|
|
Message from England to Russia
Eric -
One intriguing way to reduce the size of the draw, that I might be tempted
into, would be for you to withdraw to one of the *southern* - not eastern,
but southern - lines, conceding me MOS and WAR, etc., etc.
It would be a major diplomatic and tactical chore and it would probably
have to begin with you giving up two of your home centers. So I would
understand if you're not interested!
Anyway draw is set again.
Ben
Message from Germany to England
Hi Ben,
>>To my mind, your strategy would likely have ended in a 3 way with an
outside chance of a Russian solo. My strategy would likely have led to a
draw with a remote chance of an English solo, which alas is not coming to
pass. But I was looking for the solo, and I didn't see how your plan would
get me there.No doubt you saw a future that I did not, but that was my
thinking.>>
The future I saw was a Russian solo. I havent been following the game for
some time due to other priorities but I do recall deciding to try and help
someone to a solo. I guess the choice fell on Russia. I must have been
making suggestions to you which would lead to the Russian solo. Forgive my
sins ;-)
I would obviously rather one person solo than a draw. I guess at the time
Russia had the best chance.
Tony
Message from England to Germany
Tony -
> I must have been making suggestions to you which would
> lead to the Russian solo.
That explains your thinking. I had thought at the time you (a) weren't
paying attention or (b) were stupid, I hadn't considered the possibility
that you were still really playing from beyond the grave. You, sir, are a
cretin.
:-)
Ben
Message from Germany to England
:-)
Message from Russia to England
Hey Ben,
Can you give me a sense of what you are angling at? You can completely safely
take Ber at this point, so reducing the size of the draw another way implies
trying to take out France, yes?
Basically, if you want to go from EFIR to EFR, then I don't think we really
need to negotiate anything. Take Ber in Fall, and there is nothing Andy can
do. If you are looking for EIR or ER, then I've got concerns as will you, but
I don't want to get ahead of myself by getting into details if you are really
looking for EFR.
Let me know what you are thinking about.
--- Eric
Message from Russia to France
Odds were basically nil that you'd walk out of Marseilles, but I thought I'd
give it a shot. :)
We'll see if Ben gets rid of Andy now.
--- Eric
Message from France to Russia
> Odds were basically nil that you'd walk out of Marseilles, but I thought
> I'd
> give it a shot. :)
Good to see you're still alive and thinking -- somebody's got to keep our
peaceful little soldiers busy.
>
> We'll see if Ben gets rid of Andy now.
Odds are slim. He doesn't see the point in eliminating Andy purely for the
sake of turning a 4WD into a 3WD. I have messaged him a number of times on
this, and he's fairly unwavering. If you would like to take a crack at
convincing him otherwise, go ahead, but the marginal return on my efforts
have decreased enough to make me no longer want to try to influence his
decision. I have been setting draw and will continue to do so. You guys
work it out and tell me if I need to support somebody somewhere from Mun.
Erik
Message from England to Russia
Eric -
I know I can take BER.
Reducing from 4 to 3 for the sake of reducing is what I am declining to do.
However reducing from 4 to 2 has the advantages of (1) elegance and (2) a
solo for me if you screw it up. I suppose if I screw it up the solo would
be yours.
The challenge would be switching you to a southern line, instead of an
eastern line, because if you stay behind your eastern line I would never be
able to attack France. So I think it would pretty much have to begin with
you conceding me MOS and/or WAR, with me also in MUN, and we would have to
navigate something safe along the SEV - UKR - GAL - VIE border. Meanwhile
you would need fleet strength to squeeze out France and ultimately keep
*me* from penetrating the Med. for my 18th.
I doubt it's doable, but I wanted to float it to you as something that
could keep us going for awhile, if that's what you really want to do..
Frankly I suspect it's not possible for us to reach a 2 way safely, but
it's close enough to possible that I point it out to you.
My orders are in with draw set. You don't have to decide now - I don't
think your response will affect my orders this phase one way or the other.
And of course, if you set draw, that will be answer enough. ;-)
Ben
Message from Germany to England
With bal - ber supported by kie followed up by bot - bal then the 3 way is
secured.
Message from England to Germany
Tony -
> With bal - ber supported by kie followed up by bot - bal then the 3 way is
> secured.
While I am aware that your advice is technically correct, I still must
hesitate before doing anything you suggest. ;-)
Ben
Message from Russia to England
Ben,
While I'd love to look at going for the two way, my schedule has again
morphed to be such that I don't think it's worth it time wise. As per my
broadcast I'll just set draw and call it a game.
Message from Russia to all
It is ludicrous at this point that I would be late, but I had another work
event come up and bite me. Given that this is two times since I became the
obstacle to a draw being called, I am setting draw with this message. No need
to punish you all (and all the observers) for my lateness.
--- Eric
Message from England to all
EOG England
My plan is to write this quickly and take a nap. Tonight & tomorrow
morning I will, Greg willing, read over some of the Yahoo group business,
and I will follow up. But I will try (proofreading now - I see I failed)
to keep this short.
Congratulations to the other participants in the draw, and also to those
who were eliminated, this was overall the most challenging board I have
played at. I am proud of myself to be in the draw, yes, though it be 4-way.
Concerning the inclusion of Andy in the four way draw, there are several
reasons why I did it. First and foremost, there was not even the remotest
chance of a solo, or advancement in a tournament, if I did eliminated him.
Indeed by keeping him alive the position was slightly *more* unstable,
though not sufficiently so that I didn't set draw. All other things being
precisely even, I would eliminate, but all other things were *not* even
here. I believed Andy's play in the endgame earned him some credit, plus
notwithstanding occasional relatively minor betrayals, such as the bounce
with Russia in Ruhr, he was an excellent correspondent with good advice. A
pleasure to play with. So, he got a merit badge for that too. When you,
gentle reader, are England and I am Italy stuck in Berlin, it will be your
choice, but this time I was England, and it was mine.
Now, to work forward from the beginning:
In the opening it was natural for me to try to work with Erik against Tony.
This dovetailed with Andy's efforts and also if successful would lead to
the destruction of the most experienced of my near neighbors. To a certain
extent, Tony brought this on himself by being abrasive, or at least frigid,
in his opening press. It was very easy for him to alienate Erik, giving me
the partner I needed. I still do not understand why he would agree to an
outrageous opening strategy and do something conservative instead. I guess
it drew Erik out of position, but he *knew* I wouldn't be out of position
to work against him - there was a diplomatic price to be paid, and he paid
it.
For technical reasons probably relating to a virus I am having problems
running Adobe, which I would need for a review of tactics in the early
years.
I recall Eric recovering very nicely from '01 setbacks and quickly emerging
as the board leader, always softly diverting attention from himself. If AT
had stuck together awhile longer at the beginning it would have been
terrific for me. I do not know which of my friends in the East triggered
the collapse of that relationship, but their falling out was premature.
What I would have liked was for them to cripple Russia first, and then the
normally unstable AT could have fallen apart, and it would have been
perfect.
However Eric was plenty strong when AT split, and grew as a result. As I
recall Philippe for as long as he was participating in the game, even when
attacked from his East, would not let go of Andy's ankle. I wonder why
that was. . . Anyway this handicapping of Andy probably is the single
biggest factor keeping Andy from being a major player as the game wore on.
As I mentioned in an earlier press to self, my biggest failing probably
game-long was my failure to develop intelligence from AT or to put it to
good use when I had it. It struck me in F'01, I remember, that Tony wrote
me he would have done X if only he'd known of the bounce in BLA. Well, *I*
knew of the bounce in BLA, but I had no idea what to make of this
intelligence, and soon enough the intelligence started to dry up.
My finest hour was probably turning back the French F IRI and subsequently
grabbing BER and KIE. This was a big jump for me, from hunted to hunter,
and once I had BER I was looking for the angle to solo.
I pulled back from my attack against France because I figured, with BEL and
BRE claimed, I had crippled Erik's ability to move swiftly against me, and
by pulling back, I was able to pursue my 18th in the North, in a position
in which I could come back for centers 13 through 17 (or whatever) from
Erik later. Never came to pass. . . See above; the early collapse of AT
and consequent strong R made it too difficult a road for me.
Concerning the players,
Jason: It was a pleasure, I would rather have had more to discuss with you.
. . I should, if I'd been smart, at least been able to discuss your
suicide with you. Oh well.
Philippe: I know I frustrated you by my decision not to play too
aggressively against Russia, but to pursue Germany instead; that was our
falling out and the end of meaningful discourse. Part of my failing, as
I've said.
Tony: We corresponded a *lot*. It was my sense your pushiness led to the
solid EF against you and ultimately to the Russian cooperation that spelled
your end. Your board and diplomatic skill greatly exceed my own and I hope
I am a better player from all our correspondence.
Andy: Pretty much all said, scattered through above.
Erik: The timing of your attack against Andy at the end was perfect,
notwithstanding the banter I shared with Andy at the time. You showed a
lot of patience not turning on me when you had every reason to want to. . .
I recall some humor mixed in with your press, earlier on. I would have
liked more of it, and the ability to turn that on can really help in a jam.
Eric: Very well played, you have a soft diplomatic touch. I am proud to
have survived into the draw with you.
No doubt more to follow. . .
Ben (England)
Message from Russia to all
Ben,
You are entirely too short winded for my tastes. :)
I'll bore everyone with a long EOG when I have time later in the week --
maybe I can steal the time this evening -- but I doubt I'll have much chance
to go through the full press logs and respond to anything there until the
weekend.
--- Eric
Message from Germany to all
Thanks first off to Greg for GM-ing the game. A BIG congratulations to Andy,
Ben, Eric & Erik in their share of the draw.
Greg, would you be so kind as to post the goupr which hosts the comments and
press. I wil sign up there and get around to my EOG next week. It is a
holiday period in the netherlands and I wont be back until Monday.
Tony
Message from France to all
Good game, all. Congrats to all the players for an enjoyable game, and
thanks to Greg for setting it up.
It will take me a few days to get an EOG together; I won't be home tonight
but should be able to go through old press on Wednesday. I will say that I
am somewhat surprised to be here; I counted at least three or four fatal
errors on my part during the game that should have gotten me killed. Gotta
love France.
More soon,
Erik
Message from Italy to all
Thank you Greg for running a great game. Congrats to everyone else in the
draw, and a big thank you to Ben for keeping his word to me. It was a
pleasure from beginning to end.....and I can say without hesitation that
this is one of the toughest games I have ever played.
I dont have time for an EOG right now, but one is coming later.
Thanks
Andy
Every normal man must be tempted, at times
to spit on his hands, hoist the skull and
crossbones, and begin slitting throats"
- H.L.Menken
Message from Observer to Observer
Greetings, here I am.
I haven't looked at anything yet - if you have questions, fire away and I'll think about them as I review the game history.
Ben
Message from Observer to Observer
Ha ha! I completely forgot about this wrinkle to the house rules,
even though I watched the first game!
Ben
--- In c2b@yahoogroups.com, aasdip@a... wrote:
> By the way, do we know that everyone has read the "House Rules" -
> specifically regarding the obligation to reduce the size of the
draw if reasonably
> possible?
Message from Observer to Observer
--- In c2b@yahoogroups.com, "Eric Hunter" <Dip_Power@c...> wrote:
> > Message from buffalo@g... as Italy to France in 'c2':
>
> > Well....Tony Vernon is Germany. And he is one of the best
> > players in the world....as least as good as Tamas.....
>
> > Message from buffalo@g... as Italy to England in 'c2':
>
> > Germany is one of the best players in the world.
> > Don't believe a word he says.....
>
> Tony Vernon - JDPR Rank - 340
> Tamas Hauer - JDPR Rank - 203
>
> Clearly Italy want EF vs. G, and is willing to exaggerate to
> accomplish it.
My guess is, from having corresonded with Andy for this game and
watched him the game before, the "best players" remark was a
reference to ftf play.
Ben
Message from Turkey to all
Greetings from the long-dead Turkey.
This certainly wasn't the best game I've played, although considering
the competition I feel I at least held my own.
My main plan from the beginning was to work with Austria to reduce
Russia, and then move west against Austria to establish myself in
central Europe. I figured this would remove both of my main adversaries,
and set me up well for the end game.
Unfortunately, I abandoned this plan very quickly under a withering
diplo attack from Russia and Italy, combined with my lack of progress. I
then tried to play AIR off against one another, as they each wanted me
to work against the others, and this would have worked except that
Russia and Austria both stabbed in 1905. I could have survived either
one, but both put me in an untenable position.
After that, I tried to work with Italy, but France's assault on his
position caused him to attack me to threaten a Russian win. Obviously,
his ploy worked, since he made the draw. After 1906, it was all over for
me. Russia kept me alive for a few years, but there was nothing I could
do to prevent him from eliminating me.
Great game, all. Looking forward to reading the groups.
jason
Message from Observer to Observer
I haven't gone though it yet, but I'll get started.
jason
--
Jason Bennett, jasonab@acm.org
E pur si muove!
Message from Master to all
Players,
Congratulations to England, France, Italy and Russia on the draw. Especially
Italy.
You are all welcome to join the game's discussion group - c2b@yahoogroups.com.
You can do so by going to: http://groups.yahoo.com/ and joining or by sending
an e-mail to: c2b-subscribe@yahoogroups.com.
Greg, GM
C2
Message from Observer to Observer
**************
>England:
>Perhaps a little unfortunate to be in his current position, though
to be
>duped two seasons in a row could be seen to be careless (to
paraphrase Oscar
>Wilde).
Yes. My answer to his "is Swe _and_ nwy too much to hope for?" was
"Of course it is, you moron!"
***************
Heh. :-)
Ben
Message from Observer to Observer
--- In c2b@yahoogroups.com, "Alastair Tomlinson" <alastair@m...>
wrote:
> Message from benjamin.harris@m... as England to England in 'c2':
>
> Poll:
> How much better would Ben be, if he had his own tactical skill,
and did not
> rely so heavily on the advice of other players?
> a. A lot.
> b. A fair amount.
> c. A little bit.
> d. None.
> e. [gallery is vacant]
>
>
>
> f. A lot better if he had more faith in his own ability ;)
Alastair, Greg and the others, thank you for your commitment to the
game, I see I was much closer to (e.) then I thought at the time.
Come back everybody! Make me better!
Ben
Message from Observer to Observer
--- In c2b@yahoogroups.com, "albrigh" <albrigh@m...> wrote:
> With Russia and the Gal DMZ, I really like this text: "Personaly, I
> would prefer to declare it a DMZ and learn as soon as possible
> whether you can be trusted or not, which is usefull to know if we
> are to be working together; but I did take the precaution of asking
> Tony about bouncing you in Sweden if things turn sour." This
> works and Austria and Russia agree on DMZ.
FWIW, I would have agreed to this regardless of Germany's inclusion of it as a requirement
for Swe.
--- Eric (Russia)
Message from Observer to Observer
--- In c2b@yahoogroups.com, "Peter J Richardson" <pjrich@p...> wrote:
> > Message: 12
> > Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2003 18:40:45 +0000 (UTC)
> > From: USTX Diplomacy Judge <ustx@s...>
> > Subject: USTX:c2 - F1902M Press from R to R
> > Message from ericgood@p... as Russia to Russia in 'c2':
> >
> > I'd be really curious to know how many observers there were just
> > before and just after pinnacle got started. My guess is that it
> > probably has greater draw and star appeal than this game.
> >
> > --- Eric
>
> I'd just say don't undersell yourself, I am enjoying reading the press for this game very
much, and I think that the
> quality of press in this game with perhaps the exception of Turkey is very high.
As you can see from my game, underselling myself is a one of my strong points. :)
--- Eric
Message from Observer to Observer
--- In c2b@yahoogroups.com, "Peter J Richardson" <pjrich@p...> wrote:
> > Eliminating someone who's helping you is bad for business (I'm having a
> > Tzarface flashback with that statement!).
>
> I wondered where the Tzarface guy went. I think that this the first comment I have seen
about his departure.
> Presumably Russia thought this contributed to his difficult start to the game. I did not
get that impression, I
> think it was more of a case of Jason decided off the bat which way he wanted to go, but
maybe superstition came into
> play as well. :-)
No, it was more that no one else was role playing, and it didn't seem to make sense to
maintain the pretense. As noted in press somewhere, I used the persona more to rebut the
grey broadcasts than anything else.
--- Eric
Message from Observer to Observer
--- In c2b@yahoogroups.com, Gregory A Greenman <greg@s...> wrote:
> The current power rankings:
>
> S1903M
> 11/19/2003
> 1. Russia - 7
> 2. France - 6
> --------------
> 3. Turkey - 4
> 4. Italy - 5
> 5. England - 3
> 6. Germany - 5
> 7. Austria - 4
>
>
> The previous power rankings:
>
> S1901M
> 10/08/2003
> 1. England - 3
> 2. France - 3
> 3. Austria - 3
> 4. Germany - 3
> 5. Italy - 3
> 6. Russia - 4
> 7. Turkey - 3
Ah, this is as good as it gets, I should stop reading here! :)
> 4. Italy -
>
> The terse press style he employs seems to limit his abilities to
> manipulate his neighbors. Compare his press to Turkey vs Russia's
> press to Turkey. It's little wonder that the Turk found Russia more
> persuasive.
For me it's less his terseness as his assumption that because he says it it must be so. I
commented on this in some press to self and will say more in my (in process) EOG, so
won't expand here.
> 6. Germany -
>
> He's suffered from a couple large problems:
>
> 3. Russia did not prove as easy to manipulate as he expected.
I don't know, getting me to build A StP in '02 seemed pretty manipulative to me! But I hope
I gave him some troubles on that front!
--- Eric
Message from Observer to Observer
> I wondered where the Tzarface guy went.
Privately I suspected the two major factors were
1. noone else was roleplaying, and, more importantly,
2. you weren't finding it fun.
Eric, do not neglect to write an eog. Do not make me come to San Francisco
to eat in fine restaurants, buy plenty of coffee beans, and kick your
behind.
Ben
Message from Observer to Observer
--- In c2b@yahoogroups.com, Gregory A Greenman <greg@s...> wrote:
> The current power rankings:
>
> S1903M
> 11/19/2003
> 1. Russia - 7
> 2. France - 6
> --------------
> 3. Turkey - 4
> 4. Italy - 5
> 5. England - 3
> 6. Germany - 5
> 7. Austria - 4
>
>
> The previous power rankings:
>
> S1901M
> 10/08/2003
> 1. England - 3
> 2. France - 3
> 3. Austria - 3
> 4. Germany - 3
> 5. Italy - 3
> 6. Russia - 4
> 7. Turkey - 3
Ah, this is as good as it gets, I should stop reading here! :)
> 4. Italy -
>
> The terse press style he employs seems to limit his abilities to
> manipulate his neighbors. Compare his press to Turkey vs Russia's
> press to Turkey. It's little wonder that the Turk found Russia more
> persuasive.
For me it's less his terseness as his assumptions of how I should react to his press. In
particular, that because he says it it must be so. Icommented on this in some press to self
and will say more in my (in process) EOG, so go into details here.
> 6. Germany -
>
> He's suffered from a couple large problems:
>
> 3. Russia did not prove as easy to manipulate as he expected.
I don't know, getting me to build A StP in '02 seemed pretty manipulative to me! But I
probably did give him some troubles after that. In particular, I doubt he realized how
closely Ben and I were working together while attacking each other.
--- Eric
Message from Observer to Observer
--- In c2b@yahoogroups.com, "uae112" <thomiks@g...> wrote:
> But if Russia doesn't want to destruct
> his own fleet I think he should live with the consequences, namely F
> Bla, A Rum.
I had offered this, I thought. I'll have to look back and see what the specifics were.
> And calling Turkey's current move a stab wouldn't do
> much good for my goodwill vis a vis Russia if I were Jason, it's a
> horrible exaggeration. Can't have the best of everything Eric =/
I was angry because I *did* keep asking about these things and never did he even hint that
having an army in Rum was important to him. I *would* have been willing to negotiate
something, but he never once asked for it.
At the same time, yes, it was a horrible exaggeration. I will admit, I simply underestimated
Jason on that one -- I thought I could convince him that he'd made a huge blunder (as I
thought I had in 02) and tried to use my niceness before as a lever. It failed miserably, as
you note.
> I actually think it's a bad move diplomatically because instead of the
> desired effect (the removal of A Rum) it was more likely to incite
> R/T conflict (and at the moment, it looks like that was a good
> prediction). For a very big part, Russia's success is linked to his
> ability to string Turkey along. If E/F get together (and to a lesser
> extent if they don't) a war with Turkey would close to ruin Russia's
> position. The disadvantages for Turkey, however, aren't nearly as
> big.
This I disagree with, and you can find my arguments in my press to Turkey. If I am forced
to fight him, where is he going to get centers?
--- Eric
Message from Observer to Observer
--- In c2b@yahoogroups.com, "Alastair Tomlinson" <alastair@m...> wrote:
> Andy wrote:
> *****
> Let Ben get farther away from you and wrapped up in the details of taking
> down France...if you move on him or he even percieves it, he will pull off
> of France and mend fences faster than Bush's press secretary can say *He
> has fulfilled his military obligation*.
> *****#
>
> I *love* Andy's press sometimes. He has such a way wth metaphors ...
> Alastair
A agree wholeheartedly!
--- Eric
Message from Observer to Observer
--- In c2b@yahoogroups.com, "Alastair Tomlinson" <alastair@m...> wrote:
> Having come across Ben's attitude on these things previously, I'm just
> interested to know what reasons he has for leaving Andy in the draw in this
> particular game. Ben's philosophy on this issue appears to be considering
> the situation on a game by game basis - which is fine by me - so I'm keen to
> know which criteria he feels Andy has met during this game that mean that
> Ben feels he merits inclusion in the draw.
Previewing my EoG some more, I would have done the same. Basically, the logic is this: I
would have soloed if Andy believed Ben *wouldn't* support him ad-infinitum. Leaving
Andy in the draw after I backed off is a completely reasonable response. Andy "had" to
throw if you take the logic that Ben "had" to eliminate him when I backed off.
Reciprocation on Ben's part is necessary, even though it amounts on some level to being
metagaming. (That's not what I argued in game, of course).
--- Eric
Message from Observer to Observer
--- In c2b@yahoogroups.com, "benharris1970" <benjamin.harris@m...> wrote:
> Alastair, Greg and the others, thank you for your commitment to the
> game, I see I was much closer to (e.) then I thought at the time.
I echo the comments.
> Come back everybody! Make me better!
No, make *me* better! :)
--- Eric
Message from Observer to Observer
Greg --
Can we get access to the press newsgroup, too?
Thanks,
Erik
(France)
Message from Observer to Observer
Erik -
It's c2f - I just got my clearance.
I'll let you know if I find anything good ;-)
Ben
> Can we get access to the press newsgroup, too?
Message from Observer to Observer
ergooder wrote:
>> And calling Turkey's current move a stab wouldn't do much good for
>> my goodwill vis a vis Russia if I were Jason, it's a horrible
>> exaggeration. Can't have the best of everything Eric =/
>
>
> I was angry because I *did* keep asking about these things and never
> did he even hint that having an army in Rum was important to him. I
> *would* have been willing to negotiate something, but he never once
> asked for it.
Well, that's because I knew you'd say no. :-)
It technically wasn't a stab, but it was a move to get leverage for one
in the future. As I recall, it was Andy's idea, but I'm sure he'll
clarify that.
> At the same time, yes, it was a horrible exaggeration. I will admit,
> I simply underestimated Jason on that one -- I thought I could
> convince him that he'd made a huge blunder (as I thought I had in 02)
> and tried to use my niceness before as a lever. It failed miserably,
> as you note.
I'm still not sure what blunder I made. I had to go after you to prevent
a solo - there was no way I was just going to play RT until you won. I
needed some move to give me options.
jason
--
Jason Bennett, jasonab@acm.org
E pur si muove!
Message from Observer to Observer
--- In c2b@yahoogroups.com, Jason Bennett <jasonab76@c...> wrote:
> ergooder wrote:
>
>>> And calling Turkey's current move a stab wouldn't do much good for
>>> my goodwill vis a vis Russia if I were Jason, it's a horrible
>>> exaggeration. Can't have the best of everything Eric =/
>>
>> I was angry because I *did* keep asking about these things and
never
>> did he even hint that having an army in Rum was important to him. I
>> *would* have been willing to negotiate something, but he never once
>> asked for it.
>
> Well, that's because I knew you'd say no. :-)
We'll never know, will we? I thought it said a lot that I was willing
to give up Rum. I could have easily stabbed you (moving to Arm as
Andy kept suggesting), so I thought I was being good.
>> At the same time, yes, it was a horrible exaggeration. I will
admit,
>> I simply underestimated Jason on that one -- I thought I could
>> convince him that he'd made a huge blunder (as I thought I had in
02)
>> and tried to use my niceness before as a lever. It failed
miserably,
>> as you note.
>
> I'm still not sure what blunder I made. I had to go after you to
prevent
> a solo - there was no way I was just going to play RT until you
won. I
> needed some move to give me options.
I mean that I tried to convince you that it was a blunder, not that I
really did think it was one. The reference to '02 was saying that I
*thought* I convinced you that attacking me in Sev was a blunder.
Reading these messages (in c2b) it appears that it was Andy as much
as I that changed your mind.
--- Eric
Message from Observer to Observer
Ben wrote early on:
> Russia: I see Eric's had some success with Russia in the past with
> a 3WD - coincidentally, with a Germany eliminating Erik Diehn as
> England - with play in the south. This is a good sign.
No kidding! Never even realized that Erik and I were in that game
together. No doubt because it was anonymous. Erik actually played
France, not England, to my Russia in that game. Small world.
--- Eric
Message from Observer to Observer
>> I need to learn never to write
>> right after a bad football game by the Raiders. :)
>Good lord a member of the Raider Nation. I wonder if he has a job.
>
>Ladies & gentlemen, do not concede you are a Raiders fan in civilized
>company. Now what am I supposed to say to him. Ordinarily I'd talk
>football but with zealots that's asking for trouble. . .
LOL!
In another message I agreed that Andy writes some brilliant press. As
brilliant as Andy is, however, Ben has him beat hands down!
I love this press.
--- Eric
Message from Observer to Observer
Andy is my mentor. You will observe my frequent use of elipses.
----- Original Message -----
From: ergooder
To: c2b@yahoogroups.com
Sent: 5/20/2004 2:35:31 AM
Subject: [c2b] Ben and the Raider Nation
>> I need to learn never to write
>> right after a bad football game by the Raiders. :)
>Good lord a member of the Raider Nation. I wonder if he has a job.
>
>Ladies & gentlemen, do not concede you are a Raiders fan in civilized
>company. Now what am I supposed to say to him. Ordinarily I'd talk
>football but with zealots that's asking for trouble. . .
LOL!
In another message I agreed that Andy writes some brilliant press. As
brilliant as Andy is, however, Ben has him beat hands down!
I love this press.
--- Eric
Message from Observer to Observer
Concerning the small world of diplomacy:
In this game I was playing against, among others, Andy Bartalone and Tony
Vernon.
Coincidentally when c2 began I was gm'ing Tony Vernon in another game, on
DEDO, the name of which is mercifully escaping me right now. It was &
hopefully will always be the only game in which I had to eject a player.
Near the end of c2 it was revealed I was simultaneously playing a nopress
game with noted bovine Andy "Buffalo" Bartolone.
Observing this game was Alastair Tomlinson, against whom I competed in the
gunboat full-press game "Zulu," on USTX, in which I made one error in
judgment that led me to a premature solo bid, as he described in his
commentary on c2. Thank you Alastair for sticking this game out.
Several game years into zulu I recognized my Italian friend as my Austrian
friend in the gunboat game Teachme3 on nzmb, in which Alastair very nearly
soloed as Austria and played marvelously well.
Anyway in Zulu I was allied for a long time with a Turk played by John
Caivano, a Canadian, and a fan of the Buffalo Bills. While Zulu was
dragging I signed on to a near-endgame position in a game called Madison, I
believe also on NZMB, in which the Turk was signing his correspondence
"Sultan Abdul," strikingly like my Turk friend in Zulu. Lo and behold,
John Caivano again. Madison likely would have been a Russian (Jonas
Uouodman) solo but the defending alliance was entirely made of replacement
players, who - pardon the immodesty - were superior in skill to those who
had abandoned their positions. So it was a draw.
Of these four press games, Teachme3, Zulu, C2, and Madison, all but Zulu
ended in a 4 way draw, and in each of the four way draws, eliminating the
minor power would have been but a technical exercise of varying difficulty.
There you have it, small world indeed.
Ben
Message from Observer to Observer
ergooder <ericgood@pacbell.net> writes:
> Ben wrote early on:
> > Russia: I see Eric's had some success with Russia in the past with
> > a 3WD - coincidentally, with a Germany eliminating Erik Diehn as
> > England - with play in the south. This is a good sign.
>
> No kidding! Never even realized that Erik and I were in that game
> together. No doubt because it was anonymous. Erik actually played
> France, not England, to my Russia in that game. Small world.
>
Which game was that? True enough about the small world -- this is the
second game in a row in which I've played France to Andy's Italy. He
thrashed me soundly early on in that game. I'd like to think that didn't
metagame that experience, but it *may* have influenced my desire to cut
him out of the draw ....
Erik
Message from Observer to Observer
--- Erik Diehn <erik@spamcop.net> wrote:
> ergooder <ericgood@pacbell.net> writes:
>
> > Ben wrote early on:
> > > Russia: I see Eric's had some success with Russia in the past with
> > > a 3WD - coincidentally, with a Germany eliminating Erik Diehn as
> > > England - with play in the south. This is a good sign.
> >
> > No kidding! Never even realized that Erik and I were in that game
> > together. No doubt because it was anonymous. Erik actually played
> > France, not England, to my Russia in that game. Small world.
> >
>
>
> Which game was that? True enough about the small world -- this is the
> second game in a row in which I've played France to Andy's Italy. He
> thrashed me soundly early on in that game. I'd like to think that didn't
> metagame that experience, but it *may* have influenced my desire to cut
> him out of the draw ....
>
> Erik
Hush on USIN. It ended in '02 sometime. I haven't gone back to skim the press
from that game, so I have no idea how much or how well we communicated back
then.
Following the theme, at least three of the commentators for this game -- Eric
H., Tamas, and Robin Walters -- were in the other concurrent game I was
playing in. Ironically I think Eric sent more comments on this game than
press messages to me in the other one. :o
--- Eric
--- Eric
Message from Observer to Observer
Press from Jason to self in F1901:
>Russia is really giving me a hard time about this whole RT thing, and I
>really have no idea why. Does he think I'm going to support him just
>because he badgers me about it? Fat chance!
Jason,
I hope you have picked up by now that one of my comments is that you need
to talk more. I find it bizarre that even though I spelled out why I was
frustrated (namely, that you refused to TALK, not that you were attacking
me) you think I was just badgering you.
This very much sounds like you were playing the game with blinders on. That
you have no idea why I would want to talk to someone who is attacking me
says that you really need to re-evaluate what exactly the purpose of press
is in a full press game.
I hope that doesn't come across as anger. It's intended as constructive
criticism. I had the sense that you were this kind of player in game (hence
my angry press to self in F1901 about you), but reading your own comments
makes this even clearer.
--- Eric
Message from Observer to Observer
From what I can see (and obviously, I have the lowest JDPR here), press is designed to communicate plans, as well as foster a relationship between powers for future use by both parties.
I can't find that press you're talking about right now (Yahoo search doesn't agree with me), but from where I sat, I saw that you're goal was to convince me of the rightness of your point of view, obviously regardless of the merits of it (that's your job).
My main fear in this game was to be carried along by you, Andy, or anyone while the commentators railed about my naivite (sp). You, Italy and Austria all wanted me to follow your plan, while I had my own plan as well. All of you were doing your best to apply pressure for me to follow you, and therefore anger the other two.
Now, given that, it's clear my press style is disfavored my everyone on this list, so I'd everyone filling in the gaps in my knowledge. I did follow the first commentators game from the sidelines, so examples from there are also appreciated.
jason
>
> Press from Jason to self in F1901:
>
> >Russia is really giving me a hard time about this whole RT thing, and I
> >really have no idea why. Does he think I'm going to support him just
> >because he badgers me about it? Fat chance!
>
> Jason,
>
> I hope you have picked up by now that one of my comments is that you need
> to talk more. I find it bizarre that even though I spelled out why I was
> frustrated (namely, that you refused to TALK, not that you were attacking
> me) you think I was just badgering you.
>
> This very much sounds like you were playing the game with blinders on. That
> you have no idea why I would want to talk to someone who is attacking me
> says that you really need to re-evaluate what exactly the purpose of press
> is in a full press game.
>
> I hope that doesn't come across as anger. It's intended as constructive
> criticism. I had the sense that you were this kind of player in game (hence
> my angry press to self in F1901 about you), but reading your own comments
> makes this even clearer.
>
> --- Eric
Message from Observer to Observer
Jason -
From what I can recall, your press to me was sensible and communicative.
Though I have not begun to dip into the press archive.
But I can tell this much, both from what I remember from the game and from
what I read of the commentators' statements:
You need to write *more*. Write *everybody* all the time, friends,
enemies, distant neutral neighbors. I'm not much good at tactics or
strategy or board vision. But I _write_, which makes up for pretty much
everything else, and is the reason why I have had some success at Dip but
have been a disaster at nopress.
You'll be fine - don't take any of the kibbitzing too hard. Heck, they
called me a moron. Also don't give a crap about jdpr, unless you want to.
If I gave a crap about jdpr, I would have eliminated Andy, which would have
helped my jdpr (and Eric's, and Erik's) considerably more than leaving him
as a hanger on, for a couple of reasons.
Ben
Message from Observer to Observer
I've seen this advice several times before (in various places), but frankly I never know what to write. I guess a statement of the board position is always helpful, but I have a hard time coming up with something constructive and intelligent without stating the obvious.
jason
> Jason -
> From what I can recall, your press to me was sensible and communicative.
> Though I have not begun to dip into the press archive.
>
> But I can tell this much, both from what I remember from the game and from
> what I read of the commentators' statements:
> You need to write *more*. Write *everybody* all the time, friends,
> enemies, distant neutral neighbors. I'm not much good at tactics or
> strategy or board vision. But I _write_, which makes up for pretty much
> everything else, and is the reason why I have had some success at Dip but
> have been a disaster at nopress.
>
> You'll be fine - don't take any of the kibbitzing too hard. Heck, they
> called me a moron. Also don't give a crap about jdpr, unless you want to.
> If I gave a crap about jdpr, I would have eliminated Andy, which would have
> helped my jdpr (and Eric's, and Erik's) considerably more than leaving him
> as a hanger on, for a couple of reasons.
>
> Ben
Message from Observer to Observer
> I've seen this advice several times before (in various places), but
frankly I
> never know what to write. I guess a statement of the board position is
> always helpful, but I have a hard time coming up with something
constructive
> and intelligent without stating the obvious.
Excellent question!
As you go through the press archive you will see several styles. The ones
I would discourage you from looking to emulate are, Andy's and Tony's.
They are both excellent ftf players whose particular pbem styles are I
suspect are our windows into the tournamed Dippers those two guys are at
heart. That's not me, and I suspect it's not you. Look at my press for an
example of an intermediate pbem player struggling to come up with stuff to
talk about, and look at Eric's for an example of how a good player does it.
Look at Tamas's press from the first game to see how to do that kind of
press freakishly well.
The key is, pay attention to what your opponents are responding to. I
wrote to Andy differently from the way I wrote to Eric, because they were
different kinds of correspondents. You would not talk to your college
buddies the same way you talk to your boss, or your wife; let the different
players bring out different qualities in your writing.
Look at the press archive with these thoughts in mind. Do not look at the
press archive of the games in the Showcase at the Pouch, which only show
the press of excellent players, and does not show any of their private
thoughts. The archive from c2 will be more helpful, I suspect, as you will
see contrasting styles, the private thoughts of the players, which you can
then see flow from their press, and the thoughts of the commentators as
well.
Does this help?
Ben
Message from Observer to Observer
Good advice from Ben. Press does not necessarily have to communicate a
specific plan or point, it just has to keep the channel of communication
open. You should treat press less as a planning and negotiating tool and
more of an intelligence resource. Often, what a player specifically says
about what he or she wants to do or wants you to do is less important than
the fact that he's saying it -- or not saying it. If Russia wants you to
be his partner, why? If Austria also wants you to be his partner, why? If
both of them want you to be a partner and do nothing but badmouth the
other, what does that say?
Press, if used properly and with a grain of salt, will give you a much
better picture of the opportunities available on the board. If you use it
only to ask people to do things or respond to their requests for you to do
something, you are missing the bigger picture of what's going on on the
board.
I am a prime example of why press volume is important. In the early part of
this game, I kept my press volume up, trying to at least send small
snippets to everyone every phase. I did well. I think I developed a good
picture of the board and used it to my advantage, and I generated goodwill
that helped me get where I needed to go (which you've already recognized
as a function of press).
In the mid-game, I got distracted from the game, my press volume dropped,
and you can watch my success drop correspondingly. You could probably do a
simple traffic analysis of my message volume and find a strong correlation
with my center count. When I stopped writing, I lost my picture of what
was going on, and I started making bad decisions. In the end-game, I
picked my volume back up and recovered a bit, but by that point, the
destiny of the game was largely in other peoples' hands.
Will lots of press guarantee a win? No, of course not. But looking at this
game, Eric and Ben were, as far as I could tell, the best writers of press
in terms of coherence, accessiblity and volume. And they controlled the
course of the game in the end, despite being near defeat at various
earlier periods.
Finally, if nothing else, write lots of press for this reason: in a
full-press game, people view silence very, very suspiciously. Silence
indicates one of several things:
1.) Inexperience
2.) Distraction
3.) Subconcious hostility / scheming (avoidance rather than lying)
All three are reasons to do what you can to eliminate the silent player.
As for what to write? Well, that *is* the hardest part -- but at a minimum
you can always make small talk about the game. You know you've got that
much in common.
Just my couple of cents.
Erik
Message from Observer to Observer
--- jasonab76@comcast.net wrote:
> From what I can see (and obviously, I have the lowest JDPR here), press is
> designed to communicate plans, as well as foster a relationship between
> powers for future use by both parties.
JDPR SchmayDPR. (Trying and failing to emulate Ben's good humor here).
> I can't find that press you're talking about right now (Yahoo search
> doesn't agree with me), but from where I sat, I saw that you're goal was to
> convince me of the rightness of your point of view, obviously regardless of
> the merits of it (that's your job).
Yes, I did this. I also, on several occasions said things like this:
"Jason, you have the drop on me. What can I offer you to consider having you
attack Austria?"
You never once replied to these questions. Heck, you could have offered to
support me to Rum and then attack Sev (which might have been more poorly
defended because I was moving).
The one that stands out was in Fall 1901. You told me that you were going to
wait until England was attacking me in Scandinavia to talk to me because then
I'd be more receptive to your ideas. I said (paraphrase): "But I still don't
know what you want. I can't move to get your friendship if you don't tell me
what you are trying to get. Pretend that it is 1903, Ben has attacked me, and
you are in Sev. Tell me what it is that you think I am going to be willing to
do. I might be willing to do it, because I am desperate *now*." It was
shortly after this message from me that you wrote that I was "badgering you".
During this time I *never* asked what you were willing to do for me. I asked
what you wanted *from* me. That is what negotiation is about: Aksing for
something the other person might be willing to actually do, because they see
it as in their best interests. It's also about being seen as the most
reliable and reasonable person in the area.
Why were Philippe, Andy and Tony throwing centers to me for like half the
game, and why did it take until the end of the universe for Ben to finally
come and attack me in Scandinavia? Because I appeared to be the most
reasonable, reliable and advantageous neighbor each had to work with. Note
the word "most" in that sentence. I was not terribly reasonable, reliable or
advantageous to work with for any of them. Just better than everyone else
(from their point of view).
> My main fear in this game was to be carried along by you, Andy, or anyone
> while the commentators railed about my naivite (sp). You, Italy and Austria
> all wanted me to follow your plan, while I had my own plan as well.
My point is that you *never* -- and I mean that literally -- told me what
your plan was, or even gave me a reasonable lie about what your plan was.
There was no way for me to know whether you would be happy, sad or
indifferent about any particular move set.
> All of
> you were doing your best to apply pressure for me to follow you, and
> therefore anger the other two.
And you never tried to get me to change my mind. Tell me, "look, I'm happy to
work with you, but I'd have to be crazy to do that, because it would piss off
<whoever>. How about if *you* stick your neck out and I help *you* next
season". Or whatever, I recognize that there are times when lying/stabbing is
more effective than attacking to get what you want, but there is a cost to
it.
Later in the game with the A Rum thing, I was only keeping you around because
you were trustworthy enough to be worth it. You apparently knew this, and
knew that Andy and Philippe had completely given up on you. That is why I
thought attacking me for A Rum instead of asking for it was a mistake *at
that point in the game* -- you didn't have the leverage to make the move: I
could remove you and I knew that you couldn't go to Andy or Philippe for
help. Why get the one guy helping you in any way at all pissed off?
> Now, given that, it's clear my press style is disfavored my everyone on
> this list, so I'd everyone filling in the gaps in my knowledge. I did
> follow the first commentators game from the sidelines, so examples from
> there are also appreciated.
In my mind, it all comes down to figuring out: (1) What do I think the other
person wants? and (2) Given that, how do I use it to my advantage?
Both take talking.
Early on, you wanted an AT, Philippe said "fine, but I need to see you move
to Arm for me to be on board". That was damned fine negotiating: You want an
AT, he wants you to take a risk to get it. He got you to willingly give up
something that he valued as much as or more than what he got out of you. You
can argue the merits of the agreement (some commentators thought you got the
raw end of the deal), but in the end both of you got what you wanted out of
it. Austria thought he was manipulating you, and you thought you were
manipulating him.
With Ben and I in the north, we did this all the time. He wanted to attack me
the entire early part of the game because I was a total shit to him (not to
mention a beer-guzzling, battery throwing, unemployed Raider low-life!). But
looking at his position, knowing how much Tony's style bothered him, etc., I
was able to come up with suggestions that made it worth his while to not
attack me. Similarly, he was able to talk to me enough to come up with ideas
that made it worth my while not to do the things that he was worried about
(building fleets and coming after him) even though he could have attacked me,
too.
Had you been willing to talk with me, I might have offered something you
really wanted. Then you'd have the option of risking that I was serious in my
offer. At worst, you could say "no thank you, that's not good enough" (or say
sure and then use my moves against me -- heck, if you were bent on
eliminating me what does it matter). But without seriously asking for
anything, you didn't have any control over what I chose to do. In fact, most
of my moves were pro-Austrian simply because I thought that he was more
likely to be willing to cut a deal if things went bad between you and him.
--- Eric
Message from Observer to Observer
--- jasonab76@comcast.net wrote:
> I've seen this advice several times before (in various places), but frankly
> I never know what to write. I guess a statement of the board position is
> always helpful, but I have a hard time coming up with something
> constructive and intelligent without stating the obvious.
If you look back over the 3500 or so messages in the archive, I'd bet only a
small percent of them were either constructive or intelligent. :) I say that
facetiously, but it's true that this *is* the hard part.
The point of press is to influence people. Everything you write is for the
other person's benefit. That doesn't mean you need to lie constantly (right,
Tony!), you just need to say things that are focused on what the other person
needs to hear to get you what you want, whether that person is an ally or an
enemy. There is no doubt that it is an art, but that's the point.
But in addition to writing better press, I think you need to be better at
*reading* it with this point of view. Heck, I sent you ten typewritten pages
of crap badgering you -- surely I said *something* in all of that worth
talking about. Typically your responses were defensive rather than
influential. Examples:
* You built A Con in F01 when you had promised Philippe other builds. When he
asked you about it, you argued you needed defense. Sure that (might) make
sense from your point of view, but basically you are also telling Philippe to
piss off and what he wants (and what you had agreed to with him) doesn't
matter.
* In F02 you agreed to build F Ank but then decided to build F Smy. When Andy
told you it looked like you were coming after him, you told him that it's
your build and your choice and what's his problem anyway. Again, all
reasonable from Turkey's point of view, but it says that Italy's needs are
completely irrelevant.
So look at these from Andy and Philippe and my point of views -- where's the
motivation to keep working with you? With me, you could have picked up on the
"gee, he sounds desperate" and gotten concessions. With Philippe, you could
have thought about what might make him feel like you are still committed to
AT instead of getting righteous. With Andy you actually did a decent job of
quieting him by offering him Ser, but if he hadn't been desperate for an ally
I doubt it would have worked. If you recognized Andy's desperation and used
it intentionally, then kudos.
After you figure out WHAT you need to do, there's still the problem of
figuring out HOW to do it (e.g., how to convince Philippe and Andy not to
worry about your builds). That's also a hard problem. But it seems to me that
you frequently didn't even recognize WHAT needed to be done even when someone
told you explicitly what they wanted (for example, me asking how supporting
Andy to Ser helped RT).
--- Eric
Message from Observer to Observer
Clearly it was a lie. I am curious to know what purpose it was serving, if you remember:
Message from ericgood@p... as Russia to France in 'c2':
Hmm. I've only heard from England unless you count the German broadcast.
That doesn't seem like a good thing!
Message from Observer to Observer
Hmmm. Where to begin …
I've gone through the commentators press, and while I'm a little
disappointed at the volume I found, I don't think that I have much of a
right to complain in that department -- I fell silent myself a number of
times and didn't keep much of a journal. In any case, what I've read has
been insightful and helpful, and I'm grateful to those who provided
their thoughts to us all. As in the first comments game, it's been an
excellent learning experience.
I'd like to think that my finish in this game is evidence of some
improvement on my part, though the truth is that while some areas of my
play improved, I still suffer from some notable faults. Among these:
1.) A tendency to react to quickly to actions against me
2.) Sensitivity to real-life stress and workload that can cause me to
neglect press and the game in general
3.) An inability to figure out what the heck to do in the midgame
Comments on 1 and 3 are welcome; 2, unfortunately, is a matter of having
a taxing job and an otherwise busy life. It has been difficult for me at
times to ensure Diplomacy's place in my daily routine.
Now, for specifics:
As France, my hope is usually to end up with an amicable but middling
German neighbor and a Russian with an eye toward the west, giving me the
opportunity to set up an FG vs E followed by a Franco-Russian pincher
move on the remaining powers between us. Things didn't quite work out
that way this game. From the beginning, Tony struck me as less than
reliable and Ben seemed like somebody I could work with, so my
preferences of mid-term alliance partners started swaying toward EF
almost from the get-go.
So where did the triple come from? I can't be exactly sure yet, but I
think it had a lot to do with Andy. His unremitting insistence that Tony
Vernon was the devil incarnate left me rattled, mostly because it made
me think that Andy had something else up his sleave. In fact, I began to
think early on that there was an active GI relationship and that the
anti-Tony talk was all a ruse. Somehow, the idea of a triple was
proposed, I think because I was making anti-English plans with Germany
and anti-German plans with England, and it became a mechanism in both
conversations for keeping the third man out on a leash until a stab
could be planned. I don't think the triple talk was ever sincere.
The Szykman variant came to me because, deep down, I was intent on
working with England against Germany, and the Szykman variant seemed the
best way to get Germany overextended. I didn't have a *lot* of hope for
German participation, but Tony certainly pulled off sounding interested.
And, despite my long-term plan, part of me wanted to see it succeed for
a little while, both for the novelty factor and to get an early jump on
Andy. I figured if I could disable him early, I'd have less to worry
about and could concentrate on E/G long before Austria grew to be a
threat.
Then Germany pulled out, not entirely unexpectedly. This was
unfortunate, as it left Andy quite unhappy, but given his insistence of
German skill, I figured I could play it off as Tony's manipulation of
liittle old naïve Erik. I think I pulled that off a bit. I was
disappointed about Austria not wanting to go ahead and engage Italy;
Phillipe, for your edification, I was entirely willing to support you
into Venice (but only to promote chaos between you and Andy).
My long-term strategy with Russia seemed to be on track, so I figured it
was time to start playing Ben off Tony and whittle them both down. This
may be why my press level to Ben decreased a bit post WT dissolution, as
opposed to increasing as the commentators seemed to think it should. My
EF strategy of a violent stab against Germany was clearly no longer
certain, so I was trying to flesh out any potential of partnering with
Germany instead. In retrospect, I should have maintained my press level
with Ben.
In any case, with Austria clearly unwilling to take risks and Tony
seeming less and less reliable (through backchannel echoes, odd
broadcasts, crazy talk, etc.), I figured I'd use A Pie to swing around
and take a swipe at Munich. I can't remember if I had Andy's support for
that move or not, but I do think I mentioned it. Much to my surprise, it
was effective, and helped pick apart a rapidly floundering Germany.
This is when my strategy started to hit a wall. I was trying to get
Russia to offer me *something* concrete against Ben or Tony, but he just
wouldn't do it. I knew I had to stab England, and I could not for the
life of me figure out how. I needed a fleet build in Brest, but couldn't
negotiate it. Things got messy. Eventually, though, I took the plunge,
but weakly, and Russia left me out to dry. I was stuck with a weak F Iri
and not much backup. When those fleet builds appeared, I had no real
hope except to think that maybe my détente attempts with Ben had worked.
I was increasingly isolated by this point, though, and he was in prime
position to strike back.
The next few turns were a series of attempts to make Ben believe that
his actions were going to mean a resurgent Italy and a dominant Russia,
and it worked, for a time. I mistakenly thought I was clear to head east
against Andy, but once again, Russian support that I hoped for failed to
materialize. I became overcommitted. Ben, of course, took full advantage
of that and stabbed again, leaving me in a position where all I could to
was try to survive. Thankfully, that long hoped-for Russian / English
war started, and Ben saw some value in leaving me alone. In that
respect, Eric contributed a great deal to my inclusion in the draw
(though not intentionally, as he must have a solo in his sights at that
point).
With Tunis under my belt and Ben and Eric grinding to stalemate, the
game turned to preventing a Russian solo. I botched a couple of moves
that might have reduced the draw to a 3-way; on the other hand, I don't
particularly begrudge Andy his survival.
So that's it. Good start, followed by a complete failure to figure out
what to do with it. The midgame is clearly my weakest, and I am hoping
to glean some wisdom from these discussions to help me with it.
Players:
England: Excellent work all around by Ben, though he seemed tentative
and weak when we started the game, perhaps because he was so friendly.
When things soured, I did regret it, as we worked quite well together
initially. As he's pointed out himself, I think a bit more risk-taking
in his tactics could have lead to a solo, but all around solid play.
Russia: Very well played, particularly on the diplomatic front. He had
me doing a lot of heavy lifting in the west without ever exposing
himself to a lot of risk. Played me well on the promise of future
cooperation. Great work controlling Turkey and maneuvering for a solo.
Italy: Andy seemed frustrated, particularly by Turkey and Austria, and
never could get over that. Had he not been, I think my survival would
have been much more in question. I am also impressed with his ability to
bury the hatchet not once but *twice* after my attacks against him when
counterattacking clearly would have been bad for him.
Austria: Seemed far too conservative, particularly in his treatment of
his neighbors. I think he should have taken my early support into
Venice; it would have pushed him ahead out of the gate.
Turkey: Just not enough contact for me to say one way or another. I
tried to reach out, but couldn't get much going.
Germany: Whether his style of play or press, I didn't trust Tony one
whit from the beginning of the game and never seriously considered him a
viable partner. Once it was clear that Andy's anti-Tony press wasn't a
total ruse, I sensed that Tony was too isolated to survive for long, and
I did what I could to dispatch him. Certainly entertaining, though, and
good at creating confusion around the board.
Thanks again to all. Given the caliber of players and play, I'm just
happy to have held a high rank in the power rankings for a few turns.
Maybe the first comments did me some good.
Erik
Message from Observer to Observer
Eric Goodman wrote:
> Yes, I did this. I also, on several occasions said things like this:
>
> "Jason, you have the drop on me. What can I offer you to consider
> having you attack Austria?"
>
> You never once replied to these questions. Heck, you could have
> offered to support me to Rum and then attack Sev (which might have
> been more poorly defended because I was moving).
But how could I take that question seriously? I have no way of knowing
that you'll give me anything, other than a stab in the back and a hearty
chuckle at my foolishness when I take you up on your offer. Plus, when I
do that, I have Austria and Italy telling me how stupid I am for turning
away from you, especially if you stab me in the process.
> The one that stands out was in Fall 1901. You told me that you were
> going to wait until England was attacking me in Scandinavia to talk
> to me because then I'd be more receptive to your ideas. I said
> (paraphrase): "But I still don't know what you want. I can't move to
> get your friendship if you don't tell me what you are trying to get.
> Pretend that it is 1903, Ben has attacked me, and you are in Sev.
> Tell me what it is that you think I am going to be willing to do. I
> might be willing to do it, because I am desperate *now*." It was
> shortly after this message from me that you wrote that I was
> "badgering you".
Eric, most of your early press centered on convincing me that my entire
strategy of working with Austria was wrong, and instead I should run RT
with you (our famous Rt/rT discussion). You made it clear to me that you
wanted to gain the upper hand by working with me for a few seasons until
you were powerful enough to destroy me, while I had helped you gain that
position.
What I wanted was to cripple you, so I could destroy Austria and solo,
but that's a silly answer because you cannot and will not give that to me.
> During this time I *never* asked what you were willing to do for me.
> I asked what you wanted *from* me. That is what negotiation is about:
> Aksing for something the other person might be willing to actually
> do, because they see it as in their best interests. It's also about
> being seen as the most reliable and reasonable person in the area.
I did want to be reliable and reasonable - to AI, so they'd help me take
you out. I can't be reasonable to everyone, because I have to attack
somewhere!
> Why were Philippe, Andy and Tony throwing centers to me for like half
> the game, and why did it take until the end of the universe for Ben
> to finally come and attack me in Scandinavia? Because I appeared to
> be the most reasonable, reliable and advantageous neighbor each had
> to work with. Note the word "most" in that sentence. I was not
> terribly reasonable, reliable or advantageous to work with for any of
> them. Just better than everyone else (from their point of view).
So, my point exactly. You tricked them into working for you, while you
used that against them. That's what I didn't want you to do to me.
> My point is that you *never* -- and I mean that literally -- told me
> what your plan was, or even gave me a reasonable lie about what your
> plan was. There was no way for me to know whether you would be happy,
> sad or indifferent about any particular move set.
There wasn't much I could lie about, because I was clearly attacking
you. It's not like I could claim to be moving against Austria when all
my forces were directed due north. If I told you my plan, you'd just
send me 3 pages telling me how Austria is obviously the better target,
and why couldn't I see that, and gee whiz if I'd just work with you, I'd
obviously be so better off (the same thing I'd hear from Austria and Italy).
> And you never tried to get me to change my mind. Tell me, "look, I'm
> happy to work with you, but I'd have to be crazy to do that, because
> it would piss off <whoever>. How about if *you* stick your neck out
Um, you'd care? :-)
> agreement (some commentators thought you got the raw end of the
> deal), but in the end both of you got what you wanted out of it.
> Austria thought he was manipulating you, and you thought you were
> manipulating him.
Quite true. I saw AT as suicidal for him, since he ends up with the bad
position, and he figured he could divvy me up with you.
> With Ben and I in the north, we did this all the time. He wanted to
> attack me the entire early part of the game because I was a total
> shit to him (not to mention a beer-guzzling, battery throwing,
> unemployed Raider low-life!). But looking at his position, knowing
Did I mention, "go Titans"? :-)
> how much Tony's style bothered him, etc., I was able to come up with
> suggestions that made it worth his while to not attack me. Similarly,
> he was able to talk to me enough to come up with ideas that made it
> worth my while not to do the things that he was worried about
> (building fleets and coming after him) even though he could have
> attacked me, too.
In the case of ER, though, you guys have lots of options. Turkey can
either attack Austria or Russia (Italy's not really an option at first).
Plus, it's my job to make a decision about RT. England can afford to
play pattycake with you for a while, but I didn't really have that option.
> Had you been willing to talk with me, I might have offered something
> you really wanted. Then you'd have the option of risking that I was
But what could you offer? You weren't going to give me Sev, and anyway I
turned west after a year or so. I agree my biggest flaw in this game was
not choosing sides (or, choosing a different side every year), but other
than running RT, you weren't likely to give me much.
> serious in my offer. At worst, you could say "no thank you, that's
> not good enough" (or say sure and then use my moves against me --
> heck, if you were bent on eliminating me what does it matter). But
I guess that just seemed superfluous to me, since I didn't see you
really giving me anything, but in some ways it's like reading tells in
poker - whether or not anything meaningful is said, it's in what is
said, when and how that really matters.
jason
--
Jason Bennett, jasonab@acm.org
E pur si muove!
Message from Observer to Observer
Eric Goodman wrote:
> After you figure out WHAT you need to do, there's still the problem
> of figuring out HOW to do it (e.g., how to convince Philippe and Andy
> not to worry about your builds). That's also a hard problem. But it
> seems to me that you frequently didn't even recognize WHAT needed to
> be done even when someone told you explicitly what they wanted (for
> example, me asking how supporting Andy to Ser helped RT).
That's clearly something I could have done better - I never really
prepared anyone for a change in plans. You're right that I didn't parse
out what needed to be done, because I wasn't used to 3 strong-willed
players around me. I'm more used to picking out the
weak/quiet/belligerent guy and going at him, but this time there wasn't
an obvious patsy (duh!). I was so afraid of making the wrong move, that
I never figured out the right move.
jason
--
Jason Bennett, jasonab@acm.org
E pur si muove!
Message from Observer to Observer
*****
Observing this game was Alastair Tomlinson, against whom I competed in the
gunboat full-press game "Zulu," on USTX, in which I made one error in
judgment that led me to a premature solo bid, as he described in his
commentary on c2. Thank you Alastair for sticking this game out.
*****
Hey, it's no hardship following a game (interesting in its own right) that
also includes the privilege of seeing the latest examples of entertaining
press from those such as you and Andy. Enjoyed watching the gridiron banter
with Eric too.
Alastair
Message from Observer to Observer
*****
I've seen this advice several times before (in various places), but frankly
I never know what to write. I guess a statement of the board position is
always helpful, but I have a hard time coming up with something constructive
and intelligent without stating the obvious.
*****
It's the thing I found most diffiult as a newbie (still do!) - what to say
to people, especially if you're not working in direct cooperation. It
depends to a certain extent on who the other players in the game is - it's
quite hard to maintain writing press to people across the board if you're
not getting anything back, but I don't think that would have been the case
in this game.
The other difficulty comes in maintaining dialogue wth someone who you are
attacking (less so when they are attacking you, that person is normally the
focus of my attention then, rightly or wrongly). Sometimes there may not
seem to be much to directly discuss, in which situation I normally indulge a
little discussion over how things are developing elsewhere in the board,
where at least some discussion is possible without giving too much away.
Maintaining the relationship is crucial - something that Tamas was excellent
at achieving in comments1.
Alastair
Message from Observer to Observer
Jason,
This is giving me an odd sense of deja-vu. You asked for advice, I gave some,
and now you are arguing with me that my advice is dumb. Kind of like how our
press went, no? :)
I'll start with a couple of obnoxious questions:
(1) Can we agree that I did a better job in this game of manipulating people
than you did?
(2) Assuming the answer is yes, can we agree that therefore -- just maybe --
I might know something about what I'm talking about?
(3) Can we also agree that in fact I was the one playing Russia in this game,
so I probably know more about what Russia wanted and was trying to do than
you do?
My assuption is that the answer to all three questions is "yes". If it isn't,
hit "delete" now. :)
In your message you are arguing why you were right. I suggest you just read
the advice I put in the message and actually think about how what I said
might be useful rather than how you can convince me I am wrong.
> > You never once replied to these questions. Heck, you could have
> > offered to support me to Rum and then attack Sev (which might have
> > been more poorly defended because I was moving).
>
> But how could I take that question seriously? I have no way of knowing
> that you'll give me anything, other than a stab in the back and a hearty
> chuckle at my foolishness when I take you up on your offer. Plus, when I
> do that, I have Austria and Italy telling me how stupid I am for turning
> away from you, especially if you stab me in the process.
What exactly is your point? Are you really arguing that because I might not
do something it isn't worth trying?
This is like deciding not to go to a job interview because you have no way of
knowing if you'll get the job, or they might think you are completely
unqualified. Sure, not going ensures they don't laugh at you or reject you,
but the point is that *you want the job*.
With press, it's the same thing. Read the press log. Look at all the dumb
ideas all the other players threw out. You never have any way of knowing that
anyone will give you anything. Does that mean you don't ask? Only if you
don't want people to ever do what you want. Think of sending press as
applying for an ally. Sure, maybe they'll turn you down. Or maybe they'll
offer you the job, but not enough money (so you turn them down). But if you
don't ever apply, don't wonder why no one ever offered you a job.
> Eric, most of your early press centered on convincing me that my entire
> strategy of working with Austria was wrong, and instead I should run RT
> with you (our famous Rt/rT discussion).
No, what I said is that it is *possible* to have an RT that was not
inherently biased against Turkey. You are hearing what you think I meant, not
what I meant. I did not tell you you made the wrong choice -- I told you that
you made an uninformed choice.
> You made it clear to me that you
> wanted to gain the upper hand by working with me for a few seasons until
> you were powerful enough to destroy me, while I had helped you gain that
> position.
Oh, excuse me, I thought we were playing Diplomacy. Of course I was trying to
gain the upper hand. Are you saying that Philippe wasn't? Or Andy wasn't? Am
I supposed to believe that you weren't?
> What I wanted was to cripple you, so I could destroy Austria and solo,
> but that's a silly answer because you cannot and will not give that to me.
Absolutely. That is a silly answer. That is your long term strategy. Is that
what you told Philippe? So think about this: Come up with a list of things I
might have been willing to do to try to earn your help that would *also* have
helped you in both getting good position on me and lining you up to attack
Austria. The only option you gave me -- after much badgering on my part --
was giving up Sev. If your list is empty other than that, you are not trying
hard enough.
> > During this time I *never* asked what you were willing to do for me.
> > I asked what you wanted *from* me. That is what negotiation is about:
> > Aksing for something the other person might be willing to actually
> > do, because they see it as in their best interests. It's also about
> > being seen as the most reliable and reasonable person in the area.
>
> I did want to be reliable and reasonable - to AI, so they'd help me take
> you out. I can't be reasonable to everyone, because I have to attack
> somewhere!
You are confusing "reasonable" and "helpful". Obviously you were not being
helpful. That doesn't mean you can't be reasonable. How about: "Gee, Eric, I
don't know. I seem to have a good thing going here working with Austria. If
I'm going to help you I need to know that you're not going to screw me over.
How about this: If you move to Gal and really threaten Philippe, I'll
consider supporting you into Rum or Bud." Does that sentence contain any
promises you wouldn't be willing to keep? Would it have convinced me to move
to Gal? Maybe not, but part of why Philippe was happier with me than with you
was that I didn't move to Gal, even though he was attacking me.
> > Why were Philippe, Andy and Tony throwing centers to me for like half
> > the game, and why did it take until the end of the universe for Ben
> > to finally come and attack me in Scandinavia? Because I appeared to
> > be the most reasonable, reliable and advantageous neighbor each had
> > to work with. Note the word "most" in that sentence. I was not
> > terribly reasonable, reliable or advantageous to work with for any of
> > them. Just better than everyone else (from their point of view).
>
> So, my point exactly. You tricked them into working for you, while you
> used that against them. That's what I didn't want you to do to me.
I see. Then explain why you ended up working with me for so long? Do you see
the contradiction here? You ended up working with me, following a suggestion
that I made. It certainly doesn't *seem* like it was was pointless for me to
keep making suggestions? If it wasn't pointless for me to do it to you, then
why is it pointless for you to do it to me? I think this may just be lack of
self-confidence masquerading as logic. (Trust me, I am very familiar with
self-doubt. Read my press to self throughout the game.)
> There wasn't much I could lie about, because I was clearly attacking
> you. It's not like I could claim to be moving against Austria when all
> my forces were directed due north. If I told you my plan, you'd just
> send me 3 pages telling me how Austria is obviously the better target,
> and why couldn't I see that, and gee whiz if I'd just work with you, I'd
> obviously be so better off (the same thing I'd hear from Austria and
> Italy).
But you DID change your mind. So SOMETHING I said or did made a difference.
> > And you never tried to get me to change my mind. Tell me, "look, I'm
> > happy to work with you, but I'd have to be crazy to do that, because
> > it would piss off <whoever>. How about if *you* stick your neck out
>
> Um, you'd care? :-)
Um, you'd know?
I get that you don't *think* it would have. I'm telling you it might have.
You are welcome to believe it is a waste of time, however, I suggest that you
go back to the questions I asked at the top of this message before making
that choice.
I am not saying it *would* have worked. Just that it might have. And I want
to emphasize, this is just an example -- there are plenty of other examples
of places where you could have used press to help you (against me and others)
where you never even tried.
> > agreement (some commentators thought you got the raw end of the
> > deal), but in the end both of you got what you wanted out of it.
> > Austria thought he was manipulating you, and you thought you were
> > manipulating him.
>
> Quite true. I saw AT as suicidal for him, since he ends up with the bad
> position, and he figured he could divvy me up with you.
So what you need to do is look at every press this way. Figure out something
that the other person might actually see as an improvement for them that you
think gets you better position, and then talk with them about that. If you
are not sure, talk with them generally to try to figure out what they might
want and then use that.
> > With Ben and I in the north, we did this all the time. He wanted to
> > attack me the entire early part of the game because I was a total
> > shit to him (not to mention a beer-guzzling, battery throwing,
> > unemployed Raider low-life!). But looking at his position, knowing
>
> Did I mention, "go Titans"? :-)
Phhhhbblt! :)
> In the case of ER, though, you guys have lots of options. Turkey can
> either attack Austria or Russia (Italy's not really an option at first).
> Plus, it's my job to make a decision about RT. England can afford to
> play pattycake with you for a while, but I didn't really have that option.
Balderdash. If you had kept attacking me, it would have been three years
before you got a dot. That's pattycake at its best. And just ask Ben how much
he'd say he could afford to lose Nwy when I took it from him. He certainly
didn't think it was "no big deal". But he adjusted.
It's your job to solo or get into a draw. How you get there is just details.
> > Had you been willing to talk with me, I might have offered something
> > you really wanted. Then you'd have the option of risking that I was
>
> But what could you offer? You weren't going to give me Sev, and anyway I
> turned west after a year or so.
Again, you are arguing, not taking the advice you asked for. And again, I'll
emphasize I'm only using this case as an example. I can find other examples
with other players. But looking at this case, what could I have offered you?
Off of the top of my head:
Move to Gal. Vacate Mos. Build F StP/nc. Help England. Attack Germany. Get
France to attack Italy. Get Italy to attack France. Support you against A.
Pass bad advice to Austria. Tell you what moves Italy will be making.
It's your job to figure out what I might be willing (and able) to do, and how
to use it to your advantage. You never tried, so I never really put myself in
a position you could take advantage of.
> I agree my biggest flaw in this game was
> not choosing sides (or, choosing a different side every year),
I never said this and I completely disagree with this assessment. I changed
sides as many times or more than you did, and I did alright. Changing sides
isn't the problem. Changing sides in a way that loses the support of the
other players is. Most of the time, when I stabbed people I'd talk with them
afterwards and eventually we found a way to work together after the stab.
When you stabbed people, you told them to get over it, and then stopped
talking with them for a while.
> but other than running RT, you weren't likely to give me much.
Duh. :) I'm Russia. You are Turkey. Of course I'm offering RT. But that's
another problem. You saw the RT as very black and white: Some very specific
set of moves that you never bothered to share with me. You never realized or
considered that ANY TIME Russia or Turkey work together, it is an RT. There
are a bazillion ways an RT can work. Again, your job is to figure out which
of those bazillion RT's works for you and might look better to me than AT vs.
R, and then start talking with me about doing that.
> I guess that just seemed superfluous to me, since I didn't see you
> really giving me anything, but in some ways it's like reading tells in
> poker - whether or not anything meaningful is said, it's in what is
> said, when and how that really matters.
Bingo. And if you always check and let the other player make the raises, you
will never win at poker. If you never make suggestions in Dip it's the same
thing - you are just giving up initiative for no good reason.
--- Eric
Message from Observer to Observer
--- Ben Harris <benjamin.harris@mindspring.com> wrote:
> It's hard! But sometimes, the water is nice. I remember in this game I
> figured there was an outside chance Eric would order the supports against
> Tony that he'd offered. If he didn't, I was sunk. If he did, I'd be doing
> great. Anything else was a slow death, so I held my nose, closed my eyes,
> and jumped. Thankfully, he'd ordered the supports.
Yes, I remember I actually did follow through once or twice. :)
> Well, also England can take Scandinavia pretty much whenever he's ready,
> provided he has some initiative and Russia hasn't constructed one of the
> rather large lines necessary to protect it. . .
And France isn't in Iri, and England has more than 4 units, and Germany isn't
helping against Nth....
> What if you'd written, "Eric, I'm just trying to secure SEV, beyond that,
> Philippe is giving me the creeps and there's no real point in trying for
> MOS anyway." So, you are at war, but you are not hostile. Deals may be
> possible.
In his defense, Jason did offer this. I told him he was welcome to try, but
that I would defend Sev in preference to defending against Austria.
> If you can talk while you're fighting, then you have options all the time,
> too.
Especially if you are not a Raider's fan or fond of very dumb humor.
> & it looks like Eric has to accept a lot of responsibility for your broken
> communication. I'm just responding to your post with some random thoughts.
Eric categorically denies any responsibility for anything that went badly at
any point in time during the game. Certain exclusions and limitations may
apply to any promises he made. Offers void where prohibited or deemed bad
ideas after the fact.
Seriously, what I did badly was not focus my press for Jason. Sending
manifestos to someone who writes such short press is dangerous. But in my
defense, Jason gave me nothing with which to work. His response to my initial
presses were basicall "let's see how the moves go". Then when I asked why he
chose to attack me (after he went to Arm) he said what to me amounted to,
"Because RT is bad for Turkey." The rest was me trying to point out how it
was possible for RT not to be bad for Turkey. Obviously, being a windbag
interfered with making that point or further communication, but as noted
above, that is entirely the fault of other poeple.
--- Eric (who while writing in a semi-sleep deprived state, starts to
understand Tony's press style a little bit better)
Message from Observer to Observer
I don't think it was anything sinister. POsitioning my inbox for C2 so that I
can see that press, Andy's first press was way off the top of the screen.
For the rest, I typically write my press and queue it up. Much later (days,
hours, whatever), when the press is complete, edited, reconsidered, reedited
and censored, I download incoming mail and send the queued stuff. Judging by
the timestamps, the other messages may well have been downloaded *after* I
wrote that. So it means I just overlooked Andy's, that's all.
--- Eric
--- Ben Harris <benjamin.harris@mindspring.com> wrote:
---------------------------------
Clearly it was a lie. I am curious to know what purpose it was serving, if
you remember:
Message from ericgood@p... as Russia to France in 'c2':
Hmm. I've only heard from England unless you count the German broadcast.
That doesn't seem like a good thing!
Message from Observer to Observer
Eric -
> > Thankfully, he'd ordered the supports.
> Yes, I remember I actually did follow through once or twice. :)
That phase dramatically changed the course of the game for me.
> > Well, also England can take Scandinavia pretty much whenever he's ready,
> > provided he has some initiative and Russia hasn't constructed one of the
> > rather large lines necessary to protect it. . .
>
> And France isn't in Iri, and England has more than 4 units, and Germany isn't
> helping against Nth....
Sometimes you're good, sometimes you're lucky, sometimes it's hard to tell them apart.
> > If you can talk while you're fighting, then you have options all the time,
> > too.
>
> Especially if you are not a Raider's fan or fond of very dumb humor.
If I'd known there were any Titans fans, I would have told you they are just as unfortunate. Always a bridesmaid, the Titans.
> > & it looks like Eric has to accept a lot of responsibility for your broken
> > communication. I'm just responding to your post with some random thoughts.
> Eric categorically denies any responsibility for anything that went badly at
> any point in time during the game.
Stonewall! Good strategy. Still, you did not find the voice that Jason would respond to.
> Seriously, what I did badly was not focus my press for Jason. Sending
> manifestos to someone who writes such short press is dangerous. But in my
> defense, Jason gave me nothing with which to work.
I can understand your sentiment - but he gave you hints. Your logical press, your manifestos, were failing, and you were understandably frustrated. The social aspect of your relationship was going nowhere; you needed to look somewhere else. Frankly it makes me crazy when I think people are playing like that, viscerally, illogically, quietly, but those players are out there.
I suspect Tony in your shoes would have had more success with an RT, his press does not appear pushy or logically forceful at all, though he is ferociously manipulative in other ways.
More random thoughts.
Ben
Message from Observer to Observer
I just want to be clear on this one point:
> > Especially if you are not a Raider's fan or fond of very dumb humor.
> If I'd known there were any Titans fans, I would have told you they are just > as unfortunate. Always a bridesmaid, the Titans.
If I'd known there were Titans fans *anywhere*.
I hope this clears things up.
Alastair, you are a good sport for being interested in the so-called football banter, my limey friend.
Ben
Message from Observer to Observer
Eric...
Eric Goodman wrote:
> Jason,
>
> This is giving me an odd sense of deja-vu. You asked for advice, I
> gave some, and now you are arguing with me that my advice is dumb.
> Kind of like how our press went, no? :)
I'm not trying to argue your advice is wrong - I'm trying to point out
that what you seem to see as obvious was quite obscure from where I sat.
I agree completely that our press went the same way, though, which was
the problem.
> In your message you are arguing why you were right. I suggest you
> just read the advice I put in the message and actually think about
> how what I said might be useful rather than how you can convince me I
> am wrong.
But I'm not trying to argue that I was right - obviously, I got
eliminated. You're doing in this message exactly what you did in the
game. I'm trying to explain why I see what I see, and I get back page
after page detailing my every flaw. All I am trying to convey is that I
don't think the clear lines of negotiation that you propose were so
clear, or as likely to succeed as you now say.
> meant, not what I meant. I did not tell you you made the wrong choice
> -- I told you that you made an uninformed choice.
Which, again, seemed to be at the heart of almost every message you
wrote to me, which made it difficult to work with you.
>> You made it clear to me that you wanted to gain the upper hand by
>> working with me for a few seasons until you were powerful enough to
>> destroy me, while I had helped you gain that position.
>
>
> Oh, excuse me, I thought we were playing Diplomacy. Of course I was
> trying to gain the upper hand. Are you saying that Philippe wasn't?
> Or Andy wasn't? Am I supposed to believe that you weren't?
Some people make you feel that they really will work with you - that
they're friendly alliance players who will work with you, not against
you, and are trustworthy. You just don't tend to come across that way.
jason
--
Jason Bennett, jasonab@acm.org
E pur si muove!
Message from Observer to Observer
Ben Harris wrote:
> I'm not trying to pile anything on, except that in 2000, when your
> stars were aligned for the Super Bowl, we came through Tennessee and
> made you look bad on our way to victory in Tampa, besides *that*, I'm
> not trying
I'm now going to suggest that you bite my shiny metal ass. :-))
> to pile anything on & it looks like Eric has to accept a lot of
> responsibility for your broken communication. I'm just responding to
> your post with some random thoughts.
I'm not sure I said this well the first time, but I'm certainly not
trying to imply that dip isn't a horse-trading game, or that we all
aren't out to get each other - I don't figure anyone's going to give me
the game for free!
I'm also not trying to say my press was great - it was minimal, at best,
and I hope to change that in the future. Frankly, I really appreciate
this discussion, and I hope some other relatively new players are helped
by this (just not against me!).
jason
--
Jason Bennett, jasonab@acm.org
E pur si muove!
Message from Observer to Observer
Jason & Eric -
> Some people make you feel that they really will work with you - that
> they're friendly alliance players who will work with you, not against
> you, and are trustworthy. You just don't tend to come across that way.
> jason
You know Eric, I *almost* last night compared your press to Eric Hunter's. Eric has this ability to write beautiful compelling press that is just a touch frigid. It's not something that's easy for me to put my finger on. . . But I am intrigued to read this comment by Jason that suggests, despite your skilled play and success particularly with your negotiation skills, there may be something to it. If there were commentators I'd be curious for their thoughts; I suppose Alastair should comment, if he is inclined, but it is hardly fair to ask him to stand in for the community that's left us for better pastures.
Ben
Message from Observer to Observer
--- Jason Bennett <jasonab76@comcast.net> wrote:
> But I'm not trying to argue that I was right - obviously, I got
> eliminated. You're doing in this message exactly what you did in the
> game. I'm trying to explain why I see what I see, and I get back page
> after page detailing my every flaw. All I am trying to convey is that I
> don't think the clear lines of negotiation that you propose were so
> clear, or as likely to succeed as you now say.
Completely fair statement. Neither of us responds well to the other's
"natural" style. I would (and actually did) swear that you were defending
your actions both here and in game, not stating your point of view, and
pedantic windbag that I am, I can't help argue what I see as an error
(regardless of the fact that it doesn't help me even if I win (which is
pretty much not following my own advice to you (and note that I said
"regardless" and not "irregardless" (and now I'm lost in all these
parentheses)))).
It was a failing on both of our parts to figure out how to take advantage of
it. What would have been helpful for me was to have you tell me that I was
annoying you, because I was too dense to get it directly. (You said in
private press that I was, but not in press to me that I recall). Then maybe I
would have gotten the hint that I needed to work with you differently. That
is not intended to blame you -- that's an answer to the question "what could
I (Turkey) have done that might have done any good." If nothing else it would
have forced me to at least consider sending shorter messages, which would
help you personally even if not your position in the game. :)
> Which, again, seemed to be at the heart of almost every message you
> wrote to me, which made it difficult to work with you.
Again, a failure on both of our parts.
> >> You made it clear to me that you wanted to gain the upper hand by
> >> working with me for a few seasons until you were powerful enough to
> >> destroy me, while I had helped you gain that position.
> >
> > Oh, excuse me, I thought we were playing Diplomacy. Of course I was
> > trying to gain the upper hand. Are you saying that Philippe wasn't?
> > Or Andy wasn't? Am I supposed to believe that you weren't?
>
> Some people make you feel that they really will work with you - that
> they're friendly alliance players who will work with you, not against
> you, and are trustworthy. You just don't tend to come across that way.
I apologize for leaving out the smiley after my first sentence there. I meant
it.
I will just restate my feeling at the time, which is reinforced by reading
the press logs, was that you were not interested in hearing whether or not I
might be that kind of player. You decided against RT, and you really didn't
keep an eye (ear) open for whether we might be able to work together,
figuring you'd find that stuff out later.
I grant that my using a 10-page crowbar to try and pry your eye/ear open just
made things worse, but the question wasn't "was Eric an ass?", the question
was, "what do I talk to my neighbor about?". If we want to get into a
discussion of everything I think *I* did wrong in this game, I may need to
pay Yahoo for some extra storage space.
--- Eric
Message from Observer to Observer
Ben,
This is a *very* helpful comment. I rarely think of myself as sounding
frigid, but given this conversation and previous conversations with Eric H
about his and Andrew's lack of a "righteousness deficit" in C1, I can see how
this applies. I do understand that you said "a touch frigid" and not
"completely frigid and off-putting".
I thought I learned a lot from playing with Karlis Povisils in clgfp1 about
how to interact in a less frigid (to continue using the term) manner in
stressful situations. but clearly, feeling like you have a good rapport with
someone is just as much a measure of their skill as your own. Anyone talking
with Karlis about anything probably feels like they have a rapport -- that's
his most defining skill -- so perhaps I only *saw* how to do it, and didn't
really learn anything.
Looking at it in this game, I can see more and more how this applies. I took
the fact that I had a strong rapport with Ben as a sign that I was doing
something right with him. While that was partially true, it was *really* more
of a sign that *he* was doing something right with me. Granted, I may have
been doing the same thing right with him, but those are different (though
related) issues. (I know, I'm babbling here, but don't rush me, I think I'm
having a revelation.)
One thing I know about myself is that I like to be heard. If I think someone
is disagreeing with me, I can deal with it and maintain a reasonable dialog.
If I think someone just doesn't get what I'm saying then I get frustrated and
pushier. That's where I need work. Looking back I probably should have thrown
Jason those "mud wrestling on the shores of the Black" and "let's get ready
to RUMMMMBBLLLEEE!" jokes many, many seasons earlier than I actually did.
(Like '01).
--- Eric
P.S. I'm starting to wonder just how many aspersions I have to cast about
Eric H in my press/messages to egg him into actually offering some more
commentary here. :) Robin, if you are still out there, you should be
commenting in some way as well.
--- Ben Harris <benjamin.harris@mindspring.com> wrote:
---------------------------------
Jason & Eric -
> Some people make you feel that they really will work with you - that
> they're friendly alliance players who will work with you, not against
> you, and are trustworthy. You just don't tend to come across that way.
> jason
You know Eric, I *almost* last night compared your press to Eric Hunter's.
Eric has this ability to write beautiful compelling press that is just a
touch frigid. It's not something that's easy for me to put my finger on. . .
But I am intrigued to read this comment by Jason that suggests, despite your
skilled play and success particularly with your negotiation skills, there may
be something to it. If there were commentators I'd be curious for their
thoughts; I suppose Alastair should comment, if he is inclined, but it is
hardly fair to ask him to stand in for the community that's left us for
better pastures.
Ben
Message from Observer to Observer
[Ben wrote to Erik late in the mid-game]
> Ok, as far as I can tell, currently Eric is edging out Tony for Biggest
Snake,
> based on press I've received this phase.
Should I take this as a compliment or as criticism? If I win, do I get some
sort of award?
--- Eric
P.S. I'm having a blast reading this stuff. I had no idea about half of the
talking that was going on around the board. That is, I was sure it was *not* happening.
Message from Observer to Observer
This time from Andy.
[Turkey speaking]
>> We'll have to see, though. It would take a lot of guesswork
>> on his [Russia's] part.
[Andy responds]
>Exactly.
>
> And his luck should be running thin soon, he has had a horseshoe falling
> out of his ass fro most of this game.
>
> talk to you soon.
Geez, and I thought it was the sciatica I was feeling. :)
But I do agree, luck had a lot to do with it. Yes, I influenced the luck, but
much of it just fell in my lap.
--- Eric
Message from Observer to Observer
Jason Bennett wrote:
> Eric Goodman wrote:
>> This is giving me an odd sense of deja-vu. You asked for advice, I
>> gave some, and now you are arguing with me that my advice is dumb.
> I'm not trying to argue your advice is wrong - I'm trying to point out
> that what you seem to see as obvious was quite obscure from where
> I sat.
This is a very important point, I think. The "world-view" of different
players can be extremely different, and we tend to assume that everyone
shares our "world-view", at least to a large extent, so those
differences
can be difficult to understand, let alone overcome.
>>> You made it clear to me that you wanted to gain the upper hand by
>>> working with me for a few seasons until you were powerful enough >>>
to destroy me, while I had helped you gain that position.
>> Oh, excuse me, I thought we were playing Diplomacy. Of course
>> I was trying to gain the upper hand.
But why would someone work with you if you make it obvious to them?
> Some people make you feel that they really will work with you - that
> they're friendly alliance players who will work with you, not against
> you, and are trustworthy. You just don't tend to come across that way.
Some people actually ARE friendly alliance players, for that matter.
I personally think you're almost always better off playing to evenly
benefit the alliance, at least initially. Establish the trust, the
relationship,
advance toward the stalemate line, and THEN stab. Trying to set
someone up from the get-go will generally not work against competent
opposition.
> Ben Harris Wrote >
> You know Eric, I *almost* last night compared your press to Eric
> Hunter's. Eric has this ability to write beautiful compelling press
> that is just a touch frigid.
Three semesters of Formal Logic will do that to a person. ;)
> It's not something that's easy for me to put my finger on. . . But I
> am intrigued to read this comment by Jason that suggests, despite
> your skilled play and success particularly with your negotiation
> skills, there may be something to it.
There is certainly something to it. My biggest failing as a Diplomat
is that my press is not "warm and fuzzy", and engaging on an
emotional level. I'm too logical, rational, and a bit "stand-offish",
so I don't connect with people the way that Roger Yonkoski or
Karlis Povisils do.
My apologies for not commenting more, but once 'pinnacle' started
up I stopped following 'c2'.
Eric Hunter.
Message from Observer to Observer
--- Eric Hunter <Dip_Power@comcast.net> wrote:
> My apologies for not commenting more, but once 'pinnacle' started
> up I stopped following 'c2'.
>
> Eric Hunter.
I got used to it from clgfp1. :)
I'm just disappointed it was Ben's comment and not my prodding that got you
to actually reply. Further proof of what we are discussing, in an ironic sort
of way. :)
Funny but not surprising that we both brought up Karlis. The more I read the
press, the more I think Ben is closer to Karlis' ability than I am. I was
serious in that last message that I learned a lot from the exchange, so yes,
I agree with most if not all of your points.
--- Eric
Message from Observer to Observer
Ben wrote:
>Well, based on Eric's press to me, suggesting without saying he had read
>the VG error, I thought I had better break down and read it, even if it
>meant I had to shower afterward.
>
>So, I've read it. Obviously the analysis is moot but the observations
>about my press are pretty painful. Clearly I cannot rule out the
>possibility of MAR - GAS, for instance.
I did not read it. But, I read enough of it before I realized what it was to
know that it was meant to go to the gallery, at which point I deleted it
without reading sufficient for comprehension.
--- Eric
Message from Observer to Observer
> I did not read it.
This is what you said in-game; I was protecting myself as much from everyone else as from you.
I've only been through about 10% of the press log.
Hey Eric H., if anything else occurs to you, I'd sure like to hear it.
Ben
Message from Observer to Observer
Eric Hunter wrote:
>
> My apologies for not commenting more, but once 'pinnacle' started
> up I stopped following 'c2'.
It was unfortunate that the two games ran concurrently. It drew alot of
commentators away from this game. I tried to follow pinnacle, but couldn't
follow both, so I just followed this one, although I didn't make as many
comments as I would like to have.
Greg
Message from Observer to Observer
There was no need to follow Pinnacle. C2 was better, in every way except for the absence of Eric Hunter. :-)
Ben
Message from Observer to Observer
c2 was a better game - I've followed the press of both (except the last 2-3
years of c2) - unfortunately I didn't have the time to make many comments,
and I'm not very experienced either. Anyway, you did provide a great game.
- Thomas (the guy from the VG post)
--
NEU : GMX Internet.FreeDSL
Ab sofort DSL-Tarif ohne Grundgebühr: http://www.gmx.net/dsl
Message from Observer to Observer
Thank you Thomas. I hope you did not mind the ribbing I gave you from beyond the veil. And your comments are welcome, experienced or not.
Ben
> c2 was a better game
Message from Observer to Observer
> Thank you Thomas. I hope you did not mind the ribbing I gave you from
> beyond the veil. And your comments are welcome, experienced or not.
Ben and I spoke about this off-list. If you followed the game and didn't
comment on things at the time they happened, Ben and I (at least) would
appreciate your comments now. I'm not asking anyone to go back and read the
press log (I'm 93% through, and it's hard work!), but any comments you've
been holding onto, just throw them out now. Don't be shy, we can take it! :)
--- Eric
Message from Observer to Observer
Ben responding to a comment of mine:
>>Pretty sad commentary on my play [not being able to solo with four players
>>trying to help me (though perhaps a good commentary on
>>my diplomacy) if you really think about it!
>
>Whereas I have stabbed every player near me & am still on good terms with
>those surviving. . . Perhaps a good commentary on mine!
I think I still have you beat, but only because I stabbed every player, not
just those that were near me. I'm sure if you had made it further you would
have been just as dastardly as me (and kept good relations at the same time).
--- Eric
Message from Observer to Observer
Ben, Erik, Andy and I all talked about this.
Near the end of the game, when EFI were putting everything together and Andy
had only four units, I think EF could safely have attacked Andy and
eliminated him. I recognize that Ben didn't want that, but it was ultimately
Erik that supported Andy back into Mun.
While I've read the press from that time (I believe I'm talking about
F1910/S1911 here) and can see the threats from Andy, I believe that Erik
supporting Andy into Mun created Andy's ability to try to throw to me. That
is, I don't think he could have thrown to me if Erik attacked him and he
didn't get Mun. But he could once he was in Mun.
--- Eric
Message from Observer to Observer
> But he could once he was in Mun.
Not if I'd supported BER from KIE. Which I was aware of, I just never anticipated that I should have been ordering it.
Consider it this way: if Andy hadn't been there, if the unit in MUN had remained Russian, could you have soloed? No. Andy did not gain the power to throw *unless* the defense failed, which it did, to an extent.
Ben
Message from Observer to Observer
Andy,
Re-reading the press log, I see that indeed you are correct -- I asked you to
vacate Ven and walked in behind you when you did. (I'm apologizing for the
second time I did this, when we got you into Ber.)
I honestly thought that I had told you I wanted to tap Ven, but in fact I
said at one point that I'd like to, and then later said that it wasn't
important.
It's all water under the bridge now, but I thought I'd let you know that when
I entered the moves I thought we were agreed to were guaranteed to bounce.
Mea culpa, and perhaps what, in the end, cost me the solo.
--- Eric
Message from Observer to Observer
Almost done....
Ben,
I'm disappointed that you didn't realize this on your own. You commented
several seasons earlier that you had found out that Germany was still signed
on at my request. Surely you can infer why I asked him to stay, no? Remember,
I'm the one that actually enjoyed (in a "death-defying stunt" kind of way)
the way Tony shook up the game.
At some point though, I screwed up badly enough (by ignoring Tony's requests)
that I think he really did jump ship and help you. I don't remember which
message of his it was, but one G to E press from the grave looked rather spot
on to me in England's interest.
--- Eric
> Message from benjamin.harris@m... as England to Germany in 'c2':
>
> Tony -
>> I must have been making suggestions to you which would
>> lead to the Russian solo.
>
> That explains your thinking. I had thought at the time you (a) weren't
> paying attention or (b) were stupid, I hadn't considered the possibility
> that you were still really playing from beyond the grave. You, sir, are a
> cretin.
>
> :-)
>
> Ben
Message from Observer to Observer
Ben's:
> My finest hour was probably turning back the French F IRI and subsequently
> grabbing BER and KIE. This was a big jump for me, from hunted to hunter,
> and once I had BER I was looking for the angle to solo.
This was one of those things that worked for both of us. By supporting you
there, not only did it move you away from me, but making you a real threat to
solo also gave me some (slight) leverage in influencing Erik's moves, and
made it harder for him to comfortably solidify a line in the Med.
In short, I was happy to help at that point.
--- Eric
Message from Observer to Observer
> but one G to E press from the grave looked rather spot
> on to me in England's interest.
You're not referring to the one in which he wanted me to go after Erik, and laid out the moves, are you?
As Greg pointed out in the Commentators group, my best shot for a solo was to go for MOS or WAR from you. If I'd attacked Erik like Tony wanted me to, it would have been at best a draw and at worse a Russian solo. Going after you first both limited your solo chances and increased my own solo chances. If Tony was sincere in this suggestion, notwithstanding his skill, I submit he was incorrect.
Ben
Message from Observer to Observer
> It will take me a few days to get an EOG together; I won't be home tonight
> but should be able to go through old press on Wednesday. I will say that I
> am somewhat surprised to be here; I counted at least three or four fatal
> errors on my part during the game that should have gotten me killed. Gotta
> love France.
I think many of us are kicking ourselves for many things. I certainly think
my failure to solo says as much about my skill at making fatal errors as my
getting close did about my diplomacy.
--- Eric
Message from Observer to Observer
--- Ben Harris <benjamin.harris@mindspring.com> wrote:
>---------------------------------
>> but one G to E press from the grave looked rather spot
>> on to me in England's interest.
>You're not referring to the one in which he wanted me to go after Erik, and
>laid out the moves, are you?
Honestly, I don't remember. And I sure as hell am not going through to read
the whole press log a SECOND time just to find it. :)
But I can buy your logic. One thing you and Andy have on me in spades is a
constant focus on "will this get me closer to a solo". I frequently take big
risks on individual moves (not covering War in '05, not covering Vie sometime
later) but conservatively on the big stage, and not with an eye to the solo,
just the positioning. So at various times I kept people alive (Tony,
Philippe, Jason) because I knew they had better position than I did, but I
didn't generally have a clear idea whether they had solo-improving positions.
Subtle but important distinction there, I think.
--- Eric
--- Eric
Message from Observer to Observer
--- Eric Goodman <ericgood@pacbell.net> wrote:
> Looking back I probably should have thrown
> Jason those "mud wrestling on the shores of the Black" and "let's get ready
> to RUMMMMBBLLLEEE!" jokes many, many seasons earlier than I actually did.
> (Like '01).
>
> --- Eric
Ironically, from the instant I sent this press, Jason and I got along great.
Granted, that was influenced by the board state too, but I think I'd like to
amend the above statement by replacing the word "probably" with "definitely".
If I successfully keep this in mind in the future, the entire Diplomacy
community owes Jason a debt of gratitude for saving others the suffering he
endured. :)
--- Eric
Message from Observer to Observer
--- Ben Harris <benjamin.harris@mindspring.com> wrote:
>> But he could once he was in Mun.
> Not if I'd supported BER from KIE. Which I was aware of, I just never
> anticipated that I should have been ordering it.
>
> Consider it this way: if Andy hadn't been there, if the unit in MUN had
> remained Russian, could you have soloed? No. Andy did not gain the power
> to throw *unless* the defense failed, which it did, to an extent.
>
> Ben
I think my point is that by the very fact that you DID support him into Mun,
you were inherently biased into thinking that he was working with you. So him
getting Mun gave him the position, and you helping him in made it clear to
him that he could take advantage of it.
When you get to my press you'll see that I said to Andy something like: "Oh,
it never occurred to me to support Mun-Ber, because it never occurred to me
that EF would *not* expect you [Andy] to throw to me [Eric]."
It was only much later that I recognized the connection between you granting
the support to get there and the way you read the board. Andy, being Andy, of
course saw it immediately.
--- Eric
Message from Observer to Observer
--- In c2b@yahoogroups.com, aasdip@a... wrote:
> By the way, do we know that everyone has read the "House Rules" -
> specifically regarding the obligation to reduce the size of the
> draw if reasonably possible?
:)
As Ben and I both watched and Erik and Andy both participated in
Comments 1, we were all aware of this rule. I considered trying to
invoke it, but given how well that worked for Tamas in parlaying his
4-way into a solo, and given the fact that everyone saw that in
action, I didn't try to use it here.
--- Eric
Message from Observer to Observer
Signon fc2 power
>
> I think my point is that by the very fact that you DID
> support him into Mun, you were inherently biased into
> thinking that he was working with you. So him getting Mun
> gave him the position, and you helping him in made it clear
> to him that he could take advantage of it.
True, we did think he was working with us, but we also anticipated
removing him from Munich. I haven't read all the press yet, but going
through mine:
[from F1911]
Message from benjamin.harris@mindspring.com as England to France in
'c2':
>Erik -
>> Erik....after looking at the map, I would MUCH rather support TYS to
>> the ION than Tunis.
>Ah! We are busted. I did not understand why he didn't write this
sooner. No matter - he is asking me >to put an army in KIE, which is a
beautiful thing, because it will give us 3 armies adjoining MUN, so >we
will control it much better without him:
>
>> KIE - HEL
>> DEN - KIE
>
>Ben
Then, the subsequent turn, I single-handedly blundered the prime
opportunity to remove Andy from Munich once and for all:
Russia: Army Bohemia SUPPORT French Army Burgundy -> Munich. (*void*)
Russia: Army Silesia SUPPORT French Army Burgundy -> Munich. (*void*)
France: Army Burgundy -> Marseilles. [D'OH!!]
I don't know if the decision to move against occurred before or after
that on Andy's part, but in any case, we could have avoided it had I not
misordered.
Erik
Message from Observer to Observer
Curses! Finally but too late I know Erik's password.
> Signon fc2 power
Ben
Message from Observer to Observer
Eric Goodman wrote:
>> Which, again, seemed to be at the heart of almost every message you
>> wrote to me, which made it difficult to work with you.
>
> Again, a failure on both of our parts.
Too true. I certainly feel I've learned a lot about sending press from
this discussion, regardless (or IRregardless :-) of the game itself.
jason
--
Jason Bennett, jasonab@acm.org
E pur si muove!
Message from Observer to Observer
Eric Goodman wrote:
> If I successfully keep this in mind in the future, the entire
> Diplomacy community owes Jason a debt of gratitude for saving others
> the suffering he endured. :)
Something tells me the community will owe you a debt: for saving them
from two line presses. :-)
jason
--
Jason Bennett, jasonab@acm.org
E pur si muove!
Message from Observer to Observer
*****
----- Original Message -----
From: Ben Harris
To: c2b@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, May 21, 2004 1:37 PM
Subject: Re: [c2b] Jason's early comments about me (Russia)
You know Eric, I *almost* last night compared your press to Eric Hunter's.
Eric has this ability to write beautiful compelling press that is just a
touch frigid. It's not something that's easy for me to put my finger on. .
. But I am intrigued to read this comment by Jason that suggests, despite
your skilled play and success particularly with your negotiation skills,
there may be something to it. If there were commentators I'd be curious for
their thoughts; I suppose Alastair should comment, if he is inclined, but it
is hardly fair to ask him to stand in for the community that's left us for
better pastures.
*****
I'll incline as appropriate, though it does make typing and drinking
much-needed coffee simultaneously quite tricky ...
I think Eric H's comment hit the nail on the head, actually - the issue of
world-views in Diplomacy (and life, global politics, etc etc) is crucial.
Plucking a word from my revision-addled brain, ethnocentrism is a situation
where an individual is so tied up in their own values, beliefs and goals
that they fail to recognise the potential for others to hold alternative
viewpoints. (At least I hope that's what it means; otherwise that 25% of the
exam marks is out of the window straight away ...)
It seems to me that an ethnocentric attitude (no matter how accidental) can
be equally damaging to relationships in the game of Dip as elsewhere in
life. It's important to try and recognise what your neighbours aims and
objectives are, and emphasise to them how working with you will help them
achieve them (with the beneficial byproduct that it helps you move towards
your objectives). Ah, if only it was as easily done as said.
The other thing that seems to be an issue is clashes in press style - can't
remember who said it (probably Ben) but someone early on commented in a
press to self of the need to correspond in fairly concise terms with Andy,
in order to match his press style. I think it was one of the issues that may
have held Tamas back from gaining a solo last time round also.
Alastair
Message from Observer to Observer
Greg wrote:
*****
It was unfortunate that the two games ran concurrently. It drew alot of
commentators away from this game. I tried to follow pinnacle, but couldn't
follow both, so I just followed this one, although I didn't make as many
comments as I would like to have.
*****
Ditto. I didn't actually hear about pinnacle when it first started up, and
once I did I figured I'd already made quite a time investment in following
c2 and really didn't want to try and follow another.
Thomas wrote:
*****
c2 was a better game - I've followed the press of both (except the last 2-3
years of c2) - unfortunately I didn't have the time to make many comments,
and I'm not very experienced either. Anyway, you did provide a great game.
*****
Hey, don't let inexperience/ineptitude hold you back, I'm ploughing on in
regardless!
Alastair
Message from Observer to Observer
Ben wrote:
*****
As Greg pointed out in the Commentators group, my best shot for a solo was
to go for MOS or WAR from you [Russia].
*****
Remind me why you didn't? I'm sure there was a valid reason at the time, but
Greg posted a good analysis around the time of F1907 saying that if you
wanted to solo, now was the time to go for Russia. I think that very same
season you swung the fleets round to NAO and ENG as the stab on Erik.
Alastair
Message from Observer to Observer
Former rulers of deceased powers come back too!
I think we kind of had an EOG from Philippe when he joined this group after
his elimination. But I'm certainly interested to hear the thoughts of Tony
about the way he played the game (though I suspect his game load is just as
high now as it was at the start of c2!)
Alastair
Message from Observer to Observer
As I recall at the time there was a Russian A MUN and I was worried about the danger to KIE/BER.
Ben
-----Original Message-----
From: Alastair Tomlinson
Sent: May 23, 2004 3:06 PM
To: c2b@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [c2b] Ben's solo chances
Ben wrote:
*****
As Greg pointed out in the Commentators group, my best shot for a solo was
to go for MOS or WAR from you [Russia].
*****
Remind me why you didn't? I'm sure there was a valid reason at the time, but
Greg posted a good analysis around the time of F1907 saying that if you
wanted to solo, now was the time to go for Russia. I think that very same
season you swung the fleets round to NAO and ENG as the stab on Erik.
Alastair
Message from Observer to Observer
From Andy, too. I suspect neither is signed up to this group.
Ben
-----Original Message-----
From: Alastair Tomlinson
Sent: May 23, 2004 3:10 PM
To: c2b@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [c2b] Lurkers come back! The game is over!
Former rulers of deceased powers come back too!
I think we kind of had an EOG from Philippe when he joined this group after
his elimination. But I'm certainly interested to hear the thoughts of Tony
about the way he played the game (though I suspect his game load is just as
high now as it was at the start of c2!)
Alastair
Message from England to Germany and Italy
Hey guys please sign up to the Yahoo group c2b & join the post mortem. Don't forget your eogs.
Thanks.
Ben
Message from Observer to Observer
In retrospect this was an error in judgment - Greg's analysis was I think correct. But that was my thinking at the time.
Ben
-----Original Message-----
From: Ben Harris
Sent: May 23, 2004 8:18 PM
To: c2b@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [c2b] Ben's solo chances
As I recall at the time there was a Russian A MUN and I was worried about the danger to KIE/BER.
Ben
-----Original Message-----
From: Alastair Tomlinson
Sent: May 23, 2004 3:06 PM
To: c2b@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [c2b] Ben's solo chances
Ben wrote:
*****
As Greg pointed out in the Commentators group, my best shot for a solo was
to go for MOS or WAR from you [Russia].
*****
Remind me why you didn't? I'm sure there was a valid reason at the time, but
Greg posted a good analysis around the time of F1907 saying that if you
wanted to solo, now was the time to go for Russia. I think that very same
season you swung the fleets round to NAO and ENG as the stab on Erik.
Alastair
Message from Observer to Observer
As I noted from time to time, including I think in my eog, I did intend to get into Russia for one of those centers to get the solo. It's not that I wasn't planning on it - what I failed to do was risk that key convoy identified by Greg.
Ben
-----Original Message-----
From: Ben Harris
Sent: May 23, 2004 8:25 PM
To: c2b@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [c2b] Ben's solo chances
In retrospect this was an error in judgment - Greg's analysis was I think correct. But that was my thinking at the time.
Ben
-----Original Message-----
From: Ben Harris
Sent: May 23, 2004 8:18 PM
To: c2b@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [c2b] Ben's solo chances
As I recall at the time there was a Russian A MUN and I was worried about the danger to KIE/BER.
Ben
-----Original Message-----
From: Alastair Tomlinson
Sent: May 23, 2004 3:06 PM
To: c2b@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [c2b] Ben's solo chances
Ben wrote:
*****
As Greg pointed out in the Commentators group, my best shot for a solo was
to go for MOS or WAR from you [Russia].
*****
Remind me why you didn't? I'm sure there was a valid reason at the time, but
Greg posted a good analysis around the time of F1907 saying that if you
wanted to solo, now was the time to go for Russia. I think that very same
season you swung the fleets round to NAO and ENG as the stab on Erik.
Alastair
Message from Observer to Observer
>> From: Alastair Tomlinson
>>Ben wrote:
>>*****
>> As Greg pointed out in the Commentators group, my best shot
>> for a solo was to go for MOS or WAR from you [Russia].
>> Remind me why you didn't?
> From: Ben Harris
> As I recall at the time there was a Russian A MUN
> and I was worried about the danger to KIE/BER.
If you take Mos and War, a Russian Army in Germany
is, at most, an annoyance. Build another Army, Convoy
it to Den or Hol, and recapture the German Center.
You're almost always better off capturing you 17th and
18th Centers (the ones furthest away) before you take
13, 14, 15, and 16. Once you pick those up, 17 and 18
are more likely to be heavily defended.
Eric Hunter.
Message from Russia to all
Russian EOG
Duh -- I wrote this on Monday but never sent it. I'll add a few comments
based on my review of the press and send it along. Just what you all want,
more long press from Eric! :)
General stuff:
I have a heck of a time playing Russia. Most people find it nice, but I
tend to prefer Italy and Austria. But I'm odd that way -- I'm generally a
"wait and see" player, and Russia just gives me so many options that I can
too easily confuse myself with options. I learned in my face-to-face
experience that my wait-and-see style is really only viable in email games,
but it's worked okay for me online in the past.
Prior to the game, I was a little worried about playing across from Andy
(just from his reputation), but I was determined not to let his reputation
keep me from working with him.
Game chronology:
1901:
Early on, Tony's press freaked me out. I thought it was well done, but it
seemed to me that he was moving from the get go to contain me
diplomatically by sending out G to RAI press and trying to coordinate
moves. Germany directing all three of RAI has got to be bad for one of R or
I at least. So I was immediately predisposed against Tony. Tony was also
quite adamant that I make a northern opening. Combined with trying to
orchestrate my southern moves, I was very resistant to working with him in
the beginning. Plus, Ben and I hit it off well early on, too, which made
being too pro-Germany and anti-English even less attractive.
At the same time, Andy and Philippe seemed to hit things off just
swimmingly. :) I was quite heartened to get this press from Italy in S1901
discussions: "Eric, Philippe seems to be scared to death of me, please cut
his heart out." I would say that this message and whatever led up to it
more than any skill on my part makes it clear why I was eventually the
dominant power in the east.
The opening moves were decidedly unpleasant, with Turkey taking Arm,
Austria being coy, France threatening Italy and EF cooperating. Ick! The
only good thing was that the EF meant that Germany was likely to be
disposed towards working with me. In Fall, things continued to get worse,
with AT cooperating against me, Italy lying to me about his plans, Germany
insisting that I build in StP and a strong EF. Most depressing is that
neither Turkey nor Austria was talking with me. Both had just decided to
come after me with basically no discussion. I was pretty confident this
would be elimination number three in a row at this point, and was very
distressed about it. [Added after reading the press log] Looking at the
full press log I am inferring that my early game negotiations are too "wide
open" and don't get the kind of mind-share that the much more detailed
discussions between EFG, AIG and AT do. Even though several of those were
ultimately unsuccessful, they effectively isolated me before the game even
began.
My thinking at this point was to try to break up AT somehow (brilliant
strategy, huh?) and then to fan the flames of E vs G concern. By being the
lesser evil for both E and G of them, I hoped to be able to play them
against the other *if* I survived the AT somehow. That turned out to be a
good plan, and one that very nearly got me to a solo. :) I built A StP in
order to try to buy friendship from Germany (I felt I already had it from
England) and make myself seem less of a threat to Austria and Turkey. I
also wrote a long message to Ben telling him that A StP was coming to
minimize the damage of building A StP, though I also tried to negotiate
having him lend me Nwy despite the near impossibility of succeeding. It
also minimized my defense against Philippe, which I thought might convince
Jason that AT wasn't going to work out in his favor. In my defense,
remember that I was quite desperate at the time! [Also after reading press
log] I was lucky that Andy pushed the AT paranoia -- had they stuck
together, I probably would have lost War and Sev in short order.
1902 really got me a position that would carry me into the draw and
(eventually) looking at possibilities of soloing. I stabbed Ben in Spring
for Norway (both banking on mending fences with him later and also keeping
Germany viable while I got back on my feet) and supported Jason from Arm to
Rum, effectively breaking the AT. I was not sanguine about my chances right
after the spring moves, but when Fall negotiations showed that Ben was not
overly upset with the stab for Nwy, I started feeling pretty good. When
Philippe announced his willingness to work to help me despite my support of
Jason, I felt a bit better. When Ben and I agreed to our little test of
Tony's reliability (we agreed that Ben would attack me with Tony's support)
and Tony failed to be reliable to either of us, I was getting downright
optimistic. And when I stabbed Jason for Rum in Fall and was still able to
negotiate friendly builds (A Sev/F Smy) that set up T vs. I, my position in
S1903 was 180 degrees from how I entered S1902. That year was probably the
best year I had in the game overall. Though ironically after Fall I still
thought I should have put an army in Rum and was very depressed about my
moves until the builds with Jason were arranged. I still think it may have
been a mistake, in that not being able to put an army into Rum slowed both
me and Jason down for a long time in the Balkans.
1903 was kind of a mess. Lots of diplomacy, very little feeling that I had
any control over what was going on. Basically, I convinced France to attack
England and England to attack Germany. I was still confident that despite
helping England against Germany that Tony would decide to throw to me out
of spite (he was already on the verge of doing so anyway). (And Philippe,
were it not for that miscommunication, I think I would have been able to
deliver on my later promise of not eliminating you).
This was also the year I had that massive screwup, where I sent a message
to to Andy (instead of Philippe) which ended up costing me Vie, which would
have been used to build a fleet in StP. Well technically, fessing up to the
errant message screwed up my position, the message itself actually had no
impact. Without a build, I was forced to continue working with Ben. Had I
build in StP when Ben put fleets in Lvp and Lon, I might have been able to
convince Erik to keep after Ben.
'04 I again made a shot to take out Ben. In spring Ben and I combined to
attack Tony. That was the breaking point for Tony (or so he claimed) and
from then on he was helping me against Ben. I ordered support for him
against Ben, took some of Ben's centers, and would have really hurt him
(Ben) except that he had already patched things up with Erik (damned that
missing build!). Erik defended poorly and so Ben ended up building one
instead of going down one. Major problems in the solo planning. At the same
time Jason took Rum with an army instead of with his fleet as we agreed,
and that spelled the beginning of the end of the RT. (Probably has
something to do with my overreaction to Jason too). While I agree with
Jason that I was a huge threat, at that point I think it was too late for
him to slow me down with an attack -- if he wanted to see my growth slowed
(and not get eliminated in the process), he needed to come after me several
seasons earlier. By the time he stabbed (technically, set himself up to
stab me -- the stab would have come the next season), I think he needed to
focus on establishing himself against IA, not against me.
'05 was the "Great, Poorly Reasoned Attack" on Turkey, where I meant to tap
him but ended up force retreating him to Gal (gack, what stupidity). At the
same time, there was the "Supreme German Miscommunication", wherein Tony
overlooked the fact that I had offered the support he wanted and attacked
me on the assumption I was after him. Forcing Jason to retreat to Gal was
terrible, tying up 4 units in defense that could have been used to
consolidate Germany and pressure Italy. Failing to properly coordinate the
attack with Tony against Ben -- which I will repeat was all Tony's fault
dammit! :) -- slowed me down enough hugely. It meant Ben stayed large, no F
StP build (again), and basically destroyed another good shot at a solo. I
was damned lucky to get one disband instead of going down four. Very
disappointing, but in many ways my own damned fault.
Tony, I would really like to know -- now that we are out of the game -- if
you were really interested in throwing to me or if the miscommunication was
just a ruse while you tried to get back in the game.
'06 was consolidation of my position waiting for the StL to break, which it
did when Erik attacked Andy. I hated to eliminate Philippe, but when Andy
also started trying to throw to me, there just wasn't any realistic way to
coordinate with Philippe -- he actually got in my way as I tried to push
into Italian and Turkish centers.
'07 Ben attacked Erik very effectively and I had my first concern that Ben
might solo -- I could see that I wasn't going to get to Tun anytime soon. I
had yet another shot at the solo here, where Erik came damned close to
inviting me into French centers to spite Ben. I think it was probably a
mistake not to walk in uninvited.
In 08 I pressed Jason as Erik backed off of Andy. I knew Andy would want to
reestablish himself. Andy was clearly setting up to attack me and trying to
convince me to get badly out of position. I found the discussion pretty
amusing, frankly.
'09 I wasn't sure I should have pushed against Andy, but basically this was
when he was put on the ropes for real.
'10 I mis-guessed where Ben would try to convoy and lost StP and thus my
control of my solo chances. In hindsight, I should have moved War-Lvn, not
War-Pru. In Fall, Erik failed to tell me he wanted Ion as he renewed his
attack on Andy, so I supported Jason there, bouncing Erik. Had I known that
Erik wanted it, I probably would have let him have it -- I wanted Andy
under extreme duress, not just partial duress, and I wanted Erik so far
advanced against Andy that he couldn't really back out to ensure Andy kept
trying to throw to me.
'12-'14 Andy and I moved got me to the cusp of a solo, where it all
depended on Ben being able to convince Andy that Andy would not be
whittled. I spent the time trying to force Andy to throw to me, but I
recognize that it was a hopeless quest. I'm not sure at that point if there
was anything I could have done better -- perhaps supporting Erik into
Andy's centers instead of taking them myself. But basically, once Ben told
Andy that he (Andy) was in the draw, there was nothing I could do to force
a solo from Andy even if Ben was lying.
Had I stayed around, I probably would have very blatantly backed off of
Erik, and tried to get him nervous enough to attack (or defend more
strongly against) Ben. I could imagine explaining that I really wanted to
see Andy eliminated since he welched on throwing to me, but Ben told me
that he'd only eliminate Andy if I gave him a shot at also eliminating Erik
-- which was mostly true, though a distortion of what Ben had actually
said. I had planned to enter orders that would have taken all of my fleets
out of the Western Med, and just left armies defending Italy when I went
late and decided to spare people the agony. I'm not sure whether I would
have handed over Mos or War -- only if I could have retaken them. I wanted
Erik see that he was in *real* danger of elimination. I think Ben is good
enough to keep Erik from freaking out about my moves, but that was what I
would have done.
Comments on the Players:
(In order of elimination or final size):
Tony/Germany:
What a character! Added a tension to the game that I really missed when he
left. His casual attitude towards the truth doomed him in this game, but
had Ben and I not had such a good rapport he might have been able to pull
it off. As it was, his maneuvering with EF combined with my relationship
with Ben meant that I could attack Ben with relative impunity and still
come out looking like the "good" neighbor. I really enjoyed working with
him once I figured out what made him tick. Great attitude.
Tony, I am still disappointed that we failed to coordinate keeping you
moving against England back in 1905. Ben would have been down one, I would
have been able to pick up an extra build from Ber for F StP.
Philippe/Austria:
Reading the commentators messages [on c2b] I can see that Philippe never
showed me how good he can be. My major commentary on Philippe is that it
was surprisingly easy to tell when he was going to be working for me or
against me. When he planned to attack me, he always change the tone of his
press to be distant and vague. I was rarely concerned about whether or not
to trust him or attack him. Of course, given that he spent much of the game
trying to help me as much as he could (after the first few seasons), it
wasn't much of an issue.
Solid player, but locked up against Italy early on, which gave me a free
pass for much of the game, especially with Jason allowing me to get away
with so much too.
Jason/Turkey:
Nice guy, and not as naive as he led on, but still seemed to play a game
that was independent of the press early on. Decided to attack me, then to
attack Philippe with no clear rhyme or reason that I could decipher. Never
to my recollection tried to negotiate anything that he wanted. Frequently
he would tell me things that made no sense and that just begged me to
attack him. I'll clarify that -- what he said was coherent, but it didn't
make sense to tell me those things. Several times he would argue that he
was working for RT and prepping to attack Italy, but in the same press
would state how he couldn't help me because he was supporting Andy into an
Austrian center. That dynamic just never made sense to me, and I'm really
curious what that was all about.
Andy/Italy:
Had a hard position, and with his problems with Philippe, it was rarely
even worth considering working with him -- despite my intent to being open
to him coming into the game, so IR never became a reality. I was perfectly
willing to go with IR in principle, but knowing that as long as Italy was
there Philippe would be perhaps overly wary made me willing to risk a lot
to cooperate with Austria. That lost me Rum in the early going, but made
things work out well once Jason turned on Philippe. I also hoped to play on
the animosity that I detected between Andy and Erik, and I was betting that
leaving Andy hanging in the wind, while annoying to him, would eventually
lead to Erik attacking him, potentially getting Andy on my side as well.
The more help I got from AT, the more I thought that might eventually get
me to Tun, so I never *really* wanted to see Andy do well, because it never
seemed to be beneficial for me.
Andy frequently relied on his ability to convince people of things based on
strength of personality or his desire that they believe him rather than on
the logic of his arguments. One of my favorite exchanges was this one. This
was when we were exploring ways we could work together long term.
Andy: "I think I have an idea....but I need your help. Can you tap
Budapest in the spring?"
Me: "I *can* tap Bud. What's that gonna help?"
Andy: "It gets me Serbia."
Andy, this was a ROTFL moment for me. That's not an *idea*, that's a
*request*. I could see that you could get Ser if I tapped Bud. The way you
presented this made me think that you thought you could make me think it
was a better idea *because* you called it an idea.
Another instance was in 08 after Erik backed off of you and you were
claiming you were still working with me. You were trying to get me to move
out of position, but when you were unwilling to admit it, I dropped the
issue. In the aftermath we had a back and forth where I told you I hadn't
believed you and you said, (paraphrase) "You should have said something. I
would have told you that I was going to use my build for F Nap to use
against Erik, and the problem would have been solved." Here you assumed
that it is what you say that matters, irrespective of the actual board
setup. Something you would almost *never* fall for, but you expected me to.
I could almost feel insulted. :)
The key issue was that I knew that when Erik backed off your goals would
change. I was willing to work with you to get you a stronger draw position
(that also pushed you west) if you continued to help me in the east, and I
told you this. You claimed that you were still going full-bore for the
Russian solo. The unlikeliness of this, combined with the ridiculous move
suggestions, made anything and everything you said suspect at that time.
Not recognizing that -- especially when I raised the point that I thought
you'd no longer be going for the R solo -- was the oversight there.
I learned a LOT about how to look at a board and when to take risks from
working with you, and I had a blast meeting you both here and seeing you
again in Portland.
Well played at the end of the game getting into the draw. I recognized that
I was driving you into the draw with my play towards the solo, but as you
said, had Erik pressed you even slightly more, I probably would have
soloed, so it made sense to me as a course of action, rather than backing
off and working for the two way.
And for the record, I *really* was that busy at work. There may have been a
time or two when I avoided you intentionally, but it has been an insane
year. It's not that I had *no* time, but I tend to take a lot of time to
compose my press, and on many occasions I just didn't have enough for the
inefficient way I play the game.
Erik/France:
Erik and I did a decent job of cross board communication, especially
considering how often both of us were unavailable. I appreciated his
willingness to eschew conventional wisdom (not sticking with the StL,
etc.), particularly when it kept getting Andy to try to throw me the game. :)
We never really got a chance to cooperate a lot, as every time I got him to
stab Ben, I kept ending up helping Ben to stymie him. In my defense I
almost always stabbed Ben whenever he'd turn around to get payback from
Erik, so it probably helped Erik as much as it hurt him. Unfortunately for
me, EF kept making up.
Ben/England:
I had an absolute blast interacting with Ben. Great sense of humor (or at
least, very compatible with mine). Very forgiving player, too, though I
don't know that this is necessarily a good thing. I never would have
stabbed as many times as I did if I had the sense (correct or not) that I
couldn't talk my way out of any treachery. :) I think Ben gave me *waaay*
too much leeway for his own good. That said, he had real solo shots at
times in the game. I also enjoyed working with him to understand the depth
of Tony's deviousness as it happened.
I imagine all the inane football and Princess Bride blather must have bored
people to tears (perhaps that's why everyone stopped commenting later in
the game?) but that was some of the most fun press I've shared in a game.
Me/Russia:
Looking at the comments, out of the gate I sucked rocks. The only player
not to have any alliance in the bag in '01, I was lucky to have Tony and
Jason (both of whom proved extremely unreliable to their neighbors) next to
me, and the AT tension helped me a lot, too. With that, I turned things
around in '02, and it certainly felt like from that point on I had a lot of
control of the whole board.
Some things I think I did particularly well (for me):
Being aggressive about telling people what was required for cooperation
with me. This was especially true with Philippe and Jason, where every time
I stabbed either of them it was because they refused to address my
concerns. While I imagine they didn't like the stabbing, I could always
point to what they had done that caused it, and how I had tried to work out
an alternative solution. Also with E early on, I didn't try to sugar-coat
things with him as I usually do. When I was unwilling to give back Nwy, I
was pretty straight about it, instead of engaging in a negotiation that I
didn't intend to follow through on. I think all of those things helped me
when I got back onside with each of the players.
Taking some risks (though still not enough risks).
Good diplomatic influence across the entire board, and by and large the
flow of the board was always in my favor after 1901 and before 1912.
Things done particularly badly:
I was too timid on several occasions -- most of these occasions were noted
in comments that were duly ignored by you commentators. :) I'm glad at
least one of you felt guilty about that!
Failing to solo despite having 4 -- count 'em, 4 -- players acting as
Janissaries. And Erik was right on the edge of being one as well.
Overall I enjoyed this game, though there were some times when work was so
busy that I sort of resented the time the game required. Time for a
sabbatical methinks.
I hope that the commentators are willing to step back in and pick up on the
analysis some more now that the game is over. At some point I'll go over
the 3500 messages in the full press log, but probably not tonight!
[Obviously, this has been done now.]
Thanks for the game all, including of course, Greg. I'll be around and
willing to blather on about any game-related topics.
--- Eric
Message from Observer to Observer
At 06:44 PM 5/23/2004 +0100, you wrote:
>The other thing that seems to be an issue is clashes in press style - can't
>remember who said it (probably Ben) but someone early on commented in a
>press to self of the need to correspond in fairly concise terms with Andy,
>in order to match his press style. I think it was one of the issues that may
>have held Tamas back from gaining a solo last time round also.
Ironically, given this conversation that was me. And I didn't really follow
through with it much either. Another example of seeing what needs to be
done yet being unable to do it. :)
>:: Judge: USTX Game: C2 Variant: Standard
>:: Deadline: S1901M Wed Oct 08 2003 23:30:00 -0500
>
>Message sent to Russia:
>
>Message from ericgood@pacbell.net as Russia to Russia in 'c2':
[snip]
>Italy: It hurts my brain to write such short messages to him. :) I'm
>a windbag, but watching C1 it seems that rambling is a bad idea with
>him. I probably shouldn't do it with anyone, actually! No doubt he's
>going to be good practice for me, even if he doesn't care that I try
>to keep messages to him short.
--- Eric
Message from Observer to Observer
At 08:06 PM 5/23/2004 +0100, you wrote:
>Ben wrote:
>*****
>As Greg pointed out in the Commentators group, my best shot for a solo was
>to go for MOS or WAR from you [Russia].
>*****
>
>Remind me why you didn't? I'm sure there was a valid reason at the time, but
>Greg posted a good analysis around the time of F1907 saying that if you
>wanted to solo, now was the time to go for Russia. I think that very same
>season you swung the fleets round to NAO and ENG as the stab on Erik.
I underestimated the danger here as well.
At the time I attacked Ber with warning to ensure that I would get an extra
build (and cost him one) if he did take Lvn, and I thought that might be
enough to keep him off of me. Ironically, he said in response that had he
wanted Lvn he probably wouldn't have minded the loss of Ber, agreeing with
Alastair, Greg and Eric. Hopefully my focus on him defending Ber had
something to do with it seeming to be important to him.
Though it might have been the goat pictures, too.
--- Eric
Message from Italy to England
> 'c2':
>
> Hey guys please sign up to the Yahoo group c2b & join the post mortem.
Don't forget your eogs.
>
Im waiting for approval.
Message from Italy to all
I also hoped to play on
> the animosity that I detected between Andy and Erik,
It would be very difficult for Erik and I not to have annimosity when this
game started....
and I was betting that
> leaving Andy hanging in the wind, while annoying to him, would eventually
> lead to Erik attacking him, potentially getting Andy on my side as well.
> The more help I got from AT, the more I thought that might eventually get
> me to Tun, so I never *really* wanted to see Andy do well, because it never
> seemed to be beneficial for me.
Eric....every single time you made me an offer, of anything.....
telling me I could get a build, telling me you wouldnt attack me, telling
me that you werent repeating everything I said to you verbatim to the
people attacking me .....I was pretty sure it was all lies....not a
truthful statement in the bunch, but when you are the really small power,
you have to look past that.
> Andy frequently relied on his ability to convince people of things based on
> strength of personality or his desire that they believe him rather than on
> the logic of his arguments. One of my favorite exchanges was this one. This
> was when we were exploring ways we could work together long term.
> Andy: "I think I have an idea....but I need your help. Can you tap
> Budapest in the spring?"
> Me: "I *can* tap Bud. What's that gonna help?"
> Andy: "It gets me Serbia."
You might want to put this in context.
This was the 3rd iteration of a plan that we were discussing. So...YES it
was an idea.
Philippe had 2 centers left, Eric said he wanted to kill him, the only way
to guarantee one of them and not risk Russian dots was to put me in
Serbia.
As well. It was a great place to find out if you really did want to work
with me. Why wouldnt you want to get rid of an enemy and get your
supposed ally (who was significantly behind you in dot count) a build.
> Andy, this was a ROTFL moment for me. That's not an *idea*, that's a
> *request*.
No...it was an idea, you could say you didnt like the idea, and I think
you did.
I could see that you could get Ser if I tapped Bud. The way you
> presented this made me think that you thought you could make me think it
> was a better idea *because* you called it an idea.
Eric....you immediately suspected double talk and lies in just about
everything I said. I didnt lie to you very much. I never had an ally in
this whole game except Ben.
>
> Another instance was in 08 after Erik backed off of you and you were
> claiming you were still working with me. You were trying to get me to move
> out of position, but when you were unwilling to admit it, I dropped the
> issue.
I still wont admit it...its not what I was trying to do.
You had 5 armies in position, and I had one that bordered you....why on
gods green earth would I attack you.
I was trying to get you to move forward so that you could solo. I got
tired of waiting, and when Ben made me such a generous offer, I took it.
In the aftermath we had a back and forth where I told you I hadn't
> believed you and you said, (paraphrase) "You should have said something. I
> would have told you that I was going to use my build for F Nap to use
> against Erik, and the problem would have been solved." Here you assumed
> that it is what you say that matters, irrespective of the actual board
> setup. Something you would almost *never* fall for, but you expected me to.
> I could almost feel insulted. :)
Eric.....you still dont understand.
If someone says something that is total bullshit in your mind, call them
on it, ask them why they feel that way.....it puts all the impetus on them
to explain themselves.
And what I am understanding is that you dont seem to care what the other
person says, if it doesnt benefit you, you want no part of it. That is the
single permeating feeling you gave me every time we communicated.
*If it doesnt clearly benefit me....RIGHT NOW....I dont want any part of
it.*
> The key issue was that I knew that when Erik backed off your goals would
> change.
You dont know that. I had no reason to believe that Erik would back off me
and you certainly shouldnt have had any reason to believe it.
I was willing to work with you to get you a stronger draw position
> (that also pushed you west) if you continued to help me in the east, and I
> told you this.
But you never, ever, ever, ever, followed through on it.
You had at least a half a dozen opportunities to get me builds, and you
would either take a dot from me to compensate or would discard the plan.
You claimed that you were still going full-bore for the
> Russian solo. The unlikeliness of this, combined with the ridiculous move
> suggestions, made anything and everything you said suspect at that time.
Eric...
If you had listened to the move suggestions, there wouldnt have been a
draw, and there was NOTHING I could convince you of to change your mind,
if you dont sit back and play conservatively....always watching me like a
hawk, questioning my every suggestion, and just bloody attack, you get all
the dots, alot sooner, before Erik can ever defend them....
You can...really...honest and truly....but you were SO concerned that I
might dot you for one on the back side that you gave up all the dots in
France if you wanted them.
> I learned a LOT about how to look at a board and when to take risks from
> working with you, and I had a blast meeting you both here and seeing you
> again in Portland.
I had a blast meeting you too....I want to hang out again, I hope you keep
coming to tournaments....
> Well played at the end of the game getting into the draw. I recognized that
> I was driving you into the draw with my play towards the solo, but as you
> said, had Erik pressed you even slightly more, I probably would have
> soloed, so it made sense to me as a course of action, rather than backing
> off and working for the two way.
If you had just pressed, rather than playing conservatively you would have
solo'd
Message from Observer to Observer
If I may respond:
>
> Failing to solo despite having 4 -- count 'em, 4 -- players acting as
> Janissaries. And Erik was right on the edge of being one as well.
>
Actually, no. Even when I offered to throw the game to you, it wasn't
particularly sincere. I wasn't in a place where threatening to throw to
you would keep me in the game (as Andy could later), and that comment was
made in the heat of post-stab frustration. If anything, I was hoping that
the appearance of total surrender would cause you to let something slip
through the press filter that might help me survive. I can't remember
offhand if it did, but as you said, your only real option for taking my
centers was to walk in uninvited (which, I will admit, you could have
done). Even as I offered to throw, I was beginning to rally around a
"Russia is about to solo" flag with I/E, and held out hope for a draw.
I will say this much: had you demonstrated a bit more willingness to work
with me earlier in the game, you might have had an easier time using me to
your advantage later. I was always extremely interested in a cross-board
relationship with Russia, perhaps a little too interested. When Russian
support failed to coordinate with my early plans, I started holding you at
an arm's length. Yes, there were times when you came back and took a stab
at Ben and helped me, but as you said, your timing was off -- I'd already
made up with him by the time you were ready to stab him. I can't pin down
exactly why, but I had a picture of you from the very beginning as a
purely fair-weather friend.
Message from Germany to England and Russia
I have signed up and am awaiting approval.
See you there soon I hope.
Message from Germany to all
I put in a request to join the group. I may have a problem (I have never
used the yahoo mail account). I havent seen a confirmation of me being
allowed into the group. I am in several groups so I have experience with
them. I have copied this message in a message to Greg. Hopefully I wil be
able to sign up shortly and send in my EOG.
Tony
Message from Russia to all
> As well. It was a great place to find out if you really did want to work
> with me. Why wouldnt you want to get rid of an enemy and get your
> supposed ally (who was significantly behind you in dot count) a build.
I thought that was earlier, prior to when I was looking to take out Philippe.
At that time, if I recall correctly Philippe was actively working for me
against you, which was the logic for not wanting you to do well.
>> Andy, this was a ROTFL moment for me. That's not an *idea*, that's a
>> *request*.
>
> No...it was an idea, you could say you didnt like the idea, and I think
> you did.
Sorry, what I meant was that it came across to me as a hint that there was a
grand strategy in the works, there.
> Eric....you immediately suspected double talk and lies in just about
> everything I said. I didnt lie to you very much. I never had an ally in
> this whole game except Ben.
I don't disagree with Ben being your only real ally, but I want to try to
clarify: Early on I rebuffed you a lot because I had a lot of support from AT
and didn't want to see you strong for that reason -- I was hoping to
eventually push through you, so you getting dots was worrisome for that
reason (not because I doubted you or was too worried about you). Later, after
Erik backed off, and started suspecting the double talk in most of your
comments.
> (In 08) You had 5 armies in position, and I had one that bordered
you....why
> on gods green earth would I attack you.
The why I had in mind was because if you attacked me in the Balkans,
supported Jason against me in Turkey and Ben pressed me in the north, then I
would have been over-committed and probably have fallen back. You would get
some builds from the Balkans and Turkey was still stuck between us.
> I was trying to get you to move forward so that you could solo. I got
> tired of waiting, and when Ben made me such a generous offer, I took it.
I can completely understand the frustration. Which offer from Ben are you
referring to here?
> If someone says something that is total bullshit in your mind, call them
> on it, ask them why they feel that way.....it puts all the impetus on them
> to explain themselves.
I thought I had (though in my typical soft fashion, so maybe it wasn't clear
that I was doing that. You suggested moves that seemed fishy to me (Bul-Con
among them) because they had me walking away from you wherever it was
possible to walk away from me. You also stated that you would be using Ven in
the west. I asked (mulitple times) why you weren't looking to re-establish
position now that Erik had backed off, and you said that he hadn't clearly
backed off of you yet yet. To paraphrase you, "I haven't looked yet, but he
might be in a more threatening position now than he was last season."
> And what I am understanding is that you dont seem to care what the other
> person says, if it doesnt benefit you, you want no part of it. That is the
> single permeating feeling you gave me every time we communicated.
>
> *If it doesnt clearly benefit me....RIGHT NOW....I dont want any part of
> it.*
I recognize that short-term thinking is a weakness in the way I play. I do
think this tendency was exaggerated by the fact that for most of the game I
was allowed to get away with it and still gaining.
>> The key issue was that I knew that when Erik backed off your goals would
>> change.
>
> You dont know that.
Sorry, you are correct. I was certain, correctly or not.
> I had no reason to believe that Erik would back off me
> and you certainly shouldnt have had any reason to believe it.
My conversations with Erik and Ben, along with his strong disappointment that
I supported you against him in Ven, all led me to believe he was damned
serious about moving north. Again, I may have mistaked personal certainty for
actual reason, but I don't think I was being unreasonable.
> I was willing to work with you to get you a stronger draw position
>
> But you never, ever, ever, ever, followed through on it.
I was referring to willingness for that one season. I know I never followed
through on it on earlier occasions.
>> You claimed that you were still going full-bore for the
>> Russian solo. The unlikeliness of this, combined with the ridiculous move
>> suggestions, made anything and everything you said suspect at that time.
>[snip]
> You can [solo]...really...honest and truly....but you were SO concerned
that I
> might dot you for one on the back side that you gave up all the dots in
> France if you wanted them.
Well, I'd really like to hear commentary from the others on this. I'm *waaay*
too caught up in the dynamics of the ongoing situation to objectively review
these statements. The fact that you repeat them here makes me willing to
re-examine them. Perhaps I was chasing phantoms. And there is no doubt that
once I was convinced (whether rationally or not) that the first season was a
ruse, the way I listened to you in following seasons was somewhat poisoned.
>> Well played at the end of the game getting into the draw. I recognized
that
>> I was driving you into the draw with my play towards the solo, but as you
>> said, had Erik pressed you even slightly more, I probably would have
>> soloed, so it made sense to me as a course of action, rather than backing
>> off and working for the two way.
>
> If you had just pressed, rather than playing conservatively you would have
> solo'd
Which, if true, at least shows that I was right about at least one thing: it
was pretty pathetic not to have solo'd in my position. :)
--- Eric
Message from Observer to Observer
--- Erik Diehn <erik@spamcop.net> wrote:
> > Failing to solo despite having 4 -- count 'em, 4 -- players acting as
> > Janissaries. And Erik was right on the edge of being one as well.
> >
>
> Actually, no. Even when I offered to throw the game to you, it wasn't
> particularly sincere. I wasn't in a place where threatening to throw to
> you would keep me in the game (as Andy could later), and that comment was
> made in the heat of post-stab frustration. If anything, I was hoping that
> the appearance of total surrender would cause you to let something slip
> through the press filter that might help me survive. I can't remember
> offhand if it did, but as you said, your only real option for taking my
> centers was to walk in uninvited (which, I will admit, you could have
> done).
This was then a definite failing on my part. Ironically, had you *not* told
me you were considering throwing to me, I would probably have been *more*
likely walk in uninvited. But either way, it was a mistake on my part, and I
think I said so at the time.
--- Eric
Message from Observer to Observer
<Discussion moved to the commentators group so others can participate.>
>>>You claimed that you were still going full-bore for the
>>>Russian solo. The unlikeliness of this, combined with the ridiculous move
>>>suggestions, made anything and everything you said suspect at that time.
>>
>>[snip]
>>You can [solo]...really...honest and truly....but you were SO concerned
> > that I
>>might dot you for one on the back side that you gave up all the dots in
>>France if you wanted them.
>
>
> Well, I'd really like to hear commentary from the others on this. I'm *waaay*
> too caught up in the dynamics of the ongoing situation to objectively review
> these statements. The fact that you repeat them here makes me willing to
> re-examine them. Perhaps I was chasing phantoms. And there is no doubt that
> once I was convinced (whether rationally or not) that the first season was a
> ruse, the way I listened to you in following seasons was somewhat poisoned.
Could you remind us of what turn you are discussing. I'll take a look and let
you know my opinion, if I have one.
Greg
Message from Observer to Observer
In my mind we are discussing Fall 1908, though I think there's really a few
seasons at issue here.
(This will only make sense looking at the map) In F1908, Andy suggested I
move Bul-Con, Rum-Ukr, Ser-Rum, Tyl-??? (but it was to go north) and that he
would hold in Ven (Ven S Rom-Tus) and Smy-Con. In Italy he actually moved
Ven-Tri, Rom-Ven, while I supported myself into Tri to bounce those moves. I
took his moves as evidence that I was right in assuming he was moving on me
and not Erik. My arguement was that it made no sense that he would ask me to
make my moves in a push for a Russian solo, especially combined with the
moves he actually made. His argument is that taking Tri (which was owned by
him at that point) was intended to be supporting me (in Tyl, I think) and
that the other moves really were pushing for the solo.
Combining this discussion with the discussion of Ben's moves around the same
time, I could maybe believe that Rum-Ukr, Ser-Rum was suggested because he
saw the threat of Kie-Lvn as more dangerous than either Ben or I did. However
(I countered), with the build I got, I didn't need the armies from the
Balkans given that it was Fall season.
The next would be F09, where I walked into several of Andy's centers behind
him, and really destroyed his position long-term. That set of moves I'm less
confident was a good set on my part, and Andy is correct that at that point I
was really second-guessing all of his moves. (Basically, if Erik wasn't
actively attacking him, I assumed Andy was going to try to defend against me
rather than to help me solo).
The one he can definitely be upset about, and that I apologized for on this
list later (I doubt he's seen that), was F12, where I walked into Ven
expecting to bounce with him. Without that move on my part it would have been
much more likely to push past Erik's line in the west (because Andy would
have had an extra fleet in Nap).
So I guess the first two (F08 and F09) is what we are discussing, as I agree
with him about F12.
--- Eric
--- Gregory A Greenman <yahoo@spencersoft.com> wrote:
> <Discussion moved to the commentators group so others can participate.>
>
>
> >>>You claimed that you were still going full-bore for the
> >>>Russian solo. The unlikeliness of this, combined with the ridiculous
> move
> >>>suggestions, made anything and everything you said suspect at that time.
> >>
> >>[snip]
> >>You can [solo]...really...honest and truly....but you were SO concerned
> > > that I
> >>might dot you for one on the back side that you gave up all the dots in
> >>France if you wanted them.
> >
> >
> > Well, I'd really like to hear commentary from the others on this. I'm
> *waaay*
> > too caught up in the dynamics of the ongoing situation to objectively
> review
> > these statements. The fact that you repeat them here makes me willing to
> > re-examine them. Perhaps I was chasing phantoms. And there is no doubt
> that
> > once I was convinced (whether rationally or not) that the first season
> was a
> > ruse, the way I listened to you in following seasons was somewhat
> poisoned.
>
>
> Could you remind us of what turn you are discussing. I'll take a look and
> let
> you know my opinion, if I have one.
>
>
>
> Greg
Message from Observer to Observer
You're right, it would have been a risk, a stab from Erik around that time
could also have been pretty nasty, and you might have been in danger of
elimination. That said, he was so heavily into Andy at the time (so to
speak!) that I reckon you were always likely to be safe from it, hindsight
being 20/20 as ever. Comments from Eric H re: Mun hits the mark of course.
This is where the real knack to soloing seems to lie to me (I don't have it,
at least not yet). Knowing when the time is right to stick your neck out,
and when to clam up and protect what you have. You might remember in 'zulu'
I stuck my neck out, and as I recall you slashed straight through it ;) In
other games I have been too 'tight' and never approached anything ever
likely to progress beyond a draw position.
Alastair
----- Original Message -----
From: Ben Harris
To: c2b@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, May 24, 2004 1:56 AM
Subject: Re: [c2b] Ben's solo chances
As I noted from time to time, including I think in my eog, I did intend to
get into Russia for one of those centers to get the solo. It's not that I
wasn't planning on it - what I failed to do was risk that key convoy
identified by Greg.
Ben
-----Original Message-----
From: Ben Harris
Sent: May 23, 2004 8:25 PM
To: c2b@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [c2b] Ben's solo chances
In retrospect this was an error in judgment - Greg's analysis was I think
correct. But that was my thinking at the time.
Ben
-----Original Message-----
From: Ben Harris
Sent: May 23, 2004 8:18 PM
To: c2b@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [c2b] Ben's solo chances
As I recall at the time there was a Russian A MUN and I was worried about
the danger to KIE/BER.
Ben
-----Original Message-----
From: Alastair Tomlinson
Sent: May 23, 2004 3:06 PM
To: c2b@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [c2b] Ben's solo chances
Ben wrote:
*****
As Greg pointed out in the Commentators group, my best shot for a solo was
to go for MOS or WAR from you [Russia].
*****
Remind me why you didn't? I'm sure there was a valid reason at the time, but
Greg posted a good analysis around the time of F1907 saying that if you
wanted to solo, now was the time to go for Russia. I think that very same
season you swung the fleets round to NAO and ENG as the stab on Erik.
Alastair
Message from Observer to Observer
> (This will only make sense looking at the map) In F1908, Andy suggested I
> move Bul-Con, Rum-Ukr, Ser-Rum, Tyl-??? (but it was to go north) and that
> he
> would hold in Ven (Ven S Rom-Tus) and Smy-Con. In Italy he actually moved
> Ven-Tri, Rom-Ven, while I supported myself into Tri to bounce those
> moves. I
> took his moves as evidence that I was right in assuming he was moving on
> me
> and not Erik. My arguement was that it made no sense that he would ask me
> to
> make my moves in a push for a Russian solo, especially combined with the
> moves he actually made. His argument is that taking Tri (which was owned
> by
> him at that point) was intended to be supporting me (in Tyl, I think) and
> that the other moves really were pushing for the solo.
Ok Eric....lets add some context again.
I asked you to disengage with me, and you said it was a good idea, I
proposed lots of moves that would seperate us...I dont think I had SMY
going to CON....I really dont, but I could be mistaken.
And I move to protect my own two dots, VEN and TRI, which you support
yourself into, and take from me, and I am the bad guy.....help me out
here.
>
> The next would be F09, where I walked into several of Andy's centers
> behind
> him, and really destroyed his position long-term. That set of moves I'm
> less
> confident was a good set on my part, and Andy is correct that at that
> point I
> was really second-guessing all of his moves. (Basically, if Erik wasn't
> actively attacking him, I assumed Andy was going to try to defend against
> me
> rather than to help me solo).
And you were SOOOOOOO wrong.
I have thrown solo's before and I will again, if I dont think I will be
part of the draw.
All draws include me, if they dont, I really dont care if someone solos, a
loss is a loss.
> The one he can definitely be upset about, and that I apologized for on
> this
> list later (I doubt he's seen that), was F12, where I walked into Ven
> expecting to bounce with him. Without that move on my part it would have
> been
> much more likely to push past Erik's line in the west (because Andy would
> have had an extra fleet in Nap).
And I still dont believe it was an accident.
You SPECIFICALLY asked me to change my orders, I did so and you walked
into Venice....
That is the point in which you lost me, I was still with you up until
then.
Message from Observer to Observer
> You're right, it would have been a risk, a stab from Erik around that time
> could also have been pretty nasty, and you might have been in danger of
> elimination. That said, he was so heavily into Andy at the time (so to
> speak!) that I reckon you were always likely to be safe from it, hindsight
> being 20/20 as ever. Comments from Eric H re: Mun hits the mark of course.
Yes. I overestimated the problem posed by the Russian A MUN. As you've
seen three times now, Alastair, I will watch for the solo bid & take risks
to get it. . . One of these days they will pay off. Anyway I think this
failure on my part was inexperience more than anything else & I hope would
not happen again.
On a related note, Eric's eog chides me for being too forgiving in my
handling of his Scandinavian trespasses. . . Eric, my friend, it's not who
has NWY in '03 or STP in '06 that concerns me most. . . ;-)
Ben
Message from Observer to Observer
--- Andy Bartalone <buffalo@guisarme.net> wrote:
> > The next would be F09, where I walked into several of Andy's centers
> > behind him, and really destroyed his position long-term. That set of
> > moves I'm less confident was a good set on my part, and Andy is correct
> > that at that point I was really second-guessing all of his moves.
> > (Basically, if Erik wasn't actively attacking him, I assumed Andy
> > was going to try to defend against me rather than to help me solo).
>
> And you were SOOOOOOO wrong.
I can believe that.
> I have thrown solo's before and I will again, if I dont think I will be
> part of the draw.
I was clear on this. My assessment at that moment was based largely on how
much I thought that you were likely to be part of the draw, which, it sounds
like you are saying, differred from yours at this point. I though with Erik
backing off you'd be confident of a position in the draw.
> > The one he can definitely be upset about, and that I apologized for on
> > this list later (I doubt he's seen that), was F12, where I walked into
Ven
> > expecting to bounce with him. Without that move on my part it would have
> > been much more likely to push past Erik's line in the west (because
> > Andy would have had an extra fleet in Nap).
>
> And I still dont believe it was an accident.
>
> You SPECIFICALLY asked me to change my orders, I did so and you walked
> into Venice....
>
> That is the point in which you lost me, I was still with you up until
> then.
I don't expect to convince you, and it wasn't an "accident" in that I knew
that I had Tri-Ven ordered, but I did not want it to succeed and thought it
was guaranteed to fail. Like (as?) an idiot I never considered that Erik was
backing off of you at that point, so Ven-Tus might succeed. I just assumed (I
hope there was some press from Erik trying to convince me of this, but truly
I don't recall) that he was attacking Rom, and I knew with my move to Tys
that and my support of Nap-Rom that such an attack was doomed to failure.
When I read that Ven-Tus succeeded, I had one of those "oh shit" moments,
because I knew immediately that ending up in Ven was a bad thing for me. My
only confusion was that I thought you were expecting the move (which looking
that the press you weren't) and so you wouldn't ensured it would fail.
But with or without that miscommunication and brainfart on my part, it was
*absolutely* a bad move. With the other two moves (F08 and to a lesser extent
F09) I was worried at the time about your motives (perhaps without good
reason) and was looking at what might happen if you were pushing to get into
the draw. In this case I absolutely was not worried about your motives (you
could not have done anything even if you wanted to) and I did not want to
take Ven but failed to see the danger that the move might succeed.
That's the truth, whether or not you believe it. It doesn't make my ordering
the move any less stupid or annoying to either of us. One of these days I'll
learn that the best way to guarantee a move's failure is just not to order
it, but In this case I got too cute for my own good.
--- Eric
Message from Observer to Observer
I am slowly slogging my way through c2f, only on about msg 600. I have
realized, however, that:
a.) Tony initiated the Western Triple idea
and
b.) Tony very quickly sold it out to Russia.
Tony, if you're here, were you ever really interested in the WT, or was
that entirely a manuever to send me packing to Italy? It was very clever.
Erik
Message from Observer to Observer
Erik,
Here's another question for you:
1) We've both talked about when I left you hanging in Iri (F03) -- getting
Ben two builds while you went after him. Had I gotten a build and built
StP(nc) (as was my plan all along, until a last minute communication screw up
with Philippe and Jason changed my moves) do you think you would have been
willing to press against Ben more?
2) In F04, if I had been more blatant about suggesting you support Bel
against Ben (Bur S Bel) instead of trying for Mun, do you think you would
have? Had you done it, and Ben went down one while I built two (including
StP(nc)) and you held even, do you think you would have continued your attack
against Ben?
In either case it would have made Ben much more vulnerable to your attacks,
but since that also helped me, I'm curious how you think you would have
played it. In any case, the situations outlined above were what I was hoping
for (and expecting) in my coordination with you during those seasons.
--- Eric
Message from Observer to Observer
Greg -
Is there an easy way to sort who sent how much press?
I'm just curious.
Ben
Message from Observer to Observer
Benjamin Harris wrote:
> Greg -
> Is there an easy way to sort who sent how much press?
>
> I'm just curious.
I can't think of any. You can download the entire press archive and write a
program that does a count, but I'm guessing that you wouldn't count that as an
easy way.
Greg
Message from Observer to Observer
If there's an easy way to download the entire archive, then yes, that would
count as an easy way, and I'd be happy to do it if that is the case.
--- Eric
--- Gregory A Greenman <yahoo@spencersoft.com> wrote:
> Benjamin Harris wrote:
> > Greg -
> > Is there an easy way to sort who sent how much press?
> >
> > I'm just curious.
>
>
>
> I can't think of any. You can download the entire press archive and write a
>
> program that does a count, but I'm guessing that you wouldn't count that as
> an
> easy way.
>
>
>
> Greg
Message from Observer to Observer
I would not say, Andy is distrusted because he is well known, nor would I
say, Andy is distrusted because of his peculiar style of press. No doubt
it is a combination.
But reading through the portion of the press log that I've seen, it looks
to me like Andy had two strikes against him out of the gate with F and R
and A and T. So I pretty firmly suspect, it is more of the former and less
of the latter.
I sure would like to see an Italian eog one day; perhaps I will look at
some of his other games & see if he is generally negligent in this
department.
Perhaps... Too much writing... Maybe.
Ben
Message from Observer to Observer
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Eric Goodman [mailto:ericgood@pacbell.net]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 25, 2004 12:11 PM
> To: c2b@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [c2b] For Erik: Questions on France vs. England
>
>
> Erik,
>
> Here's another question for you:
>
> 1) We've both talked about when I left you hanging in Iri
> (F03) -- getting Ben two builds while you went after him. Had
> I gotten a build and built
> StP(nc) (as was my plan all along, until a last minute
> communication screw up with Philippe and Jason changed my
> moves) do you think you would have been willing to press
> against Ben more?
Definitely. I think the move to Iri was in anticipation of greater
Russian activity against Ben up north, with the hope that he'd have to
split his forces. As it happened, he had only one clear target, and I
wasn't bringing enough to the table to do anything but back down.
>
> 2) In F04, if I had been more blatant about suggesting you
> support Bel against Ben (Bur S Bel) instead of trying for
> Mun, do you think you would have? Had you done it, and Ben
> went down one while I built two (including
> StP(nc)) and you held even, do you think you would have
> continued your attack against Ben?
Not sure. I haven't gotten that far in press review, but the lack of
support in 03 probably meant that I was heavily discounting your
suggestions by that point.
It is interesting to see that the cause of the move change was a
communication error. That dovetailed into a greater mistrust on my part.
Message from Observer to Observer
--- Erik Diehn <erik@spamcop.net> wrote:
> It is interesting to see that the cause of the move change was a
> communication error. That dovetailed into a greater mistrust on my part.
"Interesting" wasn't the word I was using. I'm almost disappointed to hear
that you would have been willing to follow through on the attack if I got the
build. Makes the screw up hurt that much more.
--- Eric
Message from Observer to Observer
Eric Goodman wrote:
> If there's an easy way to download the entire archive, then yes, that would
> count as an easy way, and I'd be happy to do it if that is the case.
I've just uploaded the press archive to:
http://www.spencersoft.com/diplomacy/c2.zip
It's about 1.2 Mb zipped.
Greg
Message from Observer to Observer
Good Evening....
I apologize for the tardiness of this EOG, I am typically one of the first
people hashing out my thoughts.
Life has been exceptionally busy as of late.
I would like to thank Greg for GMing and all the other players for making
a very enjoyable game.
I knew from the onset that this was going to be a very tough game. I had
just finished another game in which Erik Deihn and I were France and Italy
repectively, and I basically lied to him every time I sent press and took
him out from the start. I knew that wouldnt be happening in this game.
Eric Goodman knew me from observing the previous commentator game
Comments, and made it indelibly clear that he had his eye on me.
Phillipe seemed to consider anything that wasnt moving west to be a direct
afront to him and made it clear that he was going to fight with me from
the start.
Jason was cautious, which you sort of need to be as Turkey. Like Italy,
you have to be patient with Turkey....Im not a patient player, well..not
as patient as I should be. We started out fine and then suddenly he was
throwing dots to Russia....I just didnt understand it.
Tony is IMNSHO, one of the best players in the world. And he succumbed to
the adage; when 3 come for you, you die. I probably had more hand in that
than I really should admit.
Ben was the only person in the game that I had a viable dialogue with the
entire game. We shared information and it was a very good thing. He is the
reason that I didnt keep trying to throw the game to Eric G.
I dont think I played a very good game from the start. I couldnt find a
way around butting heads with Phillipe.
I knew Erik would be coming south soon, and made my intentions clear as to
what I thought of that idea. Austria and Turkey both fell to the Russians
after some time, and then came the long grind towards trying to keep from
being eliminated. I knew I would have to jannisary to Russia at some point
if the French didnt back off, and I did when the time came.
I have already discussed much of the dynamics between Eric G. and I in
other emails, so I wont club that equine here. But things happened, and
Ben assured me a place in the draw, and I had to trust someone, so I did.
And Ben didnt let me down.
I can say with little doubt in my mind, that if Eric G plays a more
aggresive game, he solos.
Andy
Message from Observer to Observer
I think I dont make it much of a secret that I play online to keep my FtF
game sharp.
And if you run my name and diplomacy through a google search, you are
going to see alot of stuff.
> I would not say, Andy is distrusted because he is well known, nor would I
> say, Andy is distrusted because of his peculiar style of press. No doubt
> it is a combination.
Its a combination. Its also that there is a sect of players, online or ftf
that believe that the only way they can acheive success is by attacking
the highest rated player(s) in the game out of the gate.
And that is just a part of the game you deal with.
Message from Observer to Observer
Andy wrote:
*****
Its a combination. Its also that there is a sect of players, online or ftf
that believe that the only way they can acheive success is by attacking
the highest rated player(s) in the game out of the gate.
And that is just a part of the game you deal with.
*****
I've never understood that mindset, though I recognise it as part of the
game. Surely if there is a player that good on the table you want to get
them working for you (so to speak)? (Whilst of course arranging for others
to keep them under just enough pressure that they can't run riot...)
Alastair
Message from Observer to Observer
> Eric Goodman wrote:
> > If there's an easy way to download the entire archive, then yes, that would
> > count as an easy way, and I'd be happy to do it if that is the case.
>
>
> I've just uploaded the press archive to:
>
> http://www.spencersoft.com/diplomacy/c2.zip
>
> It's about 1.2 Mb zipped.
>
>
> Greg
Any way for a participant of a yahoo group
to download an archive in one shot?
Philippe
Message from Observer to Observer
> Phillipe seemed to consider anything that wasnt moving west to be a direct
> afront to him and made it clear that he was going to fight with me from
> the start.
> I dont think I played a very good game from the start. I couldnt find a
> way around butting heads with Phillipe.
Andy,
What's surprising is that I really wanted to work with you, but I wasn't
prepare to leave myself vulnerable to a really good cutthroat player at
the start of the game. I think Italy's best path to success is to take down
Austria quickly while France & Turkey are busy elsewhere, so my
priority was early survival. Just look at my press and you will see that
I'm not making this up. In fact, it's funny to see that both Jason and I
wanted you to help us take the other after having taken Russia down,
at least at the start of the game.
Unfortunately, instead of building trust between us, you kept hammering
away and lying to me, so yes we ended up butting head. In fact, it's the
first time I ever try to setup a juggernaut, as Austria... Some said I box
you in and you didn't like being told what to do, so I need to work on
that; but once you decided that fighting me would be your gameplan,
there wasn't much I could do beside making you pay for it. Couple with
my inability to understand Jason past the first year, it made for a very
frustrating game for me.
Hopefully, working together will be easier next time we meet,
Philippe
Message from Observer to Observer
Phillipe,
> What's surprising is that I really wanted to work with you, but I wasn't
> prepare to leave myself vulnerable to a really good cutthroat player at
> the start of the game. I think Italy's best path to success is to take
> down Austria quickly while France & Turkey are busy elsewhere, so my
> priority was early survival. Just look at my press and you will see that
> I'm not making this up. In fact, it's funny to see that both Jason and I
> wanted you to help us take the other after having taken Russia down,
> at least at the start of the game.
You are wise. I too typically want to go through Austria as Italy.
But in this case, this specific case, there is no way I would have done
it.
With Erik at my back, gunning for me, I was not going to get into a
protracted engagement in the Balkans.
You kept telling me (and then following through with) that you were going
to hedgehog. This locked me in place, I had to leave a unit in Venice, and
another to support it.
Once you and Turkey took down Russia, I was dead, I had to do something.
> Unfortunately, instead of building trust between us, you kept hammering
> away and lying to me, so yes we ended up butting head. In fact, it's the
> first time I ever try to setup a juggernaut, as Austria... Some said I
> box
> you in and you didn't like being told what to do, so I need to work on
> that;
Noone likes being told what to do. Comprimise works best.
but once you decided that fighting me would be your gameplan,
> there wasn't much I could do beside making you pay for it.
A philosiphy that I can appreciate.
Couple with
> my inability to understand Jason past the first year, it made for a very
> frustrating game for me.
>
Sorry about that.
> Hopefully, working together will be easier next time we meet,
>
Absolutely
take care
Andy
Message from Observer to Observer
>
> Its a combination. Its also that there is a sect of players, online or
> ftf
> that believe that the only way they can acheive success is by attacking
> the highest rated player(s) in the game out of the gate.
>
I try not to meta-game too much, but it was difficult not to let my last
game with you impact my treatment of you this game. Probably has more to
do with the fact that we were playing the exact same set of countries than
anything else, and that we finished that game so shortly before starting
this one. Had that game taken place a few months earlier, I don't think it
would have tinged my judgement as much.
Erik
Message from Observer to Observer
Erik,
> > Its a combination. Its also that there is a sect of players, online or
> > ftf
> > that believe that the only way they can acheive success is by attacking
> > the highest rated player(s) in the game out of the gate.
> >
>
> I try not to meta-game too much, but it was difficult not to let my last
> game with you impact my treatment of you this game.
I try not to meta-game at all. I just remember my opponents. What they
did, thier style of play and how they lied to me.
And under those rules, you didnt meta-game at all.
Probably has more to
> do with the fact that we were playing the exact same set of countries
> than
> anything else, and that we finished that game so shortly before starting
> this one. Had that game taken place a few months earlier, I don't think
> it
> would have tinged my judgement as much.
I agree completely.
Message from Observer to Observer
> Phillipe,
One l two pp please ;-)
> > What's surprising is that I really wanted to work with you, but I wasn't
> > prepare to leave myself vulnerable to a really good cutthroat player at
> > the start of the game. I think Italy's best path to success is to take
> > down Austria quickly while France & Turkey are busy elsewhere, so my
> > priority was early survival. Just look at my press and you will see that
> > I'm not making this up. In fact, it's funny to see that both Jason and I
> > wanted you to help us take the other after having taken Russia down,
> > at least at the start of the game.
>
> You are wise. I too typically want to go through Austria as Italy.
>
> But in this case, this specific case, there is no way I would have done
> it.
>
> With Erik at my back, gunning for me, I was not going to get into a
> protracted engagement in the Balkans.
>
> You kept telling me (and then following through with) that you were going
> to hedgehog. This locked me in place, I had to leave a unit in Venice, and
> another to support it.
>
> Once you and Turkey took down Russia, I was dead, I had to do something.
Well, I didn't know how much a problem Erik was for you. Anyway,
even with Tri-Ven, I think you could have afforded Ven-Pie. For me
to be a threat would have necessitated more then just a fleet as it can
easily be dislodged in the fall and can't progress pass Ven, a rare thing
for Austria to be able to afford in 1901; and even if I would have done
so, you are good enough that I doubt I would have gotten away with it
pass 1901 with Russia & Turkey just waiting there.
Of course, in the long term, I can see how having to rely on Austria or
Turkey with an hostile France on the other side can be a problem; but
I happen to think you would have been better off betting on a long term
AI alliance then spending the game hitting the austrian wall ;-)
Still, in the end, you manage to be included in the draw, so congratulation!
> > Unfortunately, instead of building trust between us, you kept hammering
> > away and lying to me, so yes we ended up butting head. In fact, it's the
> > first time I ever try to setup a juggernaut, as Austria... Some said I
> > box
> > you in and you didn't like being told what to do, so I need to work on
> > that;
>
> Noone likes being told what to do. Comprimise works best.
I got no problem making deal, even with present enemy, but I
was not prepare to risk my security early. I think it was meant
more in the spirit of the thing then actually bossing you around.
Basically, just telling you that I would make it impossible for
you to stab, and that you were better off finding something else
to do then attack me, was reason enough for you to try to pull
off an invasion of Austria.
Were you ever in that state of mind?
> but once you decided that fighting me would be your gameplan,
> > there wasn't much I could do beside making you pay for it.
>
> A philosiphy that I can appreciate.
>
> Couple with
> > my inability to understand Jason past the first year, it made for a very
> > frustrating game for me.
> >
>
> Sorry about that.
Well, let's do better next time, but congratulation on
breaking up the AT so early. Given the way things
went in 1901, I took the AT for granted and Jason's
building an army was the last thing I expected.
> > Hopefully, working together will be easier next time we meet,
> >
>
> Absolutely
>
> take care
You too,
Philippe
Message from Observer to Observer
I'll work on some more detail (press between specific powers, possibly press
by season) later, but initial counts:
Press from A: 295
Press from E: 844
Press from F: 297
Press from G: 412
Press from I: 536
Press from R: 614
Press from T: 244
Of course, Philippe and Tony were eliminated early, so have artificially low
press counts. Looks like Tony's press count is quite impressive given his
early exit -- he might have passed Ben had he stayed around long enough.
--- Eric
--- Gregory A Greenman <yahoo@spencersoft.com> wrote:
> Eric Goodman wrote:
> > If there's an easy way to download the entire archive, then yes, that
> would
> > count as an easy way, and I'd be happy to do it if that is the case.
>
>
> I've just uploaded the press archive to:
>
> http://www.spencersoft.com/diplomacy/c2.zip
>
> It's about 1.2 Mb zipped.
>
>
> Greg
Message from Observer to Observer
To expand on my earlier thoughts on this thread:
I infer Philippe's two strikes from his insistence in '01 on the move to
VEN. I know Philippe is not describing this as an act of war, now or
in-game, but it seems to me to show a level of aggression not normally
found in an Austrian. Of course Philippe actually just recently posted
that he didn't want to turn his back on a notorious stabber like Andy,
which is consistent with my thesis. Does Andy stab a lot? Not more than
most, I would wager. Probably typical - but famously so.
Erik wore his suspicion of Andy on his sleeve, though that was probably
about their prior history as much as about reputation.
Jason appeared never to want to work with Andy sincerely, through the
portion of the press log I've read, though that could be me misreading
things.
Eric's two strikes against Andy actually showed up in post-game discussion
- Eric acknowledging a partnership with Andy in which he (Eric) would not
let his partner grow beyond 4 or 5 centers - I think if I'd been in Italy,
Eric might have been more generous. But the leash for Andy in the R/i was
quite short.
Ben
Message from Observer to Observer
My play may be too conservative as Erik mentionned previously,
and I will have to work on this, but I really don't see what's wrong
with Tri-Ven. It of course show a distrust of Italy, but I tend to
think Austria can rarely trust Italy right off the bat. Andy's reputation
aside, I was straight with him when I said I don't trust Italy in 1901
as Austria; and given the way things were going with Russia & Turkey,
I had no compelling reasons to take more risk then necessary.
So, can someone explain to me why Tri-Ven should be perceived by
Italy as aggressive? Have there really been case of Austria invading
Italy right away? If so, wouldn't Tri-Adr be a more usefull move?
In fact, unless this move is accompanied by an austrian move to Tri
or Tyr, Italy can just kick Austria out if Ven is left open and he does
not trust Austria to leave by himself.
Philippe
> To expand on my earlier thoughts on this thread:
> I infer Philippe's two strikes from his insistence in '01 on the move to
> VEN. I know Philippe is not describing this as an act of war, now or
> in-game, but it seems to me to show a level of aggression not normally
> found in an Austrian. Of course Philippe actually just recently posted
> that he didn't want to turn his back on a notorious stabber like Andy,
> which is consistent with my thesis. Does Andy stab a lot? Not more than
> most, I would wager. Probably typical - but famously so.
>
> Erik wore his suspicion of Andy on his sleeve, though that was probably
> about their prior history as much as about reputation.
>
> Jason appeared never to want to work with Andy sincerely, through the
> portion of the press log I've read, though that could be me misreading
> things.
>
> Eric's two strikes against Andy actually showed up in post-game discussion
> - Eric acknowledging a partnership with Andy in which he (Eric) would not
> let his partner grow beyond 4 or 5 centers - I think if I'd been in Italy,
> Eric might have been more generous. But the leash for Andy in the R/i was
> quite short.
>
> Ben
Message from Observer to Observer
> So, can someone explain to me why Tri-Ven should be perceived by
> Italy as aggressive?
I think this has less to do with content and more to do with style. Sure,
why would you ask for Tri - Ven if you're planning to invade? I don't
think you did wrong to ask for it. Where you went wrong is pressing the
issue once it was abundantly clear that Andy wasn't interested.
This was not a lynchpin move you needed for the solo or survival -- you
were discussing an opening move. At that point in the game, you had a
world of other possibilities. Had you maybe been more attentive to Andy's
reaction, you might have said to yourself, "Okay, Andy is clearly very
opposed to Tri - Ven and discussing it makes him defensive. Perhaps I
should explore other options."
Be flexible, always. Was the specific move of Tri - Ven your short-term or
long-term objective? No, probably not. You might have been better off
figuring out another path to that objective that didn't immediately set a
confrontational tone with your neighbor.
Erik
Message from Observer to Observer
Benjamin Harris wrote:
> To expand on my earlier thoughts on this thread:
> I infer Philippe's two strikes from his insistence in '01 on the move
> to VEN. I know Philippe is not describing this as an act of war, now
> or in-game, but it seems to me to show a level of aggression not
> normally found in an Austrian.
Well, the Hedgehog is not as popular as it once was, and it is not
common in Judge play, but given that Phillipe told Andy he was
using the Opening, it is aggressive defense, rather than aggressive.
http://www.diplomacy-archive.com/resources/strategy/articles/hedgehog.htm
> Of course Philippe actually just recently posted that he didn't want
> to turn his back on a notorious stabber like Andy, which is consistent
> with my thesis. Does Andy stab a lot? Not more than most, I would
> wager.
You'd probably lose that wager. ;-) Andy is one of the best
Face-to-Face
players in the world, and successful FtF players tend to be aggressive.
Playing Andy is, in some ways, easy. You can be confident that he is
playing for the Solo every moment of the game, up until the time when
his analysis of the board shows him that a Solo is no longer possible.
At that point, he begins to play for survival in the Draw. If stabbing
an ally will improve Andy's chance's of Soloing, he will do it without
hesitation. If I was Austria to Andy's Italy, I'd be very hesitant to
open
with a Balkan Gambit, but in the end I'd probably do it because Andy
is a good player, and he knows that attacking Austria in '01 is almost
never good for Italy.
Eric Hunter.
--
Message from Observer to Observer
> > So, can someone explain to me why Tri-Ven should be perceived by
> > Italy as aggressive?
>
> I think this has less to do with content and more to do with style. Sure,
> why would you ask for Tri - Ven if you're planning to invade? I don't
> think you did wrong to ask for it. Where you went wrong is pressing the
> issue once it was abundantly clear that Andy wasn't interested.
>
> This was not a lynchpin move you needed for the solo or survival -- you
> were discussing an opening move. At that point in the game, you had a
> world of other possibilities. Had you maybe been more attentive to Andy's
> reaction, you might have said to yourself, "Okay, Andy is clearly very
> opposed to Tri - Ven and discussing it makes him defensive. Perhaps I
> should explore other options."
>
> Be flexible, always. Was the specific move of Tri - Ven your short-term or
> long-term objective? No, probably not. You might have been better off
> figuring out another path to that objective that didn't immediately set a
> confrontational tone with your neighbor.
OK, but if you don't have long term goal until your short term security is
dealt with, as I tend to view Austria's situation, what are you to do? Italy
is totally against your opting for a defensive move that would block both
type of attacks on Austria's homeland in 1901, prefering you opt for a
more complete expansion in the Balkans. What is there to compromise
if you are more interested in being safe then gaining new units you might
be losing somewhere else? Of course, how you handle the situation is
very important, and I obviously failed in that regard, but is there really
any compromise in this situation, beside adopting a completely different
mindset about how to play Austria?
I don't know. Maybe risking a quick elimination in many games as Austria
is more fun in the end then playing long arduous one. I will have to think
about it.
Philippe
Message from Observer to Observer
I just can look at that original subject line anymore....
On Thu, 27 May 2004, Eric Hunter wrote:
> > Of course Philippe actually just recently posted that he didn't want
> > to turn his back on a notorious stabber like Andy, which is consistent
> > with my thesis. Does Andy stab a lot? Not more than most, I would
> > wager.
>
> You'd probably lose that wager. ;-) Andy is one of the best
> Face-to-Face
> players in the world, and successful FtF players tend to be aggressive.
Thank you Eric..you are too kind. But your statement is true...almost all
successful FtF players are agressive.
> Playing Andy is, in some ways, easy. You can be confident that he is
> playing for the Solo every moment of the game, up until the time when
> his analysis of the board shows him that a Solo is no longer possible.
> At that point, he begins to play for survival in the Draw. If stabbing
> an ally will improve Andy's chance's of Soloing, he will do it without
> hesitation. If I was Austria to Andy's Italy, I'd be very hesitant to
> open
> with a Balkan Gambit, but in the end I'd probably do it because Andy
> is a good player, and he knows that attacking Austria in '01 is almost
> never good for Italy.
Exactly. Exceptionally well said.
Andy
Message from Observer to Observer
Andy Bartalone wrote:
>> Playing Andy is, in some ways, easy. You can be confident that he
>> is playing for the Solo every moment of the game, up until the time
>> when his analysis of the board shows him that a Solo is no longer
>> possible. At that point, he begins to play for survival in the Draw.
>> If stabbing an ally will improve Andy's chance's of Soloing, he
>> will do it without hesitation. If I was Austria to Andy's Italy, I'd
>> be very hesitant to open with a Balkan Gambit, but in the end I'd
>> probably do it because Andy is a good player, and he knows that
>> attacking Austria in '01 is almost never good for Italy.
>
> Exactly. Exceptionally well said.
Of course, I'd also warn him in no uncertain terms that any move
to Tri or Tyl would be met by my throwing every Unit at him and
using F Gre to support Turkey into the Ionian. ;-)
Eric.
Message from Observer to Observer
> > Exactly. Exceptionally well said.
>
> Of course, I'd also warn him in no uncertain terms that any move
> to Tri or Tyl would be met by my throwing every Unit at him and
> using F Gre to support Turkey into the Ionian. ;-)
This would probably help too.
Message from Observer to Observer
>
> OK, but if you don't have long term goal until your short term security
> is
> dealt with, as I tend to view Austria's situation, what are you to do?
> Italy
> is totally against your opting for a defensive move that would block
> both
> type of attacks on Austria's homeland in 1901, prefering you opt for a
> more complete expansion in the Balkans. What is there to compromise
> if you are more interested in being safe then gaining new units you
> might
> be losing somewhere else?
Start talking to other people. Find out who Italy's friends are. Make sure
he knows that attacking Austria in year one is a terrible idea. Write
France, see if he's going to be applying pressure (in this case, the
answer would have been: yes). Conspire to eliminate him early. You can't
always pick your neighbors, but you can take steps to manage them.
Erik
Message from Observer to Observer
Erik Diehn wrote:
>
> > So, can someone explain to me why Tri-Ven should be perceived by
> > Italy as aggressive?
>
> I think this has less to do with content and more to do with style. Sure,
> why would you ask for Tri - Ven if you're planning to invade? I don't
> think you did wrong to ask for it. Where you went wrong is pressing the
> issue once it was abundantly clear that Andy wasn't interested.
>
> This was not a lynchpin move you needed for the solo or survival -- you
> were discussing an opening move. At that point in the game, you had a
> world of other possibilities. Had you maybe been more attentive to Andy's
> reaction, you might have said to yourself, "Okay, Andy is clearly very
> opposed to Tri - Ven and discussing it makes him defensive. Perhaps I
> should explore other options."
Actually, I disagree with this pretty strongly.
If you want to criticize Philippe's opening, it's that it locked him into an
inflexible position. Having stated that he's moving F Tri -> Ven, he can't
back off because Italy protests. The move is designed to stop Italy from
moving an army to Tyr and Ven in S01. If that's what Italy wants to do to set
up an early attack on Austria, then of course he's going to protest. So having
announced that move Austria's stuck with it.
Perhaps my memory is failing me in my old age, but I'd swear that Italy was
planning a 1901 attack on Austria. Part of the reason Andy was upset by F Tri
-> Ven was it upset his plans. So, unless there was a better diplomatic
alternative, Philippe made the right move.
Greg
Message from Observer to Observer
--- Benjamin Harris <benjamin.harris@mindspring.com> wrote:
> Eric's two strikes against Andy actually showed up in post-game discussion
> - Eric acknowledging a partnership with Andy in which he (Eric) would not
> let his partner grow beyond 4 or 5 centers - I think if I'd been in Italy,
This misses the key distinguisher I added of *as long as I was confident I
could keep A/T helping me in the process*. Philippe was throwing me centers
as early as 03 or so, and Andy wasn't interested in/in a position to
cooperate prior to that point. I was *very* interested in working with Andy
against AT while they were fighting me, would have been had AT been doing
anything to slow my growth. But when I could get the same kind of growth out
of R that I would typicallly expect out of RI, I didn't see the need.
> Eric might have been more generous. But the leash for Andy in the R/i was
> quite short.
This may be true, though in our situation we were in much more of an equal
partnership. And if Tony had taken my offer of Den S Kie, Kie S Ruh-Hol in
whatever year that was, I think you would have found yourself on a similar
"leash".
--- Eric
Message from Observer to Observer
*******************
Benjamin Harris wrote:
> To expand on my earlier thoughts on this thread:
> I infer Philippe's two strikes from his insistence in '01 on the move
> to VEN. I know Philippe is not describing this as an act of war, now
> or in-game, but it seems to me to show a level of aggression not
> normally found in an Austrian.
Well, the Hedgehog is not as popular as it once was, and it is not
common in Judge play, but given that Phillipe told Andy he was
using the Opening, it is aggressive defense, rather than aggressive.
http://www.diplomacy-archive.com/resources/strategy/articles/hedgehog.htm
********************
Mr. Spokes Model, you make as usual good points, but in my defense, I was
trying to bring out only that Andy was bearing an albatross right out of
the gate. So, whether Austria's opening was aggressive, or aggressive
defense, is sort of splitting hairs.
********************
> Of course Philippe actually just recently posted that he didn't want
> to turn his back on a notorious stabber like Andy, which is consistent
> with my thesis. Does Andy stab a lot? Not more than most, I would
> wager.
You'd probably lose that wager. ;-) Andy is one of the best
Face-to-Face
players in the world, and successful FtF players tend to be aggressive.
Playing Andy is, in some ways, easy. You can be confident that he is
playing for the Solo every moment of the game, up until the time when
his analysis of the board shows him that a Solo is no longer possible.
*********************
Hm. I had read somewhere - r.g.d.? - that the ftf community was more
drawish, that the players by and large were less cutthroat, than the pbem
community. I wouldn't know anything about this one way or the other &
absentmindedly believe what I vaguely remember reading.
While I don't doubt Andy's skill, I will point out that in the two press
games I've observed of his - this and Comments - he has not been
particularly aggressive about stabs. His tactics and diplomacy are very
sharp, but at least in these two games, he's not been stab-happy, that I've
noticed. Of course in this game he didn't have any allies close enough to
stick with a knife, and there appeared to be tactical reasons not to stab
in Comments. Of course he was opposed to the removal of Dan, but that
would not have been a stab so much as draw whittling [Ben's train of
thought jumps the rails]. . . What were we discussing?
****************
At that point, he begins to play for survival in the Draw. If stabbing
an ally will improve Andy's chance's of Soloing, he will do it without
hesitation. If I was Austria to Andy's Italy, I'd be very hesitant to
open
with a Balkan Gambit, but in the end I'd probably do it because Andy
is a good player, and he knows that attacking Austria in '01 is almost
never good for Italy.
*****************
That would be an interesting quandry. Really, if you are ever going to try
the Balkan Gambit, it should be with (a) a complete patsy in Italy, or (b)
with someone like Andy. If you're going to do it, you might as well do it
for all it's worth.
This whole discussion is fascinating, but as I said, my original point was
that this game was an illustration of the characteristic of non-anonymous
play - for better or for worse - that can tag a more experience/ better
known/ higher rated player as an early target. No sympathy from me, it's
part of the game - I am a fan of non-anonymous play, for reasons I think
having to do with why I play to begin with.
Eric you of all people should understand this.
Mr. Spokes Model.
Ben
Message from Observer to Observer
> But when I could get the same kind of growth out
> of R that I would typicallly expect out of RI, I didn't
> see the need.
Well, it was my sense that you were not rushing through the Austrian/Balkan
centers, out of respect for your relations with Italy, but you did not
extend Italy the benefits of a partnership. It is that dichotomy that
attracted my attention, though as with every observation I make, it should
be taken with a grain of salt. I am as Andy wrote in S'01, the only newbie
of the 7. Am I misremembering that? Dial-up connection at home - the
press archive is too much for me to search it from here.
> And if Tony had taken my offer of Den S Kie, Kie S Ruh-Hol in
> whatever year that was, I think you would have found yourself
> on a similar "leash".
Or if he'd taken that offer his profits would have turned into A BER, F
KIE, and the joke would have been on you. No regrets my friend!
Ben
Message from Observer to Observer
> > OK, but if you don't have long term goal until your short term security
> > is
> > dealt with, as I tend to view Austria's situation, what are you to do?
> > Italy
> > is totally against your opting for a defensive move that would block
> > both
> > type of attacks on Austria's homeland in 1901, prefering you opt for a
> > more complete expansion in the Balkans. What is there to compromise
> > if you are more interested in being safe then gaining new units you
> > might
> > be losing somewhere else?
>
> Start talking to other people. Find out who Italy's friends are. Make sure
> he knows that attacking Austria in year one is a terrible idea. Write
> France, see if he's going to be applying pressure (in this case, the
> answer would have been: yes). Conspire to eliminate him early. You can't
> always pick your neighbors, but you can take steps to manage them.
Well, that's another discussion. While I'm not a newbie,
I'm still far from being an expert and I'm sure there's alot
I can do to improve my play; but what I'm talking about
is a mindset where you opt to block an italian invasion of
Austria in 1901 instead of going for a complete expansion.
You can of course completely rely on your diplomatic
skills to do so, but it will still be a risk. However good the
diplomatic situation seem to you, there's no telling what
Spring 1901 as in mind for you. You can count on France
to apply pressure on Italy, but it won't last long if France's
getting attack by England, wich you usually won't know
about in advance even if you're England's best friend. You
might also think that everything is going very well with Italy,
but he will rarely tell you he intend to attack you right away ;-)
In this game, the situation with Russia & Turkey was good
enough that I didn't feel the need to risk everything on Italy.
As for trying to take him out early, it didn't fit with my need
for a naval power to handle Turkey in the middle game.
Philippe
Message from Observer to Observer
Eric Goodman wrote:
> I'll work on some more detail (press between specific powers, possibly press
> by season) later, but initial counts:
>
> Press from A: 295
> Press from E: 844
> Press from F: 297
> Press from G: 412
> Press from I: 536
> Press from R: 614
> Press from T: 244
I'm really amazed at how low my press count was relative to others. I
guess France sent about the same amount (and was active and effective
for longer), but EIR were prolific!
jason
--
Jason Bennett, jasonab@acm.org
E pur si muove!
Message from Observer to Observer
--- Benjamin Harris <benjamin.harris@mindspring.com> wrote:
> > And if Tony had taken my offer of Den S Kie, Kie S Ruh-Hol in
> > whatever year that was, I think you would have found yourself
> > on a similar "leash".
> Or if he'd taken that offer his profits would have turned into A BER, F
> KIE, and the joke would have been on you. No regrets my friend!
I'm not sure he could have. We had agreed that I would take as many dots as
he did, and I don't think he could have stopped that from happening. With
Philippe and with Tony, I was quite happy to leave them in place with fixed
numbers of units, and work with them, knowing that turning on me would lead
to a quick exit for them. I was completley willing to trust Tony at that
point, because if he was against me I was stopped anyway (or so I thought).
The main difference from working with Andy-as-Janissary, was I probably was
more worried about Andy taking advantage of me trying to reestablish against
me to get in the draw. I don't think that was terribly inconsistent with how
I worked with AG, (with the notable exception of the dumb move of walking
into Ven in 1912) but I'm not sure.
--- Eric
Message from Germany to all
I have signed up twice now to the group but my membership stil reads
pending.
I have also pressed to M but he is probably away.
Tony
Message from Observer to Observer
> Benjamin Harris wrote:
>>> I infer Philippe's two strikes from his insistence in '01 on the
>>> move to VEN. it seems to me to show a level of aggression
>>> not normally found in an Austrian.
>> Well, the Hedgehog is aggressive defense, rather than aggressive.
> I was trying to bring out that Andy was bearing an albatross right
> out of the gate.
I haven't gotten the sense that Phillipe went with the Hedgehog
because Andy was Italy. It has sounded as though it is Phillipe's
preferred opening as Austria.
> Hm. I had read somewhere - r.g.d.? - that the ftf community was more
> drawish, that the players by and large were less cutthroat, than the
> pbem community. I wouldn't know anything about this one way or the
> other & absentmindedly believe what I vaguely remember reading.
Hmmm, the ftf community is less inclined to eliminate people than
Judge players are, but that actually makes Solos more likely. They
will also take a Draw to start a 2nd game if Solo odds are long,
and it would require hours of play to get to a point where it might
be possible, but other than "fatigue draws", I've never noticed any
tendency toward draws in the ftf crowd. Cat-23 players are,
supposedly, a Solo-or-Bust group, but Judge players are widely
considered to be the most Draw-oriented community.
> While I don't doubt Andy's skill, I will point out that in the two
> press games I've observed of his - this and Comments - he has
> not been particularly aggressive about stabs. His tactics and
> diplomacy are very sharp, but at least in these two games, he's
> not been stab-happy, that I've noticed.
There's a tremendous difference between being "stab-happy",
and being aggressive. I wrote: "If stabbing an ally will
improve Andy's chance's of Soloing, he will do it without
hesitation." In Comments stabbing Andrew would have just
made Tamas's Solo more likely, it wouldn't have improved
Andy's position at all.
>> If I was Austria to Andy's Italy, I'd be very hesitant to open
>> with a Balkan Gambit, but in the end I'd probably do it
>> because Andy is a good player, and he knows that attacking
>> Austria in '01 is almost never good for Italy.
> That would be an interesting quandary. Really, if you are ever
> going to try the Balkan Gambit, it should be with (a) a complete
> patsy in Italy, or (b) with someone like Andy. If you're going to
> do it, you might as well do it for all it's worth.
Well, I think it's almost always possible to convince Italy that
stabbing Austria in '01 is a losing proposition. The "I'll throw
every Unit at you and support Turkey to Ion if you stab" line
should always be in Austria's first press to Italy, as far as I'm
concerned.
> This whole discussion is fascinating, but as I said, my original
> point was that this game was an illustration of the characteristic of
> non-anonymous play - for better or for worse - that can tag a more
> experience/ better known/ higher rated player as an early target.
This is certainly true, and because of the rarity of non-anonymous
play on the Judges, most people don't have the skills to compensate
for it.
> No sympathy from me, it's part of the game -
Show me in the rules where it says people have to fight their
reputations in addition to their six opponents. ;-)
> I am a fan of non-anonymous play, for reasons I think having
> to do with why I play to begin with.
I'd much rather be attacked for being cold and distant than
because I've been in both VGFP Finals. ;-)
Eric Hunter.
Message from Observer to Observer
Thank you to Eric and Greg. On a per season basis no doubt Tony's output
dwarfed mine & led the board.
Ben
----- Original Message -----
From: Eric Goodman
To: c2b@yahoogroups.com
Sent: 5/27/2004 12:55:03 PM
Subject: Re: [c2b] press count
I'll work on some more detail (press between specific powers, possibly press
by season) later, but initial counts:
Press from A: 295
Press from E: 844
Press from F: 297
Press from G: 412
Press from I: 536
Press from R: 614
Press from T: 244
Of course, Philippe and Tony were eliminated early, so have artificially low
press counts. Looks like Tony's press count is quite impressive given his
early exit -- he might have passed Ben had he stayed around long enough.
--- Eric
--- Gregory A Greenman <yahoo@spencersoft.com> wrote:
> Eric Goodman wrote:
> > If there's an easy way to download the entire archive, then yes, that
> would
> > count as an easy way, and I'd be happy to do it if that is the case.
>
>
> I've just uploaded the press archive to:
>
> http://www.spencersoft.com/diplomacy/c2.zip
>
> It's about 1.2 Mb zipped.
>
>
> Greg
Message from Observer to Observer
Press sent by power and year (I removed counts for years after players were
eliminated, which is why the counts are lower than the numbers in the last
"count" message):
Power A E F G I R T | Average
1901 104 189 101 146 110 85 64 | 114
1902 57 112 32 69 56 94 40 | 66
1903 43 105 31 85 59 76 37 | 62
1904 33 93 27 26 51 85 27 | 49
1905 31 57 20 53 26 50 21 | 37
1906 27 46 14 39 52 20 | 33
1907 43 16 30 21 8 | 24
1908 38 7 37 44 13 | 28
1909 27 7 25 23 8 | 18
1910 41 12 39 25 | 29
1911 27 10 25 15 | 19
1912 38 10 23 29 | 25
-----------------------------------------------------------------
AVG 49 68 24 76 43 50 26
TOTAL 295 816 287 379 520 599 238
Tony did not *really* outpace Ben in press volume, it just looked like it
because the press volume dropped so much in later phases. Ben was by far the
most consistently prolific, outdone (and then only slightly) in just two
seasons.
Press between powers:
From/To A E F G I R T Total Sent
A 14 47 33 18 57 73 50 292
E 52 82 164 116 198 172 52 836
F 24 106 7 29 50 63 15 294
G 43 146 55 41 19 97 8 409
I 57 190 47 21 18 136 60 529
R 79 134 82 71 120 48 74 608
T 36 48 16 7 57 63 16 243
TotRcd 305 753 404 303 519 652 275
(I.e., Austria sent 47 presses to England, and England sent 52 presses to
Austria.) Apparently Italy and England corresponded the most, and Germany and
Turkey the least. Again, in most cases Ben sent more press to each individual
player than anyone else (only exceptions are Austria and Turkey). It's
interesting that Ben and Philippe talked almost as much as Andy and Philippe!
--- Eric
Message from Observer to Observer
This is the only way I can compensate for my numerous shortcomings. Let
this be an example to all mediocre tacticians and half-witted planners
everywhere!
Thanks again, Eric.
Ben
----- Original Message -----
From: Eric Goodman
To: c2b@yahoogroups.com
Sent: 5/30/2004 2:56:35 PM
Subject: [c2b] More press counts
Press sent by power and year (I removed counts for years after players were
eliminated, which is why the counts are lower than the numbers in the last
"count" message):
Power A E F G I R T | Average
1901 104 189 101 146 110 85 64 | 114
1902 57 112 32 69 56 94 40 | 66
1903 43 105 31 85 59 76 37 | 62
1904 33 93 27 26 51 85 27 | 49
1905 31 57 20 53 26 50 21 | 37
1906 27 46 14 39 52 20 | 33
1907 43 16 30 21 8 | 24
1908 38 7 37 44 13 | 28
1909 27 7 25 23 8 | 18
1910 41 12 39 25 | 29
1911 27 10 25 15 | 19
1912 38 10 23 29 | 25
-----------------------------------------------------------------
AVG 49 68 24 76 43 50 26
TOTAL 295 816 287 379 520 599 238
Tony did not *really* outpace Ben in press volume, it just looked like it
because the press volume dropped so much in later phases. Ben was by far the
most consistently prolific, outdone (and then only slightly) in just two
seasons.
Press between powers:
From/To A E F G I R T Total Sent
A 14 47 33 18 57 73 50 292
E 52 82 164 116 198 172 52 836
F 24 106 7 29 50 63 15 294
G 43 146 55 41 19 97 8 409
I 57 190 47 21 18 136 60 529
R 79 134 82 71 120 48 74 608
T 36 48 16 7 57 63 16 243
TotRcd 305 753 404 303 519 652 275
(I.e., Austria sent 47 presses to England, and England sent 52 presses to
Austria.) Apparently Italy and England corresponded the most, and Germany
and
Turkey the least. Again, in most cases Ben sent more press to each
individual
player than anyone else (only exceptions are Austria and Turkey). It's
interesting that Ben and Philippe talked almost as much as Andy and
Philippe!
--- Eric
Message from Observer to Observer
It is also interesting to note that I sent 82 press communications to
myself, which most likely outstripped also the number of comments on the
c2f list. Surely if you subtracted the Dan Miller & Brent Warner-type
round of introductions in the opening. . .
Greg, thank you so much for inventing this franchise, I wonder how you feel
about a C3, considering c2f. Was it noticeably more burdensome for you
than your regular (considerable) load of pbem Dip responsibilities?
Ben
----- Original Message -----
From: Eric Goodman
To: c2b@yahoogroups.com
Sent: 5/30/2004 2:56:35 PM
Subject: [c2b] More press counts
Press sent by power and year (I removed counts for years after players were
eliminated, which is why the counts are lower than the numbers in the last
"count" message):
Power A E F G I R T | Average
1901 104 189 101 146 110 85 64 | 114
1902 57 112 32 69 56 94 40 | 66
1903 43 105 31 85 59 76 37 | 62
1904 33 93 27 26 51 85 27 | 49
1905 31 57 20 53 26 50 21 | 37
1906 27 46 14 39 52 20 | 33
1907 43 16 30 21 8 | 24
1908 38 7 37 44 13 | 28
1909 27 7 25 23 8 | 18
1910 41 12 39 25 | 29
1911 27 10 25 15 | 19
1912 38 10 23 29 | 25
-----------------------------------------------------------------
AVG 49 68 24 76 43 50 26
TOTAL 295 816 287 379 520 599 238
Tony did not *really* outpace Ben in press volume, it just looked like it
because the press volume dropped so much in later phases. Ben was by far the
most consistently prolific, outdone (and then only slightly) in just two
seasons.
Press between powers:
From/To A E F G I R T Total Sent
A 14 47 33 18 57 73 50 292
E 52 82 164 116 198 172 52 836
F 24 106 7 29 50 63 15 294
G 43 146 55 41 19 97 8 409
I 57 190 47 21 18 136 60 529
R 79 134 82 71 120 48 74 608
T 36 48 16 7 57 63 16 243
TotRcd 305 753 404 303 519 652 275
(I.e., Austria sent 47 presses to England, and England sent 52 presses to
Austria.) Apparently Italy and England corresponded the most, and Germany
and
Turkey the least. Again, in most cases Ben sent more press to each
individual
player than anyone else (only exceptions are Austria and Turkey). It's
interesting that Ben and Philippe talked almost as much as Andy and
Philippe!
--- Eric
Message from Observer to Observer
Benjamin Harris wrote:
> Greg -
> Is there an easy way to sort who sent how much press?
>
> I'm just curious.
Oh, yes it is a very, very easy. Just get Eric to do it.
Greg
Message from Observer to Observer
Philippe Bergeron wrote:
> > Eric Goodman wrote:
> > > If there's an easy way to download the entire archive, then yes,
> that would
> > > count as an easy way, and I'd be happy to do it if that is the case.
> >
> >
> > I've just uploaded the press archive to:
> >
> > http://www.spencersoft.com/diplomacy/c2.zip
> >
> > It's about 1.2 Mb zipped.
> >
> >
> > Greg
>
> Any way for a participant of a yahoo group
> to download an archive in one shot?
For C2, Yep. Just use the link above.
If you're asking for a different yahoo group, then, not that I know of.
If you want the archive of the discussion group, I can upload that.
Greg
Message from Observer to Observer
>
> > While I don't doubt Andy's skill, I will point out that in the two
> > press games I've observed of his - this and Comments - he has
> > not been particularly aggressive about stabs. His tactics and
> > diplomacy are very sharp, but at least in these two games, he's
> > not been stab-happy, that I've noticed.
>
> There's a tremendous difference between being "stab-happy",
> and being aggressive. I wrote: "If stabbing an ally will
> improve Andy's chance's of Soloing, he will do it without
> hesitation." In Comments stabbing Andrew would have just
> made Tamas's Solo more likely, it wouldn't have improved
> Andy's position at all.
This is absolutely correct....
> >> If I was Austria to Andy's Italy, I'd be very hesitant to open
> >> with a Balkan Gambit, but in the end I'd probably do it
> >> because Andy is a good player, and he knows that attacking
> >> Austria in '01 is almost never good for Italy.
>
> > That would be an interesting quandary. Really, if you are ever
> > going to try the Balkan Gambit, it should be with (a) a complete
> > patsy in Italy, or (b) with someone like Andy. If you're going to
> > do it, you might as well do it for all it's worth.
>
> Well, I think it's almost always possible to convince Italy that
> stabbing Austria in '01 is a losing proposition. The "I'll throw
> every Unit at you and support Turkey to Ion if you stab" line
> should always be in Austria's first press to Italy, as far as I'm
> concerned.
I wouldnt say first press....but it should be made abundantly clear.
>
> > This whole discussion is fascinating, but as I said, my original
> > point was that this game was an illustration of the characteristic of
> > non-anonymous play - for better or for worse - that can tag a more
> > experience/ better known/ higher rated player as an early target.
>
> This is certainly true, and because of the rarity of non-anonymous
> play on the Judges, most people don't have the skills to compensate
> for it.
>
> > No sympathy from me, it's part of the game -
>
> Show me in the rules where it says people have to fight their
> reputations in addition to their six opponents. ;-)
It isnt in the rules. Its part of every competative venture where more
than 2 people are involved.
If you are good, and the other players know you are good, its part of the
game.
Does it get old, trite, boring and really really bloody frustrating....
YES YES YES YES YES.
> > I am a fan of non-anonymous play, for reasons I think having
> > to do with why I play to begin with.
>
> I'd much rather be attacked for being cold and distant than
> because I've been in both VGFP Finals. ;-)
I SO know what you mean Eric.....
But in FtF its a little differnt. You have to be around the person....look
them in the face and deal with the consequences...its also easier to turn
someone if they only have 15 minutes to negotiate and write orders.
Im just back from DixieCon.......I had one ally in 3 rounds of play.
Andy
Message from Observer to Observer
Benjamin Harris wrote:
> It is also interesting to note that I sent 82 press communications to
> myself, which most likely outstripped also the number of comments
> on the c2f list.
This is unfortunate, but I think it's a reflection of 'c2' following so
closely on the heels of 'comments', and running concurrently with
'pinnacle' in the same format.
> Greg, thank you so much for inventing this franchise, I wonder how
> you feel about a C3, considering c2f.
I think the format is definitely worthwhile, particularly if someone
energetic takes over the Showcase section of the Pouch, and can
add these games to it. Being able to read the full press of 'titleist,
'pinnacle' and 'comments' taught me a lot about the difference
between my assumptions about the development of a game, and
the way it really happens. Reading the comments from the
observers also helped point out weaknesses in my game. For the
format to be truly effective, though, it does require an involved
commentator base, and that probably means that not more than one
such game should be running at any one time.
Eric Hunter.
--
Message from Observer to Observer
> If you're asking for a different yahoo group, then, not that I know
of.
>
> If you want the archive of the discussion group, I can upload that.
Thanks for the offer, but I allready read it online
right after I was taken out.
Philippe
Message from Observer to Observer
I've just finished reading through a good deal of the post in this
game, my thanks to the players and Greg for allowing me to learn so
much.
Although I do appreciate the notion that players that aren't vital in
maintaining a stalemate could be kept alive, I feel that this game
ended somewhat prematurely. The way I understand things, both Erik
and Eric wanted to eliminate Andy. One option for them would have
been to work together to safely eliminating Andy (basically a matter
of negotiating how far Eric had to retreat). I suppose neither felt
that was worth the effort or risk involved.
But what's more interesting to me, is Ben's inquiry to Eric in one of
the last turns (the very last one?) about trying for a 2-way. In a
posting to himself, Eric acknowledged that even if it may have been
possible, it simply wasn't worth pursuing becuase the odds were too
small for the time it'd take. Eric, here's the question:
What about playing along with Ben's 2-way plot simply as a way to get
rid of Andy? You could have reatreated towards that southern line,
thus allowing for Ben (or Erik) to take Andy's last stand in Berlin.
As soon as Andy were gone, you could have declared that you'd settle
for a 3-way. This could have been done without much effort, no?
This would have accomplished three things:
1)A better outcome (3WD vs. 4WD).
2) Considering future games, you want your opponents to know that you
won't allow people to manipulate you to take part in a draw by
pretending to help assist you in soloing.
3)'Moral' victory. You'd demonstrate to the player who failed to help
you solo that you would not give in to his tricks to be included in
the draw. It would also be a 'victory' in relation to Ben: Even if he
won the battle of winning Andy's trust, he would have failed to
fulfil the promise to Andy that was key to prevent your solo.
4) Beauty.
Personally, I'd assign most value to 3, then 4.
/Stefan Sjostrom
Message from Observer to Observer
--- ciczack <stefansjostrom_@hotmail.com> wrote:
> I've just finished reading through a good deal of the post
I'm glad someone other than us players found it useful!
> [....] Eric, here's the question:
>
> What about playing along with Ben's 2-way plot simply as a way to get
> rid of Andy? You could have reatreated towards that southern line,
> thus allowing for Ben (or Erik) to take Andy's last stand in Berlin.
> As soon as Andy were gone, you could have declared that you'd settle
> for a 3-way. This could have been done without much effort, no?
Fundamentally, I was shooting for the solo. The primary reason I wanted Andy
eliminated was because the threat of his elimination would cause him to throw
to me. I will grant that I am partially a classicist at heart, so winnowing
the draw has some appeal to me, but not enough for the effort involved.
Said another way, I didn't want Andy eliminated so much as I wanted Ben and
Erik to be eliminating him.
> 1)A better outcome (3WD vs. 4WD).
As noted, a lot of work for not much value. I'm comfortable with saying I
ended up being the strongest power (not necessarily player) on the board, and
uncomfortable enough saying that I failed to solo when I should have. The 3wd
wouldn't have helped in either of those areas. And, much as Andy doubted it,
real life really has been a bear and made it hard to give attention to the
game. If I had more time, I might have played around with a different 3wd, or
a 2wd.
> 2) Considering future games, you want your opponents to know that you
> won't allow people to manipulate you to take part in a draw by
> pretending to help assist you in soloing.
According to Andy, he was doing a lot less pretending than I thought he was.
I assumed he was pretending, but frankly, I manipulated him as much as he
manipulated me, and probably more. Had I not taken Ven from him in the end,
he probably would have thrown to me. So it's hard for me to agree that people
looking at the game I played here would not get that idea anyway.
Also, as far as I can tell, once I cut Andy's forces unnecessarily at the
end, Ben was the one that needed convincing, not Andy.
> 3)'Moral' victory. You'd demonstrate to the player who failed to help
> you solo that you would not give in to his tricks to be included in
> the draw. It would also be a 'victory' in relation to Ben: Even if he
> won the battle of winning Andy's trust, he would have failed to
> fulfil the promise to Andy that was key to prevent your solo.
Moral victory would have been getting the solo. :) Andy preventing it didn't
make me any more or less interested in seeing him survive or removed.
> 4) Beauty.
As long as Ber didn't end up Russian, there ain't nothin' beautiful about it.
:)
Thanks for the comments!
--- Eric
Message from Observer to Observer
Stefan -
Thank you so much for contributing; I am glad C2 could help your game.
Concerning my 2 way draw proposal.
As I wrote in my press near the end of the game, I had no great attachment
to keeping Andy alive, but I did have a *mild* attachment to it. Noone
gave me a good reason to eliminate him, so I didn't, but I did come up with
one theoretical reason to do it: work toward a 2WD with Eric.
For us to pursue this would have been quite perilous. And I think the
advantage would have been mine, as I would not have started pushing
elsewhere until Eric had conceded some (more) of his home centers, as he
slid toward the southern stalemate line. In the end I would have been the
one to eliminate Andy, which I would have done for the chance to play for
the solo, though of course it could have backfired and the solo could have
been Eric's. It was really five minutes to midnight, and I don't blame
Eric for rejecting the idea though perhaps the mistake was my own for
making the suggestion.
Ben
|