated I let the
> board dictate my alliances move by move. For now Russia is
> not coming out on top.
Why would he? He has nothing to offer you. How long would it be before you
could claim an English center? And if I were to engage him in the North,
isn't that something you could take advantage of, by fighting France and/or
him, without having to bother building an armada?
> I haven’t heard from France yet but when I do I will
> let you know. Even though I can force him out of MUN I
> can’t force him to change course. Ideally he picks up
> POR, retreats PIC and BUR and builds a fleet in MAR.
> In my dreams maybe, let’s see what he comes up with.
I will bet you one American dollar that does /not/ happen. ;-)
> I won’t underestimate the obvious simple moves in the
> future. They have always been the worst to counter. Many a
> time I make them they are guarded against by the enemy.
> Whenever I tried to counteract them, people never used them,
> how frustrating. I am usually only aware of them during a
> fall move like now.
Nothing lost, I don't think.
> We can indeed take Sweden back quite easily. My main concern
> in this respect is the EF alliance.
> Although his move to MAO did surprise me.
Why? It was safe and POR is there for the fall. I'm not saying EF do not
have good relations. But look at the press you've received from me. Do I
look to you like the kind of player who will not take advantage of your
offer of support into SWE, and switch gears?
> My moves were based on EF working together to go after
> BEL/RUH/HOL. In hindsight a waste of time. I had also ordered
> mun - bur supported by bel (decided against it as you could
> convoy to bel) and ber - mun supported by kie (decided
> against it as you could convoy to hol). I also ordered bel -
> bur, ber - mun supported by kie and mun - ruh. In hindsight
> either would have made a big difference. I certainly
> wasn’t expecting the moves he made as BUR could easily
> have been cut and MUN easily defended. You live and learn.
Your comments intrigue me, because my argument in favor of LON - ENG was, I
need to order YOR - NTH - BEL to cut the various supports that dangerous
unit could give. As I said, then I heard from Russia, who looking back on
it did not really need to lie to me. I wonder why he did.
> I over analysed the situation. So what is the FE alliance?
You came out of the gate pretty intimidating. Easy enough of a target for a
couple of wood-pushers like us. ;-)
> For now I can ensure that I stay on 5 and that you get no
> build but France would.
You will do what is in your best interest. Is that it?
> Usually when two seem to gang up on you you tend to deny one
> of them builds.
> For now that's aimed at you. The board however dictates
> otherwise as does Frances games play.
I agree on both counts. You do not want a strong Russia and you can have a
ER war with me getting *no* builds this phase, not threatening you, indeed
in your debt, so you are free to move as you will. Meanwhile if you can
help me out in the North then it is in *my* best interest to work with you
in the south, where there are plenty of dots for us to share.
> I will seriously consider supporting ska - swe whilst you cut
> nwy support and I pick up hol.
Not interested in you considering it - only interested in you *doing it* -
please let me know when you've decided.
> Any insight into the moves/motivation of France will help me
> make a decision in your favour.
I've given what I know.
> The trouble is you have little bargaining power with him
> right now as he holds all the aces.
> An option would be to support you into Sweden. Let him stay
> in MUN as it is difficult to defend. Leave HOL open for next
> year and I stay on 5 and remove him next spring.
That's fine.
> If I am not careful then I could end up between FR once you are gone.
Interesting you say that, as personality-wise I think F and R are likely
allies - something that's been worrying me from the beginning - but you will
draw your own conclusion.
> Shame you aren’t in the ENG.
Actually I think things could go perfectly for us if you execute the support
into SWE, so I can get us going up there, and then when I start to build
again I can work with you in the south.
> Talk to you soon, look forward to hearing from you.
Look no further.
Ben
Message from Russia to England
Ben,
I'm going to spare you the whole "I feel so bad I took advantage of you"
speech and let you read it in my press to the observers. I do feel terrible
about it, don't get me wrong, I just doubt you are going to be in a state
of mind to hear about my distress given that you suffered from it, so I'm
going to leave it a fairly bland apology for now.
It's obvious that there are still ways that we can cooperate, and I'm still
willing to do so. But I'll wait until I hear from you before suggesting
anything detailed. But if you want to write me off as unreliable at this
point, I'll understand that.
I'm really rushing to get to work so am going to keep this very short. I'll
be sparse today, but will answer any questions demands as soon as I can.
--- Eric
Message from England to Russia
Eric -
Well, I was disappointed of course, but I can understand why, with
undertainty in the south, you felt you needed the dot.
> from it, so I'm
> going to leave it a fairly bland apology for now.
I think you were upset because I didn't write you about Denver losing a
heartbreaker on Monday Night.
> It's obvious that there are still ways that we can cooperate,
> and I'm still
> willing to do so. But I'll wait until I hear from you before
> suggesting anything detailed.
Um, how about, give me Norway back? I'm not really confident I could get
into DEN anymore. . .
> But if you want to write me off as unreliable at this
> point, I'll understand that.
Well, what kind of dipper would I be if I wrote you off.
> I'm really rushing to get to work so am going to keep this
> very short. I'll
> be sparse today, but will answer any questions demands as
> soon as I can.
No questions or demands for now, besides the one about Norway.
Ben
Message from Germany to England
> We can indeed take Sweden back quite easily. My main concern
> in this respect is the EF alliance.
> Although his move to MAO did surprise me.
>Why? It was safe and POR is there for the fall
Then why bother moving to the MAO in the first place, he could have sat in SPA and taken it this fall?
Add to that the Russian lie and you may still come up mind boggled.
If I would have opted for my last but one order then I would now be in BUR and he would have to decide wether to retreat to RUH or MAR .
Else I would have free passage into MAR if he chose to retreat to RUH.
Thats why I find the move to MAO a little strange. When I looked at the supported move to BUR (from MUN supported by PIC) I decided aginst it as he would obviously retreat to RUH (as SPA would have the fleet to cover MAR) and you were considering convoying to PIC which would cut support.
Moving to MAO only to retreat and take POR seems a little odd, a move to IRI (if working with Russia) would seem more logical. I have to cover holland this fall, he has to pic up BEL.
A fleet in BRE and hey presto he is in LVP next year with a convoy or with his fleet from IRI.
SPA - MAO was in my eyes a strange move, but you may be right. Its safe and he can still pick up POR.
I have no reason why Russia would lie to you. He knew I was cutting support from NTH so that he could take DEN. Thats why I insisted on his build in STP else I was to immediately offer you sweden and move on WAR.
Interesting times.
I will make a decision on SWE very shortly. What you say makes sense.
We never discussed the matter further last spring but it was on the table. As the deal with Russia was already layed out I wouldnt have followed up anyway. But at least I didnt have to lie to you, you never came back on the matter. Now is a different story.
Message from England to Germany
Tony -
> Then why bother moving to the MAO in the first place, he
> could have sat in SPA and taken it this fall?
> Add to that the Russian lie and you may still come up mind boggled.
Definitely possible. ;-) Anyway you don't need to sell me an FR; I am
completely on board with going after Russia as we've been discussing this
morning. My time.
> I will make a decision on SWE very shortly. What you say makes sense.
> We never discussed the matter further last spring but it was
> on the table. As the deal with Russia was already layed out I
> wouldnt have followed up anyway. But at least I didnt have to
> lie to you, you never came back on the matter. Now is a
> different story.
Yes. If you have any objections to my proposals & arguments, please let me
know, so I can try to address them.
Ben
Message from Russia to England
I still have to keep this brief, but I will definitely consider the
request about Nwy. I knew that my moves in the south were going to be
exceedingly risky (despite info from you and a few others, I was
strongly suspecting Arm-Sev, Rum/Bla supporting) and so thought I
needed to force getting a build prior to '03. Since the south went so
much better than expected, the urgency level has dropped considerably.
That's not a commitment to leave Nwy yet, but it is definitely on the table.
>I think you were upset because I didn't write you about Denver losing a
>heartbreaker on Monday Night.
When I was thinking of being more flippant about it, my comment was
that the most distressing part of the move was losing a newly
converted Raiders fan.
>Well, what kind of dipper would I be if I wrote you off.
An angry and vengeful one, but arguably not unjustifiably so.
--- Eric
Message from England to Russia
Eric -
> I still have to keep this brief, but I will definitely consider the
> request about Nwy. I knew that my moves in the south were going to be
> exceedingly risky (despite info from you and a few others, I was
> strongly suspecting Arm-Sev, Rum/Bla supporting) and so thought I
> needed to force getting a build prior to '03. Since the south went so
> much better than expected, the urgency level has dropped considerably.
If you go NWY - STP, no harm done.
> That's not a commitment to leave Nwy yet, but it is
> definitely on the table.
Think about it. There's nothing I really have to offer you, besides good
will, which may be worth something to you. If I can succeed in holding the
dot for Norway, then I will be in a position to work against Germany. Which
goes to your benefit, as I see it.
> >I think you were upset because I didn't write you about
> Denver losing a
> >heartbreaker on Monday Night.
>
> When I was thinking of being more flippant about it, my comment was
> that the most distressing part of the move was losing a newly
> converted Raiders fan.
*sniff* I was thinking of you *sniff* every time Brady lit up the Bronco's
secondary *sniff* [wipes eyes]
> >Well, what kind of dipper would I be if I wrote you off.
>
> An angry and vengeful one, but arguably not unjustifiably so.
Hm. Well, fair enough. But it is not too late for you to give me reason
*not* to be angry and vengeful, which perhaps I *would* have been, had it
been a fall phase.
Ben
Message from Austria to England
> Well, the help I can offer is, I can try to deal with Russia in the North.
>
> What you could do to help me is, try to get Germany to go after Russia, too. I am negotiating for his help but it would not hurt
for you to point out to him that a strong Austria is good for Germany, etc.
>
> I was disappointed but not surprised to see the results. Oh, well; perhaps if Russia starts to get pinched elsewhere the RTI will
begin to come apart.
I'm not sure you will like the solution I'm contemplating. Beside Andy
who's definitely stabbing me time after time, I feel that Eric is playing
me while Andy is playing Jason. The obvious way for me to go would
be to ally myself with Eric to resist Andy & Jason, but I have a feeling
that IR is hard at work here.
Whatever understanding I had with Jason at the start of the game is
now gone and I don't think I can get it back. If I had done something
wrong, I could always explain myself; but if Jason prefer to believe
whatever Andy is feeding him, there's nothing for me to do beside
telling him the truth he won't believe.
To get out of this mess, I'm thinking of favorizing a real RT. If I can
get Eric & Jason to really think in term of an RT alliance, it would put
Andy in a difficult position on the board as well as off the board. I
doubt that whatever understanding he might have with Eric could
survive a good shot at an RT and I would expect that it would get
harder for him to feed Jason lies after lies. From there, I could hope
to work my way out of whatever little hole I'm left with or at least
make Andy pay for his choices.
Now, I will wait to see how Jason follow up on my last press before
starting to work on implementing this desperate strategy; but for this
plan to work, I need to start this fall or I will be too late to really
influence who get what.
In the mean time, don't hesitate to share any insights you might have,
but please keep this to yourself. Once I know what I want to do, I
will tell you about it and you will have enough time to setup whatever
you feel is necessary.
Philippe
Message from France to England
Ben:
That was an ... interesting turn, let's say. I feel like a total idiot for
passing along Russia's message of support; he clearly know what he was
doing when he so-subtly indicated his assistance to you.
At least I ended up taking Munich. I can't *hold* it, but Russia may not
be as firmly in Germany's camp as it would seem. We should still try to
talk to him.
Of course, the now-apparent RT alliance is a cause for concern regardless
of what's gone down between us. It's nice to see that Italy will be busy
in the east for a while, but we could be facing a mighty powerful Bear if
Germany and Italy and Austria fold.
What do you think we should do? I need to look at the map; I'll also write
Russia and try to sort out what his thinking was.
Erik
Message from England to Germany
Tony -
In the annals of recorded Dip I think we have a novelty here. Austria's
plan to defend himself - I don't know, maybe he's already told you - is to
*solidify an RT*.
Truly he will be on his back, legs kicking in the air, in a few short
seasons. If the RT holds - and there is no reason to think it will not -
would you rather have an English ally, battling Russia? Or a French ally,
with Russia surrounding you?
As I said before - if you think I'm wrong, let me know where.
Ben
Message from England to France
Erik -
> That was an ... interesting turn, let's say. I feel like a total idiot for
> passing along Russia's message of support; he clearly know what he was
> doing when he so-subtly indicated his assistance to you.
We need to remember - he's a tricky one.
> At least I ended up taking Munich. I can't *hold* it, but Russia may not
> be as firmly in Germany's camp as it would seem. We should still try to
> talk to him.
Absolutely. Obviously our relationship has changed; let me know what he
tells *you.*
> Of course, the now-apparent RT alliance is a cause for concern regardless
> of what's gone down between us. It's nice to see that Italy will be busy
> in the east for a while, but we could be facing a mighty powerful Bear if
> Germany and Italy and Austria fold.
>
> What do you think we should do? I need to look at the map; I'll also write
> Russia and try to sort out what his thinking was.
My top priority is retrieving a dot - whether it's from Norway, or
wherever. Why don't you see if Russia will consider NWY - STP & leaving
NWY English.
I have to go - family calling.
Ben
Message from England to France
Erik -
clarification:
> > At least I ended up taking Munich. I can't *hold* it, but Russia may not
> > be as firmly in Germany's camp as it would seem. We should still try to
> > talk to him.
> Absolutely. Obviously our relationship has changed; let me know what he
> tells *you.*
"our relationsip" meaning Russia's and mine. Not yours and mine.
Ben
Message from England to Austria
Philippe -
> I'm not sure you will like the solution I'm contemplating. Beside Andy
> who's definitely stabbing me time after time, I feel that Eric is playing
> me while Andy is playing Jason. The obvious way for me to go would
> be to ally myself with Eric to resist Andy & Jason, but I have a feeling
> that IR is hard at work here.
You are probably right. Most 3-way alliances have a dominant pair.
> Whatever understanding I had with Jason at the start of the game is
> now gone and I don't think I can get it back. If I had done something
> wrong, I could always explain myself; but if Jason prefer to believe
> whatever Andy is feeding him, there's nothing for me to do beside
> telling him the truth he won't believe.
What is the truth? I still don't know what happened. I'll help if I can.
> To get out of this mess, I'm thinking of favorizing a real RT. If I can
> get Eric & Jason to really think in term of an RT alliance, it would put
> Andy in a difficult position on the board as well as off the board. I
> doubt that whatever understanding he might have with Eric could
> survive a good shot at an RT and I would expect that it would get
> harder for him to feed Jason lies after lies. From there, I could hope
> to work my way out of whatever little hole I'm left with or at least
> make Andy pay for his choices.
Well, this is an interesting strategy for you. I wish you the best of luck
with it, but I have two things for you to consider:
1. An RT has *one* target in common. That's Austria. You. So by the time
Andy would have to worry about them, you'd be gone.
2. Andy has been negotiating heavily with each of R and T, as you know. I
do not think there is anything you or I could do to persuade Andy that RT
are closer to each other than IR or IT. In other words, even if there *is*
an RT, I do not think Andy will mind, as he will think he is in the
driver's seat. And who knows - he may be.
> Now, I will wait to see how Jason follow up on my last press before
> starting to work on implementing this desperate strategy; but for this
> plan to work, I need to start this fall or I will be too late to really
> influence who get what.
>
> In the mean time, don't hesitate to share any insights you might have,
> but please keep this to yourself. Once I know what I want to do, I
> will tell you about it and you will have enough time to setup whatever
> you feel is necessary.
Thank you. For now, you have such insight as I can give. I wish I was
better, and had more to tell you.
Ben
Message from Germany to England
Hi Ben, yes Austria did indicate this. Not in so many words but he did indicate clearly taht he an Italy are not friends. Italy later confirmed this by stating that Austria would give his sc's up in a nanosecond if Italy attacked Austria. The two of them definitely dont see eye to eye.
We both know EG is the option to follow after seeing the RT development. The reason I therefor offer to support you to Sweden instead of having you retake Norway is because I can support Denmark from KIE. If I move DEN - SWE to cut support and you dont go for Norway but Denamark instead then Denamrk is lost.
So lets go for the Swedish variant. I will support you in, be sure to cut Norwegian support. I can be sure Russia wont just promise us both support and decide to support himself in place.
The RT alliance was unknown at the time I put pressure on Russia to build in STP and take Norway in the spring.
If I was Russia I wouldnt support either of us and just let thing take their course. He will no doubt build in STP or WAR. With you and I being weak he has no reason not to take us both on soon.
Any gains he has made or will make up north means the less he has to gain between STP and TUN. Branching into England and Denmark/Berlin will no doubt be at the top of his agenda. He certainly sounded a lot less certain and safe when I put the pressure on for his build. Now that RT has worked out he is fully in the driving seat.
DEN support SKA to Sweden is on. Still ask Russia for support to Denamrk and I will ask him to support me in Denmark. We can then see which way he went.
Message from Italy to England
>
> Andy -
> I will do what I can. I was disappointed not to get Russian help - I
had hoped your hand was further up his backside. I'd promised him BER,
if STP - LVN, etc.; I think it was more promising for him than *this*,
but it was his decision.
>
You should try to give him Denmark his leaving Norway
ie...convoy him in and let him support himself in.
That frees you up to take Holland.
Also the German gets to make a choice, of supporting Denmark or taking
back Munich.
> I hope you will get a nice slice of the Austrian pie.
Im trying.
Andy
Message from England to Germany
Tony -
> Hi Ben, yes Austria did indicate this. Not in so many words but he did
> indicate clearly taht he an Italy are not friends. Italy later confirmed this by
> stating that Austria would give his sc's up in a nanosecond if Italy attacked
> Austria. The two of them definitely dont see eye to eye.
>
> We both know EG is the option to follow after seeing the RT development.
>The reason I therefor offer to support you to Sweden instead of having
> you retake Norway is because I can support Denmark from KIE. If I move
> DEN - SWE to cut support and you dont go for Norway but Denamark
> instead then Denamrk is lost.
Sweden is fine - I can get NWY after.
> So lets go for the Swedish variant. I will support you in, be sure to cut
> Norwegian support. I can be sure Russia wont just promise us both
> support and decide to support himself in place.
Got it.
> The RT alliance was unknown at the time I put pressure on Russia to
> build in STP and take Norway in the spring.
I can understand that.
> If I was Russia I wouldnt support either of us and just let thing take their
> course. He will no doubt build in STP or WAR. With you and I being weak
> he has no reason not to take us both on soon.
If we take SWE then he will not be building.
[snip]
>
> DEN support SKA to Sweden is on. Still ask Russia for support to
> Denamrk and I will ask him to support me in Denmark. We can then see
> which way he went.
Ok.
Ben
Message from Austria to England
> What is the truth? I still don't know what happened. I'll help if I can.
Nothing special. Since last winter, Jason went paranoïd
about Bul while I didn't make any plan to get it. Since
this seem weak, there's probably other lies, but Jason
didn't bother telling me about them since he doesn't trust
me anymore.
> Well, this is an interesting strategy for you. I wish you the best of luck
> with it, but I have two things for you to consider:
> 1. An RT has *one* target in common. That's Austria. You. So by the time
> Andy would have to worry about them, you'd be gone.
> 2. Andy has been negotiating heavily with each of R and T, as you know. I
> do not think there is anything you or I could do to persuade Andy that RT
> are closer to each other than IR or IT. In other words, even if there *is*
> an RT, I do not think Andy will mind, as he will think he is in the
> driver's seat. And who knows - he may be.
I realise this; but if I can make sure Andy doesn't get anything
and lose Greece, I don't care if he "think" he's in the driver's
seat. He will have to react or perish.
> Thank you. For now, you have such insight as I can give. I wish I was
> better, and had more to tell you.
I haven't heard back from Jason. I will wait until 12pm eastern
time then go with it. Please let me know if you hear anything in
the mean time.
Philippe
Message from England to Austria
Philippe -
> I haven't heard back from Jason. I will wait until 12pm eastern
> time then go with it. Please let me know if you hear anything in
> the mean time.
I will tell you if I hear anything. Good luck, my friend.
Ben
Message from England to Italy
Andy -
> You should try to give him Denmark his leaving Norway
>
> ie...convoy him in and let him support himself in.
> That frees you up to take Holland.
Hm - apologies, etc., are underway; I will think about this. If I offer
this & am betrayed again I just keep losing dots & then I get to join the
observers, which may be an advantage in itself. ;-)
Ben
Message from Italy to England
Ben,
> > You should try to give him Denmark his leaving Norway
> >
> > ie...convoy him in and let him support himself in.
> > That frees you up to take Holland.
> Hm - apologies, etc., are underway; I will think about this. If I offer
> this & am betrayed again I just keep losing dots & then I get to join the
> observers, which may be an advantage in itself. ;-)
>
If you convoy him, but he has to support himself, he doesnt have a unit to
take Norway with.
Message from England to Italy
Andy -
> If you convoy him, but he has to support himself, he doesnt
> have a unit to take Norway with.
I understand the tactics. But the build in STP followed by the capture of
NWY - what would *you* expect, as England?
He had promised SWE s NTH - DEN, in conjunction with STP - LVN. This would
have netted him BER in two or so seasons. But he seized NWY instead. I'm
not saying I wouldn't convoy NWY - DEN, but I will say, I'm reluctant to ask
him to do anything right now. Maybe I'll cool off some more by this
afternoon & things will look different.
Ben
Message from Austria to England
> I will tell you if I hear anything. Good luck, my friend.
No news from Jason, so I'm sending my offers to Eric & Jason.
Let's see how they react,
Philippe
Message from England to Austria
Philippe -
> No news from Jason, so I'm sending my offers to Eric & Jason.
Close your eyes and pray.
I am really curious to know how they respond.
Ben
Message from England to Turkey
Jason -
I asked Eric to pull back from NWY. I'd appreciate you encouraging him, if
possible.
I imagine you will be feeling the diplomatic squeeze, between Eric and Andy,
come build phase.
Good luck!
Ben
Message from England to France
Erik -
When you get a chance let's figure out a plan. I would not be surprised to
see Tony tap MUN but not try to capture it. Let me get the discussion
started with, BUR - RUH, PIC - BEL, and MUN s BUR - RUH, with MAO - POR.
This way if KIE goes to HOL or supports DEN you hold MUN and take POR,
building twice. If MUN is dislodged, then you capture RUH. If HOL is
captured from BEL, you take BEL.
Right now I am in negotiations with Russia. I'm not really sure about how
to play the North but I do not want to have to remove a unit. Any
suggestions would be welcome.
Ben
Message from England to Italy
Andy -
I've done some soul searching and this is what I've come up with. I have
not shut the door on negotiations with Russia - hell, I'd never shut that
door with anyone - but if he has a proposal I'd like to hear it from him.
No offense to you - I respect you & hope to get better as a result of
reading the observers talk about how you & everyone else outplayed me - but
after I've been snakebit by Russia two phases in a row, I kind of want to
hear what he's got to say.
Ben
Message from England to England
Is it too much to hope for NWY *and* SWE this fall?
Ben
Message from Russia to England
Ben,
I'm sick today, so this will be short.
A secondary concern about Scandinavia, that was part of the thought process
in taking Nwy was that with only one unit in the north and no prospects for
builds until late 03, I'd never be able to hold the position. A Nwy from my
point of view is a reasonable insurance policy for Swe, which was part of
the reason it made sense as a move despite my wanting to work with you. I
recognize that this is stated from the Russian point of view, so I don't
know if you'll see the logic of this. But F Swe alone with lots of English
units to the north and an angry German fleet to the south looked like a bad
situation.
If you got back a dot that I could not threaten -- Den being the obvious
choice -- I would still have the security I was looking for in Scandinavia,
while you would still have all of the advantages of the forward position
against Germany, without any Russian units that can threaten you.
Is that as good as getting back Nwy?
Let me know what you think.
--- Eric
Message from Turkey to England
I'll mention it to Eric.
We're trying to divvy up Ser right now. I don't want Italy to build
another fleet, but I'd also rather keep working with him. I doubt those
two things will both happen. :-)
jason
Message from England to Russia
Eric -
> I'm sick today, so this will be short.
>
> A secondary concern about Scandinavia, that was part of the thought
process
> in taking Nwy was that with only one unit in the north and no prospects
for
> builds until late 03, I'd never be able to hold the position. A Nwy from
my
> point of view is a reasonable insurance policy for Swe, which was part of
> the reason it made sense as a move despite my wanting to work with you. I
> recognize that this is stated from the Russian point of view, so I don't
> know if you'll see the logic of this. But F Swe alone with lots of English
> units to the north and an angry German fleet to the south looked like a
bad
> situation.
>
> If you got back a dot that I could not threaten -- Den being the obvious
> choice -- I would still have the security I was looking for in
Scandinavia,
> while you would still have all of the advantages of the forward position
> against Germany, without any Russian units that can threaten you.
>
> Is that as good as getting back Nwy?
>
> Let me know what you think.
You have two northern units right now. While I am perfectly willing to
swap/loan dots where necessary, I do not accept that it is "necessary" for
you to borrow Norway at this point. While I may in time want to capture
DEN - and if you are offering support, let me know - I am not persuaded
that I ought to give you Norway in exchange.
Perhaps it is because I am thickheaded, or perhaps it is your illness, but
I am missing the point. If you feel well enough, I'd appreciate you
addressing my points.
Ben
Message from England to Germany
Tony -
So far what I've heard from Russia corroborates the RT. Which is to say,
he is pushing very hard for EG war - attack on DEN - while asking if he can
keep NWY.
Erik remains nearly silent. I am entering orders NTH - NWY, SKA - SWE with
this press. Let me know what you hear from Russia & confirm DEN s SKA
-SWE, please.
This is a good course for both of us - I will stake my claim in the far
north and you will have me (a) in your debt and (b) dealing with somebody
else. Plus in the longer run if we work well together we could share the
many dots to our south.
Ben
Message from Germany to England
Hi Ben, Yes as pledged I will be supporting SKA - SWE.
The RT is looking to scary, abuild in STP is on the rocks if we dont take
Sweden back. With Turkey as a friend he can concentrate north. Looking back
in time I once again state that s1901 is always a little scary. The game is
now on and my support will prove I can be trusted. I havent heared from
France either, if there is one thing bad for a relationship its lack of
communication.
Message from England to Turkey
Jason -
> We're trying to divvy up Ser right now. I don't want Italy to build
> another fleet, but I'd also rather keep working with him. I doubt those
> two things will both happen. :-)
Hm. Well if you do antagonize Andy in favor of an RT you should be
prepared for the cry of "Juggernaut" to go up and the entire board to turn
against you and Eric.
One option is for you to permit Italy to become something of a sea power
while you become more of a land power. This would call for an eventual
attack of Russia, of course. Long term you *should* be able to control
Andy pretty well, though; you would have armies in VEN, BUD, etc., compared
to his fleets in TUN, ADR, and so on.
Good luck.
Ben
Message from Turkey to England
I think Andy and I should be ok for the moment. He does want Ser,
though, which I'm not a big fan of. I'll probably give it to him for
now, and then "ask" for it back later.
jason
Message from England to Germany
Tony -
> The RT is looking to scary, abuild in STP is on the rocks if we dont take
> Sweden back. With Turkey as a friend he can concentrate north. Looking
back
> in time I once again state that s1901 is always a little scary. The game
is
> now on and my support will prove I can be trusted. I havent heared from
> France either, if there is one thing bad for a relationship its lack of
> communication.
Ok, let's do it. As I said - orders are in.
Ben
Message from England to England
> I think Andy and I should be ok for the moment. He does want Ser,
> though, which I'm not a big fan of. I'll probably give it to him for
> now, and then "ask" for it back later.
>
> jason
What I'm reading into this press is, Turkey thinks the IRT is a RT with an
Italian patsy. Based on the personalities I'm not surprised, though I
think he will be in for a nasty surprise when R and I come down on him. If
Tony actually does what he says, and works with me against Russia, then we
may disrupt the East pretty well, though.
T apparently does not see I as a long term partner; if Russia does indeed
collapse I wonder whether he will have the flexibility to take advantage.
Meanwhile I do not know how to respond. Trying to guide Turkey has been a
total failure; if he is listening his responses do not show it.
Ben
Message from England to Italy
Andy -
Turkey thinks you are the odd man out of the IRT. Do not turn west
prematurely.
Ben
Message from England to France
Erik -
Since last we wrote, Eric's been urinating on my leg. He tells me it's
rain, but I don't believe him anymore. ;-)
Ben
Message from Italy to England
> Andy -
> Turkey thinks you are the odd man out of the IRT. Do not turn west
> prematurely.
>
That isnt surprising.
Message from France to England
Ben --
I think I can take Belgium more or less uncontested this turn, despite
the probably loss of Munich. Mun - Ruhr, Pic - Bel, Bur S Pic - Bel.
Right? Under your suggestion, he could still end up breaking even this
turn, and he'd have to not attack Munich at all for Bur - Ruhr to work --
any attack will break that support, even if Mun isn't dislodged. Really,
to guarantee Ruhr, I'd have to attack from Munich. Seems like going for
Belgium is a better option.
I think Russia's move to Norway was born out of paranoia for his southern
situation. Given how that's going reasonably well, maybe he's less
anxious to have that build this season. Is there anything you can offer
him to back down?
Erik
Message from Russia to England
> You have two northern units right now. While I am perfectly willing to
> swap/loan dots where necessary, I do not accept that it is "necessary" for
> you to borrow Norway at this point. While I may in time want to capture
> DEN - and if you are offering support, let me know - I am not persuaded
> that I ought to give you Norway in exchange.
> Perhaps it is because I am thickheaded, or perhaps it is your illness, but
> I am missing the point. If you feel well enough, I'd appreciate you
> addressing my points.
I don't know if it's the illness or not, but I'll give it another try.
My point was that to move on Tony would have required leaving only one
northern unit (Stp-Lvn). I had stated early in our discussions that for good
E/R cooperation, I would likely want enough units in Scandinavia to form a
northern stalemate line. Looking at the board had I moved Stp-Lvn, that was
not likely to have happened at any point. That plus the feeling I would need
a build for working in the south is what prompted the move.
On the second point, I was not explicitly offering support to Den, but I was
raising the idea that that might be reasonable recompense. It would give us
stable positions in the north while still advancing our position (really more
your position) against Tony. At this point I have not agreed to any
cooperative move.
Sorry, this note doesn't feel very politic. But I wanted to get something out
to you tonight.
--- Eric
Message from Russia to England
On an unrelated note, both of our teams sucked today. I think mine sucked a
whole lot more than yours, but I may be biased.
--- Eric
Message from Germany to England
The Russian has informed me that he has offered support to DEN from SKA. I
have ordered the support of SKA - SWE. Its up to you now. I would consider
convoying YOR - NWY, a cut support is a cut support.
Message from England to Germany
Tony -
> The Russian has informed me that he has offered support to
> DEN from SKA.
He said he would consider it but did not even make the offer.
> I have ordered the support of SKA - SWE. Its up to you now.
As you say.
In the spring, will DEN be available to support me in SWE/SKA?
Curious to see the results in the East, particularly around SER.
Ben
Message from England to France
Erik -
> I think I can take Belgium more or less uncontested this turn, despite
> the probably loss of Munich. Mun - Ruhr, Pic - Bel, Bur S Pic - Bel.
> Right? Under your suggestion, he could still end up breaking even this
> turn, and he'd have to not attack Munich at all for Bur -
> Ruhr to work --
> any attack will break that support, even if Mun isn't
> dislodged. Really,
> to guarantee Ruhr, I'd have to attack from Munich. Seems like
> going for Belgium is a better option.
I agree 100%. Go for BEL. There is a very good chance he will not try to
dislodge MUN anyway, so you may end up with both. *And* POR. Good luck, my
friend.
> I think Russia's move to Norway was born out of paranoia for
> his southern
> situation. Given how that's going reasonably well, maybe he's less
> anxious to have that build this season. Is there anything you
> can offer him to back down?
I've tried talking to him about it but he is pretty firmly resisting my
overtures. He suggested he *might* support me into DEN but after he (a)
built in STP and (b) captured NWY, I'm leery of coordinating with him.
Basically we are looking at an RT. In an RT Russia *must* capture the far
North. So Eric is playing out his part of the string, and I do not know if
I would do it any differently, in his shoes. The alliance structure in the
East may change, but for now, I am dealing with a force not of my making.
He wants to keep NWY. If he keeps NWY as a "loaner" it will be nearly
impossible for me to reclaim except by force, as it will require me to land
a unit next to STP, which is something he will not likely agree to.
Bear in mind how last phase he used you against us. . .
Ben
Message from England to Russia
Eric -
> My point was that to move on Tony would have required leaving only one
> northern unit (Stp-Lvn). I had stated early in our
> discussions that for good
> E/R cooperation, I would likely want enough units in
> Scandinavia to form a northern stalemate line.
Yes, I remember that conversation. I had thought I responded, that such a
force would be four to six units (can't remember for sure if you can do it
with four, may need five) and require Russian occupation of Norway, which is
hardly pro-English. What I recall I wrote in exchange was, you may wish to
defend your border with me *diplomatically*, as to construct such a massive
force and deploy them against a friendly England might drain your more hotly
contested borders to the south and west.
> Looking at the board had I moved
> Stp-Lvn, that was
> not likely to have happened at any point. That plus the
> feeling I would need
> a build for working in the south is what prompted the move.
As I said, I understood it in the context of the upheaval in the south.
Fortunately that seems to have abated. Unless you are Austria, which you
are not.
> On the second point, I was not explicitly offering support to
> Den, but I was
> raising the idea that that might be reasonable recompense. It
> would give us
> stable positions in the north while still advancing our
> position (really more
> your position) against Tony. At this point I have not agreed to any
> cooperative move.
Here is what I am seeing, as I struggle to read between the lines. Forgive
me if my inexperience leads me down the wrong path in this analysis.
You clearly have a southern partner. My guess is, you are biding your time
and are prepared to choose Jason or Andy, depending on your needs when you
are forced to make the choice. A southern partner for Russia means, to many
Muscovites, expansion in the North. Which is why you talk to me of
stalemate lines & expanding to cover Norway, etc. *However* I would urge
you, before you rush too quickly to follow the script, consider the
following alternative: work with Erik and myself against Germany. You will
have to deal with Tony eventually, why not now, when he is engaged with EF?
If you do get to choose from your southern friends, and would eventually
like to make that push for the northern waters, why not do that after Tony
has been limited or eliminated? RG conflict is basically unavoidable, and I
daresay with Tony in Germany that much moreso in this game. ER conflict, on
the other hand need not *ever* take place. So I would recommend to you,
reconsider this path I think you are on. You do not need a Northern
"stalemate line" - I have vacated Norway to give you security and I would
like to see us work together.
On to a lighter subject. . .
> On an unrelated note, both of our teams sucked today. I think
> mine sucked a
> whole lot more than yours, but I may be biased.
Yes, but Oakland is supposed to suck. Didn't you get the memorandum? The
Baltimore game was a circus. For one and a half quarters we played like
Super Bowl champions, blowing Saint Louis off both sides of the ball, to
come back from the 14-0 head start to be winning going into the half.
Unfortunately neither our starting qb nor our offensive line came back onto
the field for the second half. We had a backup at quarterback and five
random stiffs from the stands, wearing Ravens uniforms and pads, as our
offensive line.
Pushing a quality Jets team to overtimes was not so bad. Blowing the lead
was ugly, but if I told you ahead of time you'd be losing to the Jets in
overtime maybe you wouldn't be too upset. Discouraging to read Jerry Rice
complaining about the coaching, though. . .
Ben
Message from England to England
My correspondence with Russia for the last few days has been to set up
friendly relations *after* the dust clears, as I do not think he has any
intention of trying to work with me, for now, whether he orders the support
to DEN or not. There is no reason - tactically or diplomatically - that NWY
should be annexed by Russia. I wanted to tell him no, politely, so that he
cannot claim betrayal, if things go well with Germany.
I am worried about Erik's response to me working with Tony in the North -
just another risk I'm taking, I guess. Trying to set that up by painting
Russia as a bad guy, but I don't think that's working too well yet.
If I can maintain the FG ground war then I should be ok, for awhile.
Ben
Message from England to France
Erik -
Perhaps if you do get two or three builds you will consider beginning your
push into the Med. The reason I say this is, whether there is an RT or an
RI makes little difference to me in the North. But if it is an RI, which is
perfectly likely, then you may be looking at Andy pushing at you as Eric is
pushing at me, in the imminent future.
Turkey seems to think it is an RT. But of course it's what *he* would
think; after all, it's what he's being told. . .
Ben
Message from France to England
> I agree 100%. Go for BEL. There is a very good chance he will not try
> to
> dislodge MUN anyway, so you may end up with both. *And* POR. Good
> luck, my
> friend.
Will do. Is there any way you can get Germany to break Sweden's support?
Germany can't be too pleased about seeing RT at his back, and maybe you
can dangle a truce in Germany's face as a way to get the support you need.
You've clearly both got a problem with Russia.
Since Holland seems like an impossibility, it seems to me that you would
be better off at least trying to enlist some help from Germany to get your
Scandanavian center back. You can't do damage against Germany this turn,
I'll be doing plenty, so you should try to save yourself up north and keep
Russia from getting too dominant.
>
> He wants to keep NWY. If he keeps NWY as a "loaner" it will be nearly
> impossible for me to reclaim except by force, as it will require me to
> land
> a unit next to STP, which is something he will not likely agree to.
No such thing as a loaner in this game, if you ask me. Let's see if we can
get Germany to cut support for Nwy.
Just got your other message. I would indeed be willing to consider
building down south. Andy isn't a problem right now, but that can only
last a year or two max. I'm a little soft down there right now, so F Mar
or, if you're willing to consider it, F Bre - Mao - Spa (sc) are both
options.
Erik
Message from England to France
Erik -
> Will do. Is there any way you can get Germany to break
> Sweden's support?
Tony's offered me support into SWE. For now, the situation in the East is
*very* favorable to Russia - basically getting some Austrian spoils while I
and T fight each other over the Balkans - and that's not good for Germany
either. So I am keeping my fingers crossed that Tony will keep his word,
this time.
> Germany can't be too pleased about seeing RT at his back, and
> maybe you
> can dangle a truce in Germany's face as a way to get the
> support you need.
> You've clearly both got a problem with Russia.
*sigh*
> Since Holland seems like an impossibility, it seems to me
> that you would
> be better off at least trying to enlist some help from
> Germany to get your
> Scandanavian center back. You can't do damage against Germany
> this turn,
> I'll be doing plenty, so you should try to save yourself up
> north and keep Russia from getting too dominant.
We are of like mind - that's the plan. Maintain position against Germany
but push Russia off the ball in the North.
> > He wants to keep NWY. If he keeps NWY as a "loaner" it
> > will be nearly impossible for me to reclaim except by
> > force, as it will require me to land a unit next to STP,
> > which is something he will not likely agree to.
>
> No such thing as a loaner in this game, if you ask me.
Well, sometimes there is real dot-swapping, and I have no problem with that.
But I do not believe it is appropriate for Russia to be claiming Norway in
'02, barring something extreme we are not seeing here.
> Just got your other message. I would indeed be willing to consider
> building down south. Andy isn't a problem right now, but that can only
> last a year or two max. I'm a little soft down there right
> now, so F Mar
> or, if you're willing to consider it, F Bre - Mao - Spa (sc) are both
> options.
When we get to that bridge, we will cross it.
Ben
Message from Germany to England
Erik is enquiring about the north, as I dont fully dismiss the fact that he
and Russia are already carving us up I stated that you and I are stil in
negotiations in the north.
Message from Germany to England
Yes, I see no reason why it wont be able to support you.
Message from England to Germany
Tony -
> Erik is enquiring about the north, as I dont fully dismiss
> the fact that he
> and Russia are already carving us up I stated that you and I
> are stil in negotiations in the north.
I know France and Russia are negotiating. I've tried telling France about
the RT bogeyman and the menace in Italy, so hopefully he will keep focussed
south.
Do you want to reconsider DEN - SWE, thus permitting me the convoy to NWY?
Of course, the downside is, support could be cut SWE - SKA. What do you
think? I'm trying to think ahead, to how I will get into NWY; I guess we
should just see how SWE will retreat. . .
Ben
Message from Germany to England
No, I dont wish to move DEN for now. I am supporting it from KIE just in
case Russia doesnt come through.
As it is holding all it can do is give support.
Message from England to Germany
Tony -
> No, I dont wish to move DEN for now. I am supporting it from
> KIE just in case Russia doesnt come through.
> As it is holding all it can do is give support.
That's fine. I'm inclined to think in a fall phase the attack against NWY
would be unnecessarily risky anyway.
Ben
Message from Russia to England
> I had thought I responded, that such
> a force would be four to six units
> [....] and require Russian occupation of Norway, which is
> hardly pro-English. What I recall I wrote in exchange was, you may wish
> to defend your border with me *diplomatically*, as to construct such a
> massive force and deploy them against a friendly England might drain
> your more hotly contested borders to the south and west.
Correct, and I'm not looking to deploy such a force early. I know I'm
repeating myself here, but my point was that having only one unit in the
north now made having the possibility of defending myself in the north later
(any by later, I mean mid-end game) much more unlikely.
>> Looking at the board had I moved Stp-Lvn, that was
>> not likely to have happened at any point. That plus the
>> feeling I would need
>> a build for working in the south is what prompted the move.
>As I said, I understood it in the context of the upheaval in the south.
Actually, I hadn't realized that you made that statement at any point in this
dialogue.
>Fortunately that seems to have abated. Unless you are Austria, which you
>are not.
:)
> Here is what I am seeing, as I struggle to read between the lines.
> Forgive me if my inexperience leads me down the wrong path in this
> analysis.
I'm clearly not doing a good job of communicating this. I think this may be
in part because I'm being somewhat indirect in my comments. Let me try to be
more direct: I see a very strong EF, where both players are very vigorous in
their desire to see me help with removing G. There is nothing inherently
wrong with that, but we both know that Tony is going to be doing whatever he
can to throw one of us in a different driection. Last season he offered
Den-Nth to me, he probably offered Den-Swe to you. Overally, he's trying to
play us against each other, and as you comment, I daresay he's trying to do
so much moreso than you and I are trying to play each other (if that's not
true, you obviously won't tell me, but if it is my hat's off to you for your
diploming skill).
By virtue of your fleet strength, once you are in Den, Tony cannot
realistically make a move that hurts you, or even really benefits me. He can
make moves that slow you and he can fail to oppose me, but that's about it.
With F Swe alone in the north, and a vengeful and angy German F Bal due to
retreats, there are all sorts of things Tony can (and would) offer to you to
get you to move north on me. Eventually as he grinds down, you would be very
tempted to take advantage of that support, since there would be no way for me
to realistically retaliate.
Clearly he still can help you, and my moves have probably made it more likely
that you might work with him sooner rather than later. I would be stunned if
Tony has not already offered to use Den to help you against me, and I won't
be too surprised if he actually provides such support, though I suspect he's
really more interested in seeing Kie freed up to help defend against Mun.
Frankly, if Tony does end up helping you I will no doubt come crawling back
to you with a completely different viewpoint on the importance of a second
Scandinavian unit for Russia.
A Nwy is clearly not great for England, but it's a whole lot better than F
Nwy, and it's no threat to England beyond the loss of that particular dot.
It's clear that we can cooperate from the current board position, though I'm
not looking like as trustworthy an ally to you as I probably did earlier.
From my point of view the value of A Nwy is in making it more inviting for
you to spend effort moving west rather than east once Germany falls. I wish I
could have come up with a better scenario for getting that position to be,
but that's the motivation.
So enough excuses and discussion. You are saying that Nwy-StP is a good way
to rebuild our relationship. Supposing that I agree to that, what would your
moves be and how would we proceed in an EFR vs. G?
> If you do get to choose from your southern friends, and would eventually
> like to make that push for the northern waters, why not do that after
> Tony has been limited or eliminated?
You may be pegging me as more confident than I am. I am not at all clear that
I get to choose from southern friends. I still feel like I'm playing catchup
with the other alliances down there.
On the other point, I think that's what I was trying to address in the longer
section above. I don't want to make a big push to the north; I just want to
have enough in place to not look like an easy mark down the road.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>On to a lighter subject. . .
>Yes, but Oakland is supposed to suck. Didn't you get the memorandum?
No official memorandum, but the message has come through loud and clear. If
the first two losses didn't make it obvious, the last five in a row certainly
did. The most anguishing thing is that I have tickets to the game with the
Broncos on Thanksgiving weekend. I don't know how much I'm looking forward to
going to that one....
> The Baltimore game was a circus. For one and a half quarters we played
> like Super Bowl champions, blowing Saint Louis off both sides of the
> ball, to come back from the 14-0 head start to be winning going into the
> half.
That was amazing. I was *sure* you guys were going to wipe them out, but the
score compared to the stat box was just bizarre. I think they said the Rams
set a record for most points/yard gained by any team that scored over 30
points. And the stat that Faulk had two TDs on -1 yard rushing. Just bizarre.
> Unfortunately neither our starting qb nor our offensive line came
> back onto the field for the second half. We had a backup at quarterback
> and five random stiffs from the stands, wearing Ravens uniforms and
> pads, as our offensive line.
Welcome to my world. Rick Mirer as old as the rest of the team, just with
less experience. :/
> Pushing a quality Jets team to overtimes was not so bad.
"I've seen the Raiders play quality Jets teams [we were at the Jets-Raiders
playoff game two years ago] and that was NOT a quality Jets team."
> Blowing the
> lead was ugly, but if I told you ahead of time you'd be losing to the
> Jets in overtime maybe you wouldn't be too upset.
You are ever the diplomat. :)
> Discouraging to read Jerry Rice complaining about the coaching, though. . .
Well, if a 2-7 start doesn't cause people to complain, something else is
wrong. Gannon saying that he was perfectly happy with his play when the team
was at 2-2 or 2-4 or so was just stunning.
--- Eric
Message from England to Russia
Eric -
Excellent to hear from you.
> >As I said, I understood it in the context of the upheaval in
> the south.
>
> Actually, I hadn't realized that you made that statement at
> any point in this
> dialogue.
I think what happened is, you overlooked what I'd written because I used the
Cyrillic word "undertainty":
************
Message sent to Russia:
Message from BHarris@StAttorney.org as England to Russia in 'c2':
Eric -
Well, I was disappointed of course, but I can understand why, with
undertainty in the south, you felt you needed the dot.>
***********
;-)
[snippage]
> A Nwy is clearly not great for England, but it's a whole lot
> better than F
> Nwy, and it's no threat to England beyond the loss of that
> particular dot.
That was my thinking, too. I could not understand why you captured with the
army.
[more snippage - reinsert where appropriate]
> So enough excuses and discussion. You are saying that Nwy-StP
> is a good way
> to rebuild our relationship. Supposing that I agree to that,
> what would your
> moves be and how would we proceed in an EFR vs. G?
How about, I dislodge NWY and you disband it, rebuilding in WAR? It would
require an extension of trust, on your part, but it's one possibility.
Another is NWY - SWE, SWE - BAL. Could bounce, but again, I could force NWY
and you would have that rebuilding option. Frankly I haven't given this
much thought - please send your counter-proposals.
What I liked about STP - LVN was that it put you in Berlin pretty quickly.
Water under the bridge now, of course.
I am trying to be smart; please bear with me.
[more snippage - too much Dip at work]
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >On to a lighter subject. . .
> >Yes, but Oakland is supposed to suck. Didn't you get the memorandum?
>
> No official memorandum, but the message has come through loud
> and clear. If
> the first two losses didn't make it obvious, the last five in
> a row certainly
> did. The most anguishing thing is that I have tickets to the
> game with the
> Broncos on Thanksgiving weekend. I don't know how much I'm
> looking forward to going to that one....
If you have tickets - you should be looking forward to it. Win, lose, or
draw. Going to the game is fantastic.
> > The Baltimore game was a circus. For one and a half
> quarters we played
> > like Super Bowl champions, blowing Saint Louis off both sides of the
> > ball, to come back from the 14-0 head start to be winning
> going into the
> > half.
>
> That was amazing. I was *sure* you guys were going to wipe
> them out, but the
> score compared to the stat box was just bizarre. I think they
> said the Rams
> set a record for most points/yard gained by any team that
> scored over 30
> points. And the stat that Faulk had two TDs on -1 yard
> rushing. Just bizarre.
Clearly as I sit here our season hangs in the balance, while they MRI Kyle
Boller's knee.
> > Unfortunately neither our starting qb nor our offensive line came
> > back onto the field for the second half. We had a backup
> at quarterback
> > and five random stiffs from the stands, wearing Ravens uniforms and
> > pads, as our offensive line.
>
> Welcome to my world. Rick Mirer as old as the rest of the
> team, just with less experience. :/
I'll trade you Chris Redman for Rick Mirer.
Ben
Message from Austria to England
> I am really curious to know how they respond.
To paint the right picture, you should know that I made
separate offer of Vienna to Russia & Serbia to Turkey
so he could build 2 fleets to go after Italy.
Eric accepted, but Jason told me he needed to think
about it since there was alot of demand for Serbia!?!
I didn't bother replying to Jason as I don't see the point
of trying to convince him to kill me in alliance with Eric
if he's allready so involved in killing me with Andy. I will
see what can be done with Eric, but I wouldn't worry
about any RT in your place.
Regards,
Philippe.
P.-S. If you can make sense of Jason for me, please do
so as I'm done trying to.
Message from England to Austria
Philippe -
> To paint the right picture, you should know that I made
> separate offer of Vienna to Russia & Serbia to Turkey
> so he could build 2 fleets to go after Italy.
Ok, what you'd planned. . .
> Eric accepted, but Jason told me he needed to think
> about it since there was alot of demand for Serbia!?!
*chuckle*
> I didn't bother replying to Jason as I don't see the point
> of trying to convince him to kill me in alliance with Eric
> if he's allready so involved in killing me with Andy. I will
> see what can be done with Eric, but I wouldn't worry
> about any RT in your place.
I would appreciate it if you would keep this morsel between us. The image
of an RT is very helpful to me right now. Thank you for the excellent
insight.
My insight about Jason is, he is well-meaning but inexperienced. He will
get better, but hopefully only as much as we want him to, for now.
Hardly a news-flash, I know.
Godspeed.
Ben
Message from England to Russia
Eric -
Plan B - I hope addressing all your objections. Tony's been offering
support for SKA - SWE. What if I *accept*?
You hold onto NWY and (assuming Tony makes good on his promise and supports
SKA - SWE; if he doesn't, fairly or unfairly, I'd suspect a leak) you
retreat from SWE to BAL. Suddenly my position against you is not very good
- I am further than ever from STP - but our combined position against
Germany is better than ever.
I like this plan best & have put in the corresponding orders, with wait set.
Thoughts?
Ben
Message from Russia to England
> I think what happened is, you overlooked what I'd written because I used
> the Cyrillic word "undertainty":
> ************
> Message sent to Russia:
>
> Message from BHarris@StAttorney.org as England to Russia in 'c2':
>
> Eric -
> Well, I was disappointed of course, but I can understand why, with
> undertainty in the south, you felt you needed the dot.>
> ***********
> ;-)
Ahh. I think I was so stunned by the use of the word "disappointed" that I
didn't digest the rest of the message.
>> Supposing that I agree to that, what would your
>> moves be and how would we proceed in an EFR vs. G?
>How about, I dislodge NWY and you disband it, rebuilding in WAR? It
>would require an extension of trust, on your part, but it's one
>possibility. Another is NWY - SWE, SWE - BAL. Could bounce, but again, I
>could force NWY and you would have that rebuilding option. Frankly I
>haven't given this much thought - please send your counter-proposals.
Well, this is the reverse point of view of who extends what trust, but what
about standing pat now (meaning holding onto Nwy) but following this plan for
next season. Essentially me taking Nwy, but looking to replace it (rather
than augment it) with Ber in '03. If Tony helps you against me, you know I
will be motivated to help you -- in that case I'd probably use the center or
disband to build F StP/sc. If he doesn't, then I'd probably bulid A War. In
either case, we could move forward together.
So I guess what I'm saying is that I would like to move as if I'm going to
keep Nwy. I'd like to sugarcoat that, but I don't think it's that
sugarcoatable. Since I expect Tony has already offered support against me
(whether or not he provides it) I won't take it amiss if you attack Nwy in
Fall, even if you are successful. In that case, our moves end up being what
you suggested anyway (this supposing you end up taking it with a fleet and
not an army). The other option for you would be that you try to take Den and
ignore me. I gather you are disposed towards the former option, but I don't
need you'd to tell me which way you expect to move or whether or not you
expect to be successful.
> I am trying to be smart; please bear with me.
That's when I always get into trouble myself!
> If you have tickets - you should be looking forward to it. Win, lose,
> or draw. Going to the game is fantastic.
True, it's just the 3-4 hour round travel time (round trip) is a lot of
investment for a bad game. On the plus side, we should be able to find some
free seats in good sections!
> I'll trade you Chris Redman for Rick Mirer.
Touche!
--- Eric
Message from Russia to England
Our press passed each other.
Yeah, I knew you both were too good to miss that option.
FWIW, I expected he would offer that support as well, and have already hinted
to him that I realized he might be tempted to offer to help you with Den. I
didn't explicitly say Ska-Swe on the off-chance that neither of you would
come up with it, but I've had my eye on that move for awhile. Be aware that
threats for retaliation have already been made against him.
My preference is that you attack Tony, but that's not terribly realistic and
so is not a demand I can make of you. When I said "go ahead and attack me if
you can get Tony's help" in that last message, Ska-Swe was specifically in my
mind as a possibility. I will not hold it against you if you make that
attack, but do be warned in evaluating Tony's offer that I've already warned
him about the consequences of such a move. At the same time he has asked me
to offer you support for Ska-Den and then to order Swe S Den. The obvious
idea being that if you work with me you suffer (Den is supported, you go down
one) and if you don't, I suffer (Nwy is not supported), but in either case
he's doing well. I think he wants the freedom to order Kie S ???-Mun and so
is more interested in distracting you. But I can't overlook the real
possibility that he'll actually order the support.
So that move is your call. Given what I've heard, I'm entering orders to
self-support myself, and you shouldn't have to tell me what you will actually
order. As long as you don't move to Nwg or stick an army into Nwy, I think we
are good. I promise to act surprised if you do succeed.
--- Eric
Message from England to Russia
> As long as you don't move to Nwg or stick an army into
> Nwy, I think we
> are good. I promise to act surprised if you do succeed.
By telling you ahead of time, and securing your blessing, my hope is it will
be win/win for our relationship. I would like to succeed mostly because I
would like to see you in BAL. Our position would be crushing.
If it fails, as you say, you will owe me one next year, and I will still be
in a good position to make you sorry, if you try to welch on me. It won't
be worth the one dot, as you know.
It will be marvelous if it succeeds - I hope you can act well. . .
Ben
Message from Russia to England
I agree that it would be win-win. My point was more that Tony IS forewarned
that I know he might try that. I have not (and will not) say anything to make
him think that I am expecting it.
Good luck, I think. :)
--- Eric
Message from England to Russia
Eric -
> Good luck, I think. :)
Thank you, my friend. We will see.
Ben
Austria: Army Budapest SUPPORT Army Serbia
Austria: Army Serbia SUPPORT Russian Fleet Sevastopol → Rumania (*cut*)
Austria: Fleet Trieste → Adriatic Sea
Austria: Army Vienna → Trieste (*bounce*)
England: Fleet London → North Sea (*bounce*)
England: Fleet North Sea → Norway (*bounce*)
England: Fleet Skagerrak → Sweden (*bounce*)
England: Army Yorkshire HOLD
France: Army Burgundy SUPPORT Army Picardy → Belgium
France: Fleet Mid-Atlantic Ocean → Portugal
France: Army Munich → Ruhr
France: Army Picardy → Belgium
Germany: Army Belgium → Burgundy (*bounce, destroyed*)
Germany: Army Berlin → Munich
Germany: Fleet Denmark HOLD
Germany: Army Kiel SUPPORT Army Berlin → Munich
Germany: Army Ruhr → Holland
Italy: Army Greece → Serbia (*bounce*)
Italy: Fleet Ionian Sea → Tunis
Italy: Fleet Naples → Ionian Sea
Italy: Army Venice → Trieste (*bounce*)
Russia: Army Galicia SUPPORT Fleet Sevastopol → Rumania
Russia: Army Norway SUPPORT Fleet Sweden (*cut*)
Russia: Fleet Sevastopol → Rumania
Russia: Fleet Sweden SUPPORT Army Norway (*cut*)
Russia: Army Ukraine SUPPORT Fleet Sevastopol → Rumania
Turkey: Fleet Black Sea SUPPORT Army Rumania
Turkey: Army Bulgaria SUPPORT Italian Army Greece → Serbia
Turkey: Army Constantinople SUPPORT Army Bulgaria
Turkey: Army Rumania SUPPORT Italian Army Greece → Serbia (*cut, destroyed*)
|