|
|
Germany: Army Munich can retreat to Berlin
Message from Austria to France
Tamas
My plan is beginning to work, now....I need you to trust me here....I
am going to ask a favor of you...
two parts....1. Dont attack Munich. 2. Tap Kiel.
And taking Norway or Denmark would help as well.
I should be able to build 2 and then I can move on the Turk.
Andy
Message from France to Austria
Andy,
> two parts....1. Dont attack Munich. 2. Tap Kiel.
I see no problems with this assuming that you support
Mar-Pie.
Thoughts?
Tamas
Message from Austria to France
> Andy,
>
> > two parts....1. Dont attack Munich. 2. Tap Kiel.
>
> I see no problems with this assuming that you support
> Mar-Pie.
>
> Thoughts?
No problem at all.
Andy
Message from France to Turkey
Andy,
If you think, you might want to tell me what's on your mind,
go ahead. Honestly, I do not care very much about the
spring moves in the Med, although I am obviously curious to
see that your conquering the Italian centers apparently
needs Italian help; I am sure the observers laugh their
pants off to see the concentrated effort of seven fleets of
two nations ensuring that the centers of one goes to the
other. As I said, this is just fine, I have done what you
asked for concerning adjustments and moves too so it is
hardly a surprise for you that the massively supported
ION-TYS succeeded :-).
I just want to make two points here. One is that I am sorry
to see that two of your fleets and two armies found it again
useful to hold: you surely know that it's a race between you
and Austria now and if you compare his orders to yours then
clearly he is doing things at a faster pace. More on this
later. The other thing is that I must ask you to refrain
from surging further to the West Med. Just like I am not
neighboring ION, there is absolutely no need for you to keep
a fleet on TYS (let alone further). I really would
appreciate your confirmation on this. As a minimal program
I want you to confirm that TYS is not going to be ordered to
LYO or WES and will not support an Italian move there.
Finally, the most important point. Austria is posed to pick
up two German centers this year and I can hardly do anything
about is, especially because you asked me (rightly) not to
let my growth get out of control compared to you (... kind
of funny request when most of your units are HOLDing...). I
think that you easily agree that if you let Austria grow
this year then the 2WD is over. (I mean, the FT 2-way
draw). If you disagree and/or have a plan, then do not
hesitate to tell me.
In any case, we have a few days before the turn. Although
we probably do not need much coordination, I would like to
talk this out: I would not mind taking this planning a
little more serious then what is happening now on the
board.
Tamas
Message from Turkey to France
I wanted you to not build, you did.
I have to work with Austria and Italy to stop your solo and this
means there are going to be some moves you don't like.
If I attack Austria as you want, then Austria will probably throw the
game to you.
Message from France to Turkey
Dear Andy,
> I wanted you to not build, you did.
/---------------------------------------------
| Message from albrigh@mail.med.upenn.edu as Turkey to France
| in 'comments':
|
| OK, that works. build Army MAR, then you can stop Austria
| from advancing.
\---------------------------------------------
Now, English is not my native tongue but my impression was
that an army build in Mar after your sentence "build Army
MAR" was something I could hardly overdo in matching your
wishes.
You are very funny indeed. You are constantly blaming me
for... what??? For defending against RG succesfully? For
being succesful on the west by actually ordering my pieces
to move? For building when you say "that works, build A
Mar"? Just where do you thing you would be now if I was
still fighting against EG and AI would not need to keep
their attention devoted to the west?
> I have to work with Austria and Italy to stop your solo
> and this means there are going to be some moves you don't
> like.
You have to think _really_ hard to come up with moves which
I do not like. First, as I had said many times, I prefer
(remember the name of the game) if you told me what you want
and if miraculously (as I hinted: with high chance) I comply
with your demands, you might not need to bang your head
against the wall just to find moves which I dislike.
Second, you might entertain the observers with the I-T
housegame of 7 fleets sailing back and forth but frankly it
is somewhat pathetic without a target. While I asked you to
keep away from the western med so that we can work for the
2WD, I actually do not care much what you are doing if you
do not want that. I never had plans to advance in the south
seas and still do not. At the same time I have my stalemate
line in place [[(in case you doubt: A Gas S A Mar, F MAO & F
Por S F Spa, F Eng S F MAO) all of these units get into
place much earlier than any threat can materialize and of
course there are 5-unit lines too which I can get pretty
likely.]] That means that you can pile up all your fleets
there if you want, that will be very instructive for the
study of stalemate lines but serves hardly any purpose which
cannot easily be achieved with appropriate DMZ's.
> If I attack Austria as you want, then Austria will
> probably throw the game to you.
You know, I have so far avoided to mention this to you but
let me show you the flip side of the coin. Austria showed
me his plan (in fact some time ago). I do not know if he
means it or lies and I do not care a little bit. But he has
one asset indeed, which you will not have when you will need
it, which is bargaining power with my solo. Andy, I am
trying my best to satisfy all you want in order to achieve
the goal of my gameplan: FT. It appears that I have
absolutely no chance of being a good boy no matter what I
do. But I must warn you that if a point comes however
unlikely when Austria emerges as a leading power and if I
see any chance of turning an already developed AFT or AIFT
into an AF 2-way, then I _will_ offer the same thing to
Austria: restraint while he finishes off the east and I
_will_ comply with his demands if that is what makes the
difference between the 2WD and the 3WD.
Austria _cannot_ throw the game to me now (just tell me
which of Bud-Vie-War-Mos you find it likely that I can take
before you when you have already neighboring units) but
indeed in a year's time he can credibly threaten with that
if you let him grow. But, if the scenario which I described
in the above paragraph materializes, you _will not_ have
this bargaining power against the Kaiser, you _cannot_ throw
me the game. And then what will save you against me being
nice and staying on my side of the stalemate line forever?
I guess I just have one final question. What do you
_really_ want?
Tamas
Message from Turkey to France
>
>/---------------------------------------------
>| Message from albrigh@mail.med.upenn.edu as Turkey to France
>| in 'comments':
>|
>| OK, that works. build Army MAR, then you can stop Austria
>| from advancing.
>\---------------------------------------------
>
>Now, English is not my native tongue but my impression was
>that an army build in Mar after your sentence "build Army
>MAR" was something I could hardly overdo in matching your
>wishes.
This is what I wrote first:
"So, what I would suggest is that you waive your build this turn. You do not
need it to defend yourself. If you build then I will be more at the mercy of
Austria and I won't be able to take the Balkans. Sure I could kill Austria, but
at this point, you could then solo."
>
>You are very funny indeed. You are constantly blaming me
>for... what???
Where am I blaming you for something? You are the one always writing
me and complaining about something or other.
>For defending against RG succesfully? For
>being succesful on the west by actually ordering my pieces
>to move? For building when you say "that works, build A
>Mar"? Just where do you thing you would be now if I was
>still fighting against EG and AI would not need to keep
>their attention devoted to the west?
>
>> I have to work with Austria and Italy to stop your solo
>> and this means there are going to be some moves you don't
>> like.
>
>You have to think _really_ hard to come up with moves which
>I do not like. First, as I had said many times, I prefer
>(remember the name of the game) if you told me what you want
>and if miraculously (as I hinted: with high chance) I comply
>with your demands, you might not need to bang your head
>against the wall just to find moves which I dislike.
I told you what I wanted. I didn't want you to build, you wanted to
build, so you built. I couldn't stop you from building. No use crying
over spilt milk like a little child.
>
>Second, you might entertain the observers with the I-T
>housegame of 7 fleets sailing back and forth but frankly it
>is somewhat pathetic without a target.
there's a target all right, it is you. As soon as I don't think you
are a threat for the solo, then I can attack Italy and Austria.
So how's this. Don't take Sweden this turn. There's my demand. If you
don't take Sweden this turn, then will talk about what you want.
no more press this turn.
We see no France in Sweden this winter.
Turkey talk to France
signed,
Turkey
Message from France to Turkey
Dear Andy,
Since you insist, and for the sake of the Observers who did
not follow this instructive diplomacy:
/---------------------------------------------
| T> So, what I would suggest is that you waive your build this
| T> turn.
|
| F> If the price of the 2WD was my not building this year I will
| F> happily waive. [...]
| F> If I waive my build (I was thinking about A Mar), then [...]
| F> Please, give it a thought,
|
| T> OK, that works. build Army MAR, then you can stop Austria
| T> from advancing.
\---------------------------------------------
Now, if from the above conversation (you _suggest_
something, I say "fine if you insist, but please give it
another thought" then you say "ok, do build") anyone in the
audience would draw the conclusion that I am working against
your will then I really have to take more language classes.
Andy, there is little use of this. Who exactly are you
trying to fool? What miniscule advantage would you hope
from taking this stance? I have yet to understand.
> Where am I blaming you for something?
I guess "you built while I wanted you not to build" is a
kind of blame, but at this point I am really getting
hesitant with the meanings of the words.
> >You have to think _really_ hard to come up with moves
> >which I do not like. First, as I had said many times, I
> >prefer (remember the name of the game) if you told me
> >what you want and if miraculously (as I hinted: with high
> >chance) I comply with your demands, you might not need to
> >bang your head against the wall just to find moves which
> >I dislike.
>
> I told you what I wanted. I didn't want you to build, you
> wanted to build, so you built. I couldn't stop you from
> building. No use crying over spilt milk like a little
> child.
This was misplaced, I do not see what little it has to do
with the previous paragraph. It appears that even
completely unrelated consequences seem to originate from me
building at your encouragement (which was preceeded by a
suggestion allright).
> >Second, you might entertain the observers with the I-T
> >housegame of 7 fleets sailing back and forth but frankly it
> >is somewhat pathetic without a target.
>
> there's a target all right, it is you.
I might get scared. This must be personal, (I might need to
change the locks on my door), certainly I cannot be the
target on the board??? That would be like saying that your
target is the Caspian Sea!
> As soon as I don't think you are a threat for the solo,
> then I can attack Italy and Austria.
But I am afraid Andy, I will not get smaller, at least I am
not sure it is theoretically possible. And if you think I
am a solo threat now then how shall we get over this? And
assuming that at some point I am not a solo threat (which is
the case now as is evidenced by you leaving the precise
points - which centers I might take - completely unanswered)
, do you think you can _succesfully_ attack IA? What makes
you think that IA does not have quite similar plans for the
times when Turkish fleets are supporting each other in the
_western_ med facing well-defended French harbors?
> So how's this. Don't take Sweden this turn. There's my
> demand. If you don't take Sweden this turn, then will talk
> about what you want.
That's very kind. If I do not do something then you will be
so kind as to _talk_ to me. About what? That I did not
take Sweden but I did build A Mar a year before?
> no more press this turn.
This is just great. Not that we came hear to play...
We have a week of silence. Excellent! Let's elinimate the
fun part altogether!
Honestly, most of my hopes are gone by now because what you
want is not playable as a 2WD. Austria will grow and there
will be no way to eliminate him no matter how hard you want
to (if you ever will). Too bad, I failed to account for
this possibility in time.
Of course, no matter how unlikely it is I will be the last
to jeopardize any miniscule opportunity. Thus I am happy to
_promise_ to comply with your demand wholeheartedly. (again
and again...) Hopefully this time it will be enough (I
guess not). Unfortunately it will be most probably too
late...
Tamas
Germany: Army Munich → Berlin
|