|
|
Message from Russia to England and Italy
Gentlemen,
I just got back online after eight hours away. My apologies.
> Message from Italy to England and Russia in 'titleist':
>
> I think the Black Sea fleet has value. Consider the following:
>
> bla-bul
> sev supp ukr-rum
> bud supp alb-ser
> vie supp bud
If it weren't for the threat of Bla S Arm-Sev, I would have been willing to
consider this, but I still don't see any way to explain your Fall moves as
anything but anti-Russian, so I think the separation of our forces is
better.
> If I remove both fleets, that gives France the freedom to order con-bla
and
> bul-con which would make it very difficult for Russia to order sev-arm in
> the fall.
Sev-Arm, Ukr-Sev, Gal-Ukr, Boh-Gal this Spring, followed by IA Gal-Rum
with support this Fall is a possibility.
Nick.
Message from England to Italy and Russia
(1) I will be out of town from 8:30 am on Wednesday until Thursday
afternoon. I have no idea if you two will be available for diplomacy on
New Year's Day. We may need an extension.
(2) Nick, Roberto agreed to remove his two fleets on condition that you
remove your fleet in Sweden. That didn't happen. If you were not going to
do this, you should have discussed it with us. I doubt that I am willing
any longer to destroy my fleet in Norway.
Ivy/Allen
Message from Russia to England and Italy
>Message from England to Italy and Russia in 'titleist':
>I have no idea if you two will be available for diplomacy on New Year's
>Day. We may need an extension.
I will be available, but I have no objection to an
extension.
>(2) Nick, Roberto agreed to remove his two fleets on condition that you
>remove your fleet in Sweden. That didn't happen. If you were not going to
>do this,
>you should have discussed it with us. I doubt that I am willing any longer
>to destroy my fleet in Norway.
I saw no message from Roberto saying that his Fleet
disbands were conditional upon my Fleet disband, and
I can see no reason why Roberto would desire me to
disband my Fleet, other than to give England free
access to my Northern Centers. I expressed my
reservations about the idea when you first suggested
it, Ivy, and I repeated them when you raised the issue
again. Call me paranoid, if you'd like, but it seems
as though you are more interested in having the most
Centers in the Draw than you are in the Draw, itself.
Nick.
Message from Russia to England and Italy
Gentlemen,
I thought that I would explain more fully my reluctance to disband F Swe.
Both of you used the same argument to justify the disband, and this itself
raised caution flags in my mind. The Fleet is useless in stopping France,
and A Fin COULD head south, but doing either or both amounts to
ceding the north to England, and that is something I have resisted doing
from S1901M. Indeed, F Swe began service as F StP/SC in S1901,
and after its long and storied service, I am extremely reluctant to order
it to be disbanded.
While F Swe does not contribute to holding the line against France, the
same can be said of F Nwy, A Ber, and F Nth (once Ivy orders
Nth S Hol-Bel this Spring), so if I abandon Scandinavia, Ivy will be free
to take Kie, Swe and StP without opposition from me. Additionally, it
would take five or six turns for A Fin to reach the front, so IF I wanted
to send it south it would make more sense to order Swe S Fin-Nwy,
and then not support it in the Fall so that Ivy could dislodge it and I
could rebuild it in Sev or War.
If we want to cooperate, we still have options open to us.
1) Ber-Kie, Mun-Ber, Ruh S Boh-Ber, Swe S Fin-Nwy (Disband Nwy),
gives Italy a defensible position, greatly reduces the "threat" to England
posed by F Swe, and gives me a much needed build to send against
France.
2) Mun S Boh-Tyl, Bud & Alb S Vie-Tri has the advantage of getting
Italy closer to home with a very compact position.
3) The option I mentioned last night of Boh-Gal, Gal-Ukr, Ukr-Sev,
Sev-Arm, followed by Gal-Rum with support, and Arm-Smy.
Are there any other options that either of you think we should consider, and
can we discuss which option is superior before a few hours before the
deadline?
In Alliance,
Nick.
Message from England to Italy and Russia
>I saw no message from Roberto saying that his Fleet
>disbands were conditional upon my Fleet disband
You had that information from me. It was crystal clear.
Anyway, the consequences are not great. The only difference is that I
cannot disband my fleet as I was going to do. Munich may go to Kiel, but I
will not be offering Holland or Berlin to Roberto without
compensation. Roberto's original condition of Kiel for Vienna still seems
reasonable.
>Call me paranoid, if you'd like, but it seems
>as though you are more interested in having the most
>Centers in the Draw than you are in the Draw, itself.
I don't care in the least how many centers I have in a draw. That kind of
thinking is for losers. It only leads to conflict between those who should
be cooperating against the leader. It leads to losing.
***************
My moves, as of now, are
Irish supp Channel
Liverpool->NAO
North Sea, Channel, & Ruhr supp Holland->Belgium
Berlin supp Bohemia->Kiel
**************
If we can't get agreement on overall strategy by late this evening, I am
going to ask for an extension. We still don't even know if Roberto is
available today.
Ivy/Allen
Message from England to Italy and Russia
>Additionally, it would take five or six turns for A Fin to reach the front,
How many turns would it have taken for Silesia to reach the front?
I am numb.
>If we want to cooperate, we still have options open to us.
>1) Ber-Kie, Mun-Ber, Ruh S Boh-Ber,
Please clarify that last one. Did you mean Ruhr supp Bohemia->Munich?
> Swe S Fin-Nwy (Disband Nwy),
No thanks.
>Are there any other options that either of you think we should consider,
I am too discouraged to even try. Maybe Roberto has ideas.
Ivy/Allen
Message from Italy to England
> We still don't even know if Roberto is available today.
He's available but his anger precludes him from communicating with Nick. It
could only add fuel to the fire.
His current orders are mun-kie; boh-mun; vie listens, waits, and
contemplates.
Idalia
Message from Russia to England and Italy
Gentlemen,
> Message from England to Italy and Russia in 'titleist':
>
> >I saw no message from Roberto saying that his Fleet
> >disbands were conditional upon my Fleet disband
>
> You had that information from me. It was crystal clear.
Yes, I knew that you wanted me to disband my Fleet. You claiming that
Roberto had made it a condition of his disbanding his Fleets is a far cry
from a "Message from Italy to Russia in 'titleist':" saying the same thing,
though.
> Anyway, the consequences are not great. The only difference is that I
> cannot disband my fleet as I was going to do.
Why not? Given Swe S Fin-Nwy, Disband Nwy, this Spring followed
by Nwy-Swe, Swe-Fin, the "threat" of my northern Units to you is
minimized, and the "threat" of your free Units to me is reduced.
> Munich may go to Kiel, but I will not be offering Holland or Berlin to
> Roberto without compensation.
Fin-Nwy, Mun-Ber, Ber-Kie is functionally equivalent to Mun-Hol.
> Munich may go to Kiel, but I will not be offering Holland or Berlin to
> Roberto without compensation.
> I don't care in the least how many centers I have in a draw. That kind of
> thinking is for losers.
Care to reconcile these two statements?
> My moves, as of now, are
>
> Irish supp Channel
> Liverpool->NAO
> North Sea, Channel, & Ruhr supp Holland->Belgium
> Berlin supp Bohemia->Kiel
Bohemia isn't adjacent to Kiel.
> If we can't get agreement on overall strategy by late this evening, I am
> going to ask for an extension. We still don't even know if Roberto is
> available today.
I think that you probably should ask, anyway. We can set NoWait once
we reach agreement.
Nick.
Message from Russia to England and Italy
> Message from England to Italy and Russia in 'titleist':
> >Additionally, it would take five or six turns for A Fin to reach the
front,
> How many turns would it have taken for Silesia to reach the front?
> I am numb.
The combination of your moves with Roberto's forced me to disband.
You have both claimed to have stopping France as your only goal, but
actions speak louder than words, and I'm the only one who attacked
France last Fall while both of you attacked Russian Units and Centers,
and opened your own Centers to French advances, so drop the agreived
attitude.
.
> >1) Ber-Kie, Mun-Ber, Ruh S Boh-Ber,
> Please clarify that last one. Did you mean Ruhr supp Bohemia->Munich?
Yes, my apologies, we're both having trouble supporting Boh, it seems. 8-)
> I am too discouraged to even try. Maybe Roberto has ideas.
Then why don't we all just issue hold orders and let Roger win?
Nick.
Message from England to Italy and Russia
>You claiming that
>Roberto had made it a condition of his disbanding his Fleets is a far cry
>from a "Message from Italy to Russia in 'titleist':" saying the same
>thing, though.
That's worthless nitpicking. You had the information, and we all know
it. You chose to ignore it.
> > Munich may go to Kiel, but I will not be offering Holland or Berlin to
> > Roberto without compensation.
> > I don't care in the least how many centers I have in a draw. That kind of
> > thinking is for losers.
>
>Care to reconcile these two statements?
Sure. I offered to give Holland or Berlin to Italy and then disband Norway
(reducing my supply centers) with no compensation whatsoever. You know
that. Your disband of Silesia, keeping both Finland and Sweden (and now
requesting Norway!) is a bully-tactic that hardens my stance.
> > Berlin supp Bohemia->Kiel
>Bohemia isn't adjacent to Kiel.
I meant Berlin supp Bohemia->Munich.
>Additionally, it would take five or six turns for A Fin to reach the front,
I will ask a second time: How many turns would it have taken for Silesia to
reach the front?
Ivy/Allen
Message from England to Master
Doug,
Sorry to ask this.
I will be out of town all day Wednesday and much of Thursday. Can we have
a delay of a day or two?
Allen
Message from Italy to England and Russia
Nick,
Please reconcile the following recent Russian messages, paraphrased to save
bandwidth:
1) I suggest Italy hold Munich and Berlin
2) Separation of our forces is for the better
3) boh-gal followed by gal-rum is a possibility
Once you've successfully reconciled the above statements, let me know what
you want me to order this coming spring.
Roberto
Message from England to Italy and Russia
Here are some calm, dead-serious, suggested moves.
I go for Belgium and NAO (both obvious)
Bohemia->Munich->Kiel with the help of Ruhr.
Vienna->Trieste (more on this later)
Berlin->Silesia (to plug the hole created by that disband of Silesia)
Sevastopol supp Ukraine->Rumania
Albania supp Budapest->Serbia (Vienna->Trieste helps this)
Galicia->Budapest
Russia gets Rumania and Serbia, while losing Kiel to Italy. Italy will be
losing Ankara to France and gaining Kiel. Net change is Russia plus 1;
France minus 1. We still have fall moves afterwards, but these gains seem
pretty solid.
The above plus no monkey business in Scandinavia.
Allen/Ivy
Message from Russia to England and Italy
> Message from Italy to England and Russia in 'titleist':
> Please reconcile the following recent Russian messages, paraphrased
> to save bandwidth:
> 1) I suggest Italy hold Munich and Berlin
If you hold Mun and Ber they form a self-supporting part of the
stalemate line and since you would be between English, Russian and
French forces, it would require a high degree of trust between the
three of us, (that obviously doesn't exist at this point), to eliminate you.
This is, by definition, good for you.
> 2) Separation of our forces is for the better
This is also fairly obvious, if we don't have to rely on each other for
support, and our Units aren't intermingled creating the possibility of
"inadvertent" support cuts, the chance of our attacks on France
succeeding are higher.
> 3) boh-gal followed by gal-rum is a possibility
This, and Vie-Tri, Mun S Boh-Tyl, are plans that offer immediate
tactical advantage, rather than strategic stability. Sev-Arm, Boh-Gal,
this Spring forces France to defend seven Centers with five Units,
and that, obviously, gives us the advantage.
> Once you've successfully reconciled the above statements, let me
> know what you want me to order this coming spring.
Any one of the plans I offered has advantages. Boh-Gal-Rum,
Sev-Arm-Smy, or Vie-Tri should prevent the French Solo,
Mun-Ber/Kie leaves that up to me, and so has a greater short-term
risk, but it probably has greater long-term security for you, if I
succeed. I would hope that we can discuss the options, weigh the
risks and benefits, and come to a joint decision on what to do.
Nick.
Message from Russia to England and Italy
Gentlemen,
> Message from England to Italy and Russia in 'titleist':
>
> >You claiming that Roberto had made it a condition of his disbanding
> > his Fleets is a far cry from a "Message from Italy to Russia in
'titleist':"
> > saying the same thing, though.
> That's worthless nitpicking. You had the information, and we all know
> it. You chose to ignore it.
Perspective is a wonderful thing, but since I hadn't heard word one from
Italy since the Fall moves came through, I saw it as a real issue, rather
than
a "worthless nitpick". Secondly, I did NOT ignore it! Both times you
suggested that I should disband the Fleet, I indicated my discomfort with
the idea. I NEVER said, "Ok, I'll disband my Fleet, if he does." It also
doesn't address you view my presence in Scandinavia as such a deal
breaker. If I had disbanded F Swe, and moved A Fin south, you would
have been free to take Keil, Swe and StP as I battled France in the south.
If you can't understand why I found that idea unappealing, well, call me a
nitpicker.
> Here are some calm, dead-serious, suggested moves.
>
> I go for Belgium and NAO (both obvious)
Agreed.
> Bohemia->Munich->Kiel with the help of Ruhr.
> Vienna->Trieste (more on this later)
Mun S Boh-Tyl probably makes more sense.
> Berlin->Silesia (to plug the hole created by that disband of Silesia)
No. You're already adjacent to StP, I don't want you adjacent to War,
as well. Given Boh-Tyl, there is no "hole" in Silesia.
> Sevastopol supp Ukraine->Rumania
> Albania supp Budapest->Serbia (Vienna->Trieste helps this)
> Galicia->Budapest
Rum retreats to Gal, and you and Roger flip a coin to decide who takes
War? Or Roger just moves to Ukr as you take War? Again, no.
Nick.
Message from England to Italy and Russia
> Sevastopol supp Ukraine->Rumania
>> Albania supp Budapest->Serbia (Vienna->Trieste helps this)
Backwards. Sorry. Budapest supp Albania->Serbia with Galicia holding does
the job.
>> Bohemia->Munich->Kiel with the help of Ruhr.
>> Vienna->Trieste (more on this later)
>
>Mun S Boh-Tyl probably makes more sense.
This is important. If Bohemia->Tyrolia, what three supply centers will
Italy own at the end of the year?
>> Berlin->Silesia (to plug the hole created by that disband of Silesia)
>
>No. You're already adjacent to StP,
StP is open only because you chose to move to Finland last year. You can
still cover StP from Finland, so StP is not at all vulnerable.
>I don't want you adjacent to War, as well.
I don't think there is any "as well" because StP is not vulnerable.
>Given Boh-Tyl, there is no "hole" in Silesia.
I don't think Bohemia->Tyrolia is given. If Berlin->Silesia, then I would
try Silesia->Bohemia in the fall. You should know me well enough to
believe that I would never pull a cheap shot (Silesia->Warsaw) just to get
one center, when it would in fact cost the entire game.
I am trying hard here, Nick, real hard. To me it looks like
Bohemia->Tyrolia costs Italy a supply center. That's why Bohemia->Munich
is needed. No?
Please give this some more thought, Nick. I think my suggested moves are
quite good (with Serbia taken by Albania). Look at the positon one more
time. We need to have Roberto maintain three units. We need to reduce
France. You gain by these moves. Roberto and I don't.
[Of the plans you offer, Boh-Gal-Rum, Sev-Arm-Smy is most intriguing. It's
the Bohemia->Galicia that hurts, though. That seems to make our middle
very weak. And again, I don't see how it preserves Italy's strength.]
Ivy/Allen
Message from Italy to England
>
> Sevastopol supp Ukraine->Rumania
> Albania supp Budapest->Serbia (Vienna->Trieste helps this)
> Galicia->Budapest
>
The only potential problem is that Rumania would have a retreat option to
Galicia which would put Warsaw in danger. I haven't looked, but it might be
better to alter the orders to
bud supp alb->ser
gal supp ukr->sev
This guarantees Rumania while preventing an ugly retreat. In the fall,
Rum/Alb/Bud can try for Serbia.
Roberto
Message from England to Italy and Russia
>The only potential problem is that Rumania would have a retreat option to
>Galicia
I noticed this and was in the process of writing to correct it when I got
Nick's message pointing out the same flaw. I've already replied.
It brought to mind Doug's warning about how easy it is to make errors in
FTF play when one only has minutes to fill out the orders.
> I haven't looked, but it might be better to alter the orders to
>
>bud supp alb->ser
>gal supp ukr->sev
gal supp ukr->sev ???
> In the fall, Rum/Alb/Bud can try for Serbia.
Yes, although I expect that Russia will already have Serbia in the spring.
Ivy/Allen
Message from Russia to England and Italy
> Message from England to Italy and Russia in 'titleist':
>
> >> Bohemia->Munich->Kiel with the help of Ruhr.
> >> Vienna->Trieste (more on this later)
> >
> >Mun S Boh-Tyl probably makes more sense.
>
> This is important. If Bohemia->Tyrolia, what three supply centers will
> Italy own at the end of the year?
Munich, Vienna, and Trieste. (I suppose if France ordered to defend
Trieste at all costs, the attack would fail, but given last Fall, he's
unlikely
to suspect close IR cooperation, or an Italian attack on Trieste this
Spring.)
Even if it does fail this Spring, Ber S Boh/Tyl-Mun, Mun-Kiel is still safe
this Fall, if no attack on French Centers looks safe.
Nick.
Message from Russia to England and Italy
> Message from England to Italy and Russia in 'titleist':
>
> >The only potential problem is that Rumania would have a retreat option
> >to Galicia
I assume this is an Italian reply to England. Ken, I'd feel more like your
ally if you included me in your messages discussing my possible orders. ;^}
> > I haven't looked, but it might be better to alter the orders to
> >
> >bud supp alb->ser
> >gal supp ukr->sev
>
> gal supp ukr->sev ???
A slip for "Gal S Ukr-Rum", no doubt.
Nick/Eric.
Message from England to Italy and Russia
>> This is important. If Bohemia->Tyrolia, what three supply centers will
>> Italy own at the end of the year?
>
>Munich, Vienna, and Trieste.
I am skeptical that we can get Trieste. But ...
>Even if it does fail this Spring, Ber S Boh/Tyl-Mun, Mun-Kiel is still safe
>this Fall, if no attack on French Centers looks safe.
Take a good look at this, Roberto. What if Munich supp Bohemia->Tyrolia
succeeds? What if Munich supp Bohemia->Tyrolia bounces (more likely)? Do
we still have Munich & Kiel for you in the fall in either case? Perhaps.
I won't have time to look at this until this evening.
I should be available for diploming until about 10:30 this evening. Maybe
for 10 minutes in the morning. Then I am gone for a day and a half.
Ivy/Allen
Message from Italy to England and Russia
I am searching my files for a Russian plan that included Vie-Tri (somehow
being successful) and I cannot find one. Perhaps I lost it in the shuffle.
At any rate, could someone forward it to me at their convenience.
Roberto
---------------------------------
>
> I assume this is an Italian reply to England. Ken, I'd feel more like
> your ally if you included me in your messages discussing my possible >
orders.
>
My anger is at a boiling point. I know myself and when I should limit my
press. Any communication from Roberto to Nick will undoubtedly be dripping
with hostility. It is best for Roberto, Nick, and Ivy that I limit my
communication to Russia to its absolute bare minimum necessity. In this
particular case, you should be happy that I am willing to point out flaws in
an English plan that are detrimental to Russian security.
Idalia
-----------------------------------
If I could be assured that support for boh-gal-rum would actually occur, I
would consider the move. However, given that I seriously doubt the support
would be ordered in the fall and I might be tempted to move boh-gal-war
instead, I think it best that Russian and Italian forces be separated. I do
find it ironic that Nick is so paranoid to have enemy forces next to his
home centers but is somehow willing to suggest boh-gal.
After reading all the press received to date, my orders are mun-kie and
boh-mun. Vienna is still undecided. Adjust your orders/suggestions
accordingly.
Italy
Message from Russia to England and Italy
Gentlemen,
> Message from England to Italy and Russia in 'titleist':
> You should know me well enough to believe that I would never
> pull a cheap shot (Silesia->Warsaw) just to get one center, when
> it would in fact cost the entire game.
Given the rest of your plan, Sil-War gives you a build instead of me, and
ticks me off, but does it cost us the game unless I say, "Fine! I'll let
France
win!". It just gives you an extra Unit in the north, and the opportunity
to
force Swe and/or StP. Even if you do that, my "rational" disbands would
be F Swe and A Fin, so that STILL doesn't cost us the game, it just gives
you the most Centers and the tournament victory. Would this sort of
behavior make sense for you in a regular game? No. Does it make sense
in the VGFP Tournament? Yes, so I can't agree to Ber-Sil.
> [Of the plans you offer, Boh-Gal-Rum, Sev-Arm-Smy is most intriguing.
> It's the Bohemia->Galicia that hurts, though. That seems to make our
> middle very weak. And again, I don't see how it preserves Italy's
> strength.]
It trades Ank for Rum, keeping him at three, though it does weaken our
Center somewhat. Since I would take Ser and build in War, and we
would be threatening Smy, Gre and Bul, though, so I don't think France
could afford to try to exploit that weakness.
Nick.
Message from Italy to England and Russia
>
> What if Munich supp Bohemia->Tyrolia succeeds? What if Munich supp
> Bohemia->Tyrolia bounces (more likely)? Do we still have Munich &
> Kiel for you in the fall in either case?
>
I believe I already answered this question. It's a moot point since Munich
supports Bohemia->Tyrolia will not be ordered.
Roberto
Message from Russia to England and Italy
Gentlemen,
> Message from England to Italy and Russia in 'titleist':
> >> If Bohemia->Tyrolia, what three supply centers will
> >> Italy own at the end of the year?
> >Munich, Vienna, and Trieste.
> I am skeptical that we can get Trieste. But ...
What am I missing? Bur-Mun, Pie-Tyl, Ven S Tri, Rum-Bud, is the
only French order set that bounces Boh-Tyl, Vie-Tri, but how likely is
that, unless I leak our plans to France? And, even if I do, then Ber S
Boh-Mun, Mun-Kiel still works, so what have I gained? Nothing, since Italy
takes a Russian Center instead of a French one.
Given that Tri S Rum-Bud is possible, the Spring attack on Tri may
bounce, but Mun-Kiel is still available as a backup , though I would think
that Tyl-Tri would be a sure thing in the Fall.
> What if Munich supp Bohemia->Tyrolia succeeds?
Vie-Tri would (most likely) have failed, and Rum could retreat to Ser.
In the Fall, Rum-Ser, (*cuts Ser S Tri*), Alb, Bud & Vie S Tyl-Tri
succeeds against Pie-Tyl, Ven S Tri, Tri S Ser-Bud, or any other
French order set. I don't see a way for it to fail.
> What if Munich supp Bohemia->Tyrolia bounces (more likely)?
> Do we still have Munich & Kiel for you in the fall in either case?
Then Tyl is open, and we have the situation we have now, or Vie-Tri
and succeeded, and he doesn't need to take Kiel.
Nick.
Message from England to Italy and Russia
>Given the rest of your plan, Sil-War gives you a build instead of me, and
>ticks me off, but does it cost us the game unless I say, "Fine! I'll let
>France win!". It just gives you an extra Unit in the north, and the
>opportunity to
>force Swe and/or StP. Even if you do that, my "rational" disbands would
>be F Swe and A Fin, so that STILL doesn't cost us the game, it just gives
>you the most Centers and the tournament victory.
Let's see if I understand this. France has 16 units; I have 8 units. If I
can dupe you into letting me move Berlin to Silesia then I will obtain the
most units and win.
Are you sober? Can't you even pretend to reason? What is the point in
writing to you?
Ivy/Allen
Message from England to Italy and Russia
>I am searching my files for a Russian plan that included Vie-Tri (somehow
>being successful) and I cannot find one. Perhaps I lost it in the shuffle.
>At any rate, could someone forward it to me at their convenience.
>
>Roberto
I do not recall Nick ever requesting Vienna->Trieste. However, it would be
needed if Nick agreed to my suggestion that he take Rumania and Serbia
while ceding Kiel to you. The only objection I have heard to that plan so
far is that Russia objects to Berlin->Silesia in order to protect the
center better.
To the best of my knowledge, there is no other plan on the table so far
that has any chance of getting agreement.
Allen/Ivy
Message from Russia to England and Italy
> Message from Italy to England and Russia in 'titleist':
>
> I am searching my files for a Russian plan that included Vie-Tri
> (somehow being successful) and I cannot find one.
See my last letter. If France orders Ven S Pie-Tyl, (unlikely, but not
impossible given the state of relations between you and I), Vie-Tri
succeeds in the Spring, if he defends Tri at all costs, you can take
Kiel in the Fall, if Boh-Tyl succeeds in the Spring, Vie S Tyl-Tri is a
force in the Fall.
> My anger is at a boiling point. I know myself and when I should
> limit my press. Any communication from Roberto to Nick will
> undoubtedly be dripping with hostility.
Feel free to drip all the hostility you want. We have a mission here to
stop the French solo. Your assistance in doing that makes me much
more likely to support you and keep you from being eliminated when
Ivy decides he can afford to than sparing my feeling by not writing
hostile letters does.
> It is best for Roberto, Nick, and Ivy that I limit my communication to
> Russia to its absolute bare minimum necessity.
No. It is best that we work out the most effective plan possible to stop
France, and then implement that plan. I don't care if Roberto hates
Nick's guts, hell, I don't even care if Ken hates Eric's guts, our feelings
have nothing to do with the necessity of stopping France, and it's a lot
easier to do that if we all bounce ideas off each other. Diplomacy is
about communication. If you're angry with me, tell me why, and we'll
see if we can work out some method of getting past it.
> If I could be assured that support for boh-gal-rum would actually
> occur, I would consider the move. However, given that I seriously
> doubt the support would be ordered in the fall and I might be tempted
> to move boh-gal-war instead, I think it best that Russian and Italian
> forces be separated. I do find it ironic that Nick is so paranoid to
> have enemy forces next to his home centers but is somehow willing to
> suggest boh-gal.
There's a big difference between IA Gal, and EA Sil. You NEED Rum
to stay at three Centers, we both need to take Centers from France to
keep him from soloing, so promising the support, and then not ordering it
makes no sense. Ankara will be France's 17 Center, so it would be
entirely too easy for you to throw the game to France if I don't keep my
word. The English proposal to move to Sil is a whole different kettle of
fish, though. If he takes War, instead of moving to Boh, as you and I
push France back to 15, I'm faced with a choice between throwing the
game to France, or sharing in the draw as England wins the tournament.
It's a choice I'd rather not have to make, so I don't want to see Ber-Sil.
> Vienna is still undecided.
Vie-Tri is necessary no matter what other orders we issue to avoid
having Tri S Rum-Bud succeed.
Nick.
Message from Russia to England and Italy
Ivy,
> Message from England to Italy and Russia in 'titleist':
> > Given the rest of your plan, Sil-War gives you a build instead of me, >
> and ticks me off, but does it cost us the game unless I say, "Fine!
> > I'll let France win!". It just gives you an extra Unit in the north,
and
> > the opportunity to force Swe and/or StP. Even if you do that, my
> > "rational" disbands would be F Swe and A Fin, so that STILL
> > doesn't cost us the game, it just gives you the most Centers and the
> > tournament victory.
>
> Let's see if I understand this. France has 16 units; I have 8 units. If
I
> can dupe you into letting me move Berlin to Silesia then I will obtain
> the most units and win.
> Are you sober? Can't you even pretend to reason? What is the point
> in writing to you?
Yes, I'm sober, and I am reasoning quite clearly. Forgive me for assuming
that you could fill in the rest of the proof given the premise
and the conclusion. You move to Sil and take War. I complain, but
France remains a threat at 15. I move south to take more Centers
from him, eventually reducing him to 11 or 12, you take Kiel and Mun
from Italy, and Swe and StP from me. England, Germany, Scandinavia,
the Lowlands, StP and War is 13, France has 12, I have 9, and you
propose a three-way. I have the choice of accepting, or thowing the game to
France. What do you think I'd do? Would you risk that I might throw the
game? I don't know, but I'd rather not find out, so I'm
taking Ber-Sil off the table.
Nick.
Message from Italy to England and Russia
Second attempt at this message. First attempt bounced back from the judge
for some reason (originally sent at 7:41 pm ET).
>
> Vie-Tri would (most likely) have failed, and Rum could retreat to Ser.
> In the Fall, Rum-Ser, (*cuts Ser S Tri*), Alb, Bud & Vie S Tyl-Tri
> succeeds against Pie-Tyl, Ven S Tri, Tri S Ser-Bud, or any other
> French order set. I don't see a way for it to fail.
>
I do. You do not have a great history at actually entering the orders you
say you will.
Allow me to make this perfectly clear. I will not, under any circumstances,
agree to a set of moves that hinges on Russian support for Italian moves.
Roberto
-----------------------------------------
In case anybody is interested, allow me to make a suggestion for the north.
This spring, order:
fin - stp
swe - fin
nor hold
Then, for all eternity, the two of you can order:
fin-swe
nor-swe
stp-nor
nth-nor
Message from England to Italy and Russia
>If you're angry with me, tell me why, and we'll
>see if we can work out some method of getting past it.
This statement was directed at Roberto, but I will pretend it was directed
at me. I've been pushed to the point where I want to answer it.
My Diplomacy experience is limited to about 10 Face-to-face games and about
15-20 e-mail games, so perhaps I haven't been around long enough. However
I have seen a lot of stabs, a lot of lies, a lot of deception, and I have
had a blast. That's why I keep playing. I love it.
Eric, I am not having fun right now. I don't enjoy playing with you. I
have never felt this way before about any other player. There is something
excessive in your style that gets to me.
Ken said his anger is at a boiling point. My personality is different; I
am essentially incapable of anger. But I side with Ken on this one.
Sometimes you are so suspicious, so selfish, so stubborn, so argumentive --
qualities that serve one well in Diplomacy when present in the right
proportions -- that you harm your own cause.
Allen
Message from Italy to England and Russia
>
> See my last letter.
>
I read your last letter. No where does it say that you will issue a support
order for vie-tri.
> Your assistance in doing that makes me much more likely to support
> you and keep you from being eliminated when Ivy decides he can
> afford to than sparing my feeling by not writing hostile letters does.
You are, of course, free to believe that I will need your assistance in
being eliminated. Suffice it to say, we do not share that same opinion.
> If you're angry with me, tell me why, and we'll
> see if we can work out some method of getting past it.
When it comes to this game and communication with Italy, you are a liar.
Telling me you are not is a lie in and of itself. We are beyond the point
of getting past that.
> If I could be assured that support for boh-gal-rum would actually
> occur, I would consider the move. However, given that I seriously
> doubt the support would be ordered in the fall and I might be tempted
> to move boh-gal-war instead, I think it best that Russian and Italian
> forces be separated. I do find it ironic that Nick is so paranoid to
> have enemy forces next to his home centers but is somehow willing to
> suggest boh-gal.
> You NEED Rum to stay at three Centers
This is not true. Answer me this, why is it that you continually insist on
supporting Italy to Rumania? Is it perhaps because you can take it from me
at your leisure when you are in a position to have the most centers in the
draw and win the tournament?
> we both need to take Centers from France to keep him from soloing, so
> promising the support, and then not ordering it makes no sense.
You've done it before. I see no substantial proof that you wouldn't do it
again.
> Vie-Tri is necessary no matter what other orders we issue to avoid
> having Tri S Rum-Bud succeed.
Again, not true. Alb-Tri and Ukr-Rum defend Budapest as well as Gal supp
Bud.
Message from Italy to England
Well said. Thank you.
Ken
Message from Russia to England and Italy
> Message from England to Italy and Russia in 'titleist':
>
> >If you're angry with me, tell me why, and we'll
> >see if we can work out some method of getting past it.
>
> This statement was directed at Roberto, but I will pretend it was directed
> at me. I've been pushed to the point where I want to answer it.
Fair enough. I appeciate the feedback.
> I have seen a lot of stabs, a lot of lies, a lot of deception, and I have
> had a blast. That's why I keep playing. I love it.
> Eric, I am not having fun right now. I don't enjoy playing with you.
I'm sorry, it was certainly not my intention to make the game no fun for
anyone.
> There is something excessive in your style that gets to me.
> Sometimes you are so suspicious, so selfish, so stubborn, so
argumentive --
> that you harm your own cause.
I was going to argue that I'm not selfish, but that probably wouldn't be
productive at this point. 8-) I have a group of Diplomacy friends who are
observing this game and they pointed out much the same things when I asked
them why what I viewed as compelling arguments were being ignored by my
allies. I've tried to adjust my presentation since then, (that's why I
stopped
suggesting alliance moves right off the bat), but with, obviously, limited
success. 8-) A part of the problem, I'm sure, is that I'm swimming with
sharks here, (5th ranked player in the final, facing four 1700+ JDPR
players),
and the opening did not go well for me, ;^} and when I have trusted
people here, it has cost me Centers.
Eric.
Message from England to Italy and Russia
I must submit moves. I did request an extension yesterday, but so far it
has not been granted.
My assumptions are that
Roberto is aiming for Kiel,Munich,Vienna at year's end
All three of us prefer some sort of draw rather than french victory
With Ruhr I will support Bohemia->Munich. It may be possible that Roberto
will change his mind and issue Munich supp Bohemia->Tyrolia. That could
retard the French advance, and whether or not it succeeds or fails, it
seems to me that Roberto can still move those those two armies to Kiel and
Munich in the fall.
I advise Vienna-Trieste, not with the purpose of taking Trieste, but to
help Nick take Serbia. Perhaps the two of you will find some other
suitable arrangement, though.
With some understandable nervousness I will order Berlin to Silesia against
Nick's wishes. The intention is to head for Bohemia, definitely not
Warsaw. I truly worry about the gap in our lines if Roberto is in Kiel and
Munich. Having learned a lesson the hard way some years ago, I think it
might be epsilon better to defy Nick than to both lie to him and defy him
as well.
Who knows what I will see when I get the moves later tomorrow.
I wish the two of you luck in your communications today.
Ivy/Allen
Message from Russia to England, France, and Italy
Since no-one is enjoying this game anymore, I'm
setting draw, and I invite you to do so, as well.
Eric.
Message from Russia to England
Allen,
>My assumptions are that
>Roberto is aiming for Kiel,Munich,Vienna at year's end
>All three of us prefer some sort of draw rather than french victory
>With some understandable nervousness I will order Berlin to Silesia against
>Nick's wishes. The intention is to head for Bohemia, definitely not
>Warsaw.
Don't do it, Allen. You did not respond to the
scenario I laid out where you to take War, and
then Swe and StP, as I reduce France, so I have
to believe that you agree it is possible, and
I'm not willing to roll over and let you win
the tournament that way, especially given Ken's
attitude.
>I truly worry about the gap in our lines if Roberto is in Kiel and Munich.
Then convince Roberto to do the right thing, and
work to stop France! They only way Vie-Tri,
Boh-Tyl can fail to gain Italy Tri, is if I slit
my own throat by not supporting him, or someone
leaks the one defense that works to Roger, and
if that happens, he can still take Kiel in the
Fall. There is no downside to this plan that I
can see.
Eric.
Message from Master to all
Extension for New Year's Day, etc.
Doug
masseyd@btv.ibm.com as Master set the deadline
for game 'titleist' to Fri Jan 04 2002 23:30:00 -0500.
Message from Russia to England and Italy
Gentlemen,
>Movement orders for Spring of 1914. (titleist.054)
>Russia: Army Ukraine -> Rumania.
>Russia: Army Albania SUPPORT Italian Army Vienna -> Trieste.
>Russia: Army Budapest SUPPORT Italian Army Vienna -> Trieste.
>Russia: Army Sevastopol SUPPORT Army Ukraine -> Rumania.
>Russia: Army Galicia SUPPORT Army Ukraine -> Rumania.
>Russia: DRAW YES
It is clear that our best hope of stopping the French
Solo lies in Mun S Boh-Tyl, Vie-Tri. If you choose to
order Mun-Kie, Ber-Sil instead, I will have to assume
that you are more interested in your own adgendas than
you are in stopping France, and I will have to take
actions in the Fall to defend myself, even if that
results in a French Solo. The choice is yours.
Czar Nicholas II.
Message from Italy to England and Russia
>
> Therefore, to remain at three Centers,
> you need to take another Center.
>
I do not necessarily have as a goal this year to remain at three centers.
Sure, it would be nice if it also meant the game did not end, but it is not
a requirement on my end to remain at three centers. When I disbanded the
fleets, I made it known that I would be ceding Vienna to Russia and Ankara
to whomever got there first. I have no illusions of maintaining three
centers.
> The advantage I see in you taking Rum is tactical, in that it
> allows Sev-Arm this Spring, and forces France to defend additional
> Centers with limited Units. The downsides are that it weakens the
> Center, and it leaves you holding three separate Centers rather
> than a self-supporting core.
>From Italy's perspective, the advantages do not outweigh the disadvantages.
> IF our goal is to take Centers from France,
>
I'm not positive this is Italy's goal. My survival in whatever draw that
occurs is directly dependent on how close another power is to soloing. The
closer somebody else is to a solo, the better my chances of being included
in the draw. At least, that's how I see it.
> then Vie-Tri makes the most sense because it
> allows Alb to try for Gre or Ser as I take Rum.
>
I am not discounting the possibility of Vie-Tri. I just want to make sure
that the move is made for the correct reasons.
The reason above and the one given by Ivy is to assist Russia into Serbia.
Now I see in my mailbox that that's not the reason at all. So which reason
is it?
> Come on, Roberto, if you want to share in the Draw, then work
> with me to stop the French solo.
I have heard this comment before and I let it slide. The last time I heard
this, the individual who made it tried to take two net centers from me the
very next turn. Suffice it to say, I don't want to hear this comment a
third time. Used on me, this type of comment will backfire every single
time.
> Just let me state for the record, that of the three plans I
> offered, I think Vie-Tri, Boh-Tyl makes the most sense.
I will re-evaluate.
> If you choose to order Mun-Kie, Ber-Sil instead, I will have
> to assume that you are more interested in your own adgendas
> than you are in stopping France, and I will have to take
> actions in the Fall to defend myself, even if that
> results in a French Solo. The choice is yours.
...... but I will not be threatened or bullied.
Roberto
Message from Russia to England and Italy
Roberto,
>Message from Italy to England and Russia in 'titleist':
> > The advantage I see in you taking Rum is tactical, in that it
> > allows Sev-Arm this Spring, and forces France to defend additional
> > Centers with limited Units. The downsides are that it weakens the
> > Center, and it leaves you holding three separate Centers rather
> > than a self-supporting core.
>From Italy's perspective, the advantages do not outweigh the
> >disadvantages.
That's fine, it was one of those, "oooh, wouldn't it be
interesting to do..." sorts of ideas. Unexpected and
effective, but it does have serious drawbacks.
> > IF our goal is to take Centers from France,
>I'm not positive this is Italy's goal. The closer somebody else is to a
>solo, the better my
>chances of being included in the draw.
The problem is that within a year or two, France will
have eight Units in the Eastern Med, and my five Armies
will be hard-pressed to prevent his solo. (Yes, I know,
I can strip my northern defenses and let Ivy win the
tournament as I stop France's Solo, but I'd rather
have some help.)
>I am not discounting the possibility of Vie-Tri. I just want to make sure
>that the move is made for the correct reasons.
Stopping the French Solo seems like the correct
reason to me.
> > If you choose to order Mun-Kie, Ber-Sil instead, I will have
> > to assume that you are more interested in your own adgendas
> > than you are in stopping France, and I will have to take
> > actions in the Fall to defend myself, even if that
> > results in a French Solo. The choice is yours.
>...... but I will not be threatened or bullied.
It's not a threat, or an attempt to bully you, it's
just a statement of my position on this Spring's
moves, and how I will react this Fall.
Nick.
Message from France to all
This short pause in the spring phase provides and opportunity for anyone
who has not completed their 1913 EOY statement to take care of that. I
just finished up mine <sheepish grin>. Doug usually makes an
announcement but he seems busy hosting diplomacy games and showing off
his wardrobe. Where are his priorities, really? :-)
While I have this public stage, I have a recollection from when the game
started that someone in it is from Madison, Wi? Was it this game? (I
could be confusing my games.) Since it is gunboat I cannot simply do a
whogame to figure it out. I am far too lazy to dig up all the e-mail
addresses and use 6 whois commands. If you are out, I hope you will
speak up. I would like to chat about my old stopping grounds -
Undergraduate School.
Roger/France
Message from England to Russia
Eric,
I am back. Please note that Roberto is not being copied on this.
>>My assumptions are that
>
>>Roberto is aiming for Kiel,Munich,Vienna at year's end
>>All three of us prefer some sort of draw rather than French victory
>
>
>>With some understandable nervousness I will order Berlin to Silesia against
>>Nick's wishes. The intention is to head for Bohemia, definitely not
>>Warsaw.
>
>Don't do it, Allen.
Again, note that this was based on the assumption that Roberto was refusing
to cover the Tyrolia/Bohemia/Silesia corridor. That's what I had to assume
based on what I knew as of early Wednesday morning. If no one covers it,
then France penetrates and wins. So I felt it didn't matter if it troubled
you, because the only alternative was a French win.
Now, however, I have one more day to work on Roberto.
Roberto has made it clear many times that he doesn't care if France wins if
Italy is going to be eliminated. Roberto has more recently made it clear
that, if the French threat is reduced, then he knows that you and I will be
free to eliminate Italy. Thus Italy does not really want to see France
reduced in strength. He wants to be essential to the stopping of a large
and dangerous France.
>You did not respond to the
>scenario I laid out where you to take War, and
>then Swe and StP, as I reduce France, so I have
>to believe that you agree it is possible, and
>I'm not willing to roll over and let you win
>the tournament that way, especially given Ken's
>attitude.
I did respond precisely to that scenario. I asked, sarcastically, if you
were sober. I said that the whole scenario was so absurd that I wondered
why I bothered writing to you. If I took Warsaw, just throw the game to
France. Period. Don't tolerate it. That's how I would have acted if you
had remained in Norway and Denmark. Don't tell me that taking Warsaw would
lead to my victory when I have 8 to France's 16. That kind of argument is
one of the factors that has made this game so tiresome.
>Then convince Roberto to do the right thing, and
>work to stop France!
I've been trying. But as of two nights ago I was not succeeding.
Remember, Italy wants to stall France but not weaken him.
>They only way Vie-Tri,
>Boh-Tyl can fail to gain Italy Tri, is if I slit
>my own throat by not supporting him, or someone
>leaks the one defense that works to Roger, and
>if that happens, he can still take Kiel in the
>Fall. There is no downside to this plan that I
>can see.
I see a big downside. France could lose Trieste, Serbia, and Rumania this
year. I think that's horrible for Italy, and I think Italy knows it.
After France loses a few, then there is no stopping us from eliminating
Italy. Put yourself in Italy's shoes.
What is wrong with my plan for you to take Serbia and Rumania, while Italy
stays in Vienna and gets Kiel and Munich? I ask, because I think Italy
might yet go for it. That is, what is wrong other than using Berlin to
stuff that corridor?
Allen
Message from England to Russia
>It is clear that our best hope of stopping the French
>Solo lies in Mun S Boh-Tyl, Vie-Tri. If you choose to
>order Mun-Kie, Ber-Sil instead, I will have to assume
>that you are more interested in your own adgendas than
>you are in stopping France,
But Italy IS more interested in his own agenda. Recognize it. He is
interested in surviving. We have to recognize that and deal with it. If
you and I want to stop France and want Italy's help, we have to live with
Italian moves that promote the Italian agenda. If I were Italy, I would
not want to take Trieste.
While Roger and I were fighting tooth and nail, we recognized that Italy
had to be stopped. We went from fighting one day to full trust the next
day. I gave him a supply center. Then he permitted me to sit next to an
EMPTY Paris and Brest. Two Empty home centers!!! I didn't touch them.
This was achieved with minimum of correspondence. Read it some day. We
didn't argue and argue and argue. We had confidence in each other, because
we respected each other and knew we had a job to do.
I can't understand your obsession with Warsaw.
I am not saying that Berlin->Silesia is necessary. I just think it is
necessary unless Roberto changes his mind. If I were Roberto, I would not
change my mind.
Allen
Message from England to Italy
Roberto,
I am back. Note that Russia is not being copied on this.
I have read the recent Italian/Russian correspondence and I don't see
anything that makes me want to change my Berlin->Warsaw move.
You seem to be considering three options.
(1) Bohemia->Munich->Kiel plus something with Vienna. In that case I need
to cover the Tyrolia/Bohemia/Silesia corridor with Berlin.
(2) Munich supp Bohemia->Tyrolia in the spring to hold back France and then
pull back to Munich and Kiel in the fall. Then I still need to cover the
Tyrolia/Bohemia/Silesia corridor with Berlin.
(3) Munich supp Bohemia->Tyrolia with Vienna making it to Trieste. Then
you protect Trieste. This costs you a unit, so I still need to bring
berlin south to help.
Am I overlooking any of your options?
Allen/Ivy
Message from Russia to England
Allen,
> Roberto has made it clear many times that he doesn't care if France wins
if
> Italy is going to be eliminated. Roberto has more recently made it clear
> that, if the French threat is reduced, then he knows that you and I will
be
> free to eliminate Italy. Thus Italy does not really want to see France
> reduced in strength. He wants to be essential to the stopping of a large
> and dangerous France.
I understand that motivation, certainly since I used the Italian and French
Solo threats to survive myself, but I do not feel that occupying my Centers
makes an essential contribution to stopping France. 8-)
> >You did not respond to the scenario I laid out where you to take War,
> > and then Swe and StP, as I reduce France, so I have to believe that
> > you agree it is possible,
> I did respond precisely to that scenario. I asked, sarcastically, if you
> were sober. I said that the whole scenario was so absurd that I wondered
> why I bothered writing to you. If I took Warsaw, just throw the game to
> France. Period. Don't tolerate it. That's how I would have acted if you
> had remained in Norway and Denmark. Don't tell me that taking Warsaw
> would lead to my victory when I have 8 to France's 16. That kind of
> argument is one of the factors that has made this game so tiresome.
I'm not a big fan of, "Fine, I'll take my ball and go home!" strategies.
Obviously, if this was a standard Judge game you'd have no reason to take
War, BUT this is the tournament final, and Center-Count matters. If you
take
War, I'm faced with a choice, throw the game to France, or continue to try
to stop the French Solo as you grow bigger. What makes more sense for
me, accepting third place in the tournament and a three-way draw with two
players who are two and three hundred points above me in JDPR, or
throwing the game to France because I can't win the tournament? It's a
choice I'd rather not have to make, so I would prefer that you don't move
adjacent to Warsaw.
> I see a big downside. France could lose Trieste, Serbia, and Rumania this
> year. I think that's horrible for Italy, and I think Italy knows it.
> After France loses a few, then there is no stopping us from eliminating
> Italy. Put yourself in Italy's shoes.
I'm a Romantic, do me a good turn and it's real hard for me to turn around
and stab you.
> What is wrong with my plan for you to take Serbia and Rumania, while Italy
> stays in Vienna and gets Kiel and Munich? I ask, because I think Italy
> might yet go for it. That is, what is wrong other than using Berlin to
> stuff that corridor?
France will almost certainly move into Tyl, and quite possible gain Vie,
along
with the certain Ank, and remain at 16 as Tun moves to Ion to defend Gre.
Then next year Ank-Arm keeps me from turning the corner into Turkey, and
we end up stuck in a four-way with France winning the tournament. If we
want that we might as well set draw now.
> I can't understand your obsession with Warsaw.
}History of Supply Center Counts
}-------------------------------
}Power 1900 '01 '02 '03 '04 '05 '06 '07 '08 '09 '10 '11 '12 '13
}Russia 4 4 3 3 3 3 3 4* 6& 4 7& 8& 8 7
This is the first year since 1901 that I've owned all four of my Home
Centers.
In three of those intervening years I was reduced to only one Home Center.
Every Power except France has occupied at least one of my Home Centers,
and every Power except France and Austria have occupied one or more of
my Home Centers for two or more years. Pardon me for being a bit defensive.
Leaving the emotion aside for the moment, the fact remains that if you
occupy
Warsaw, I am faced with the choice between losing the tournament, or
throwing
the game. Did you enjoy facing that choice when I occupied Den and Nwy?
Eric.
Message from Italy to England
>
> I am back. Note that Russia is not being copied on this.
>
Good thing too.......
> I have read the recent Italian/Russian correspondence and I don't see
> anything that makes me want to change my Berlin->Warsaw move.
>
since he would have gone ballistic over your Freudian typo 'Berlin->Warsaw
move'.
[friendly tip: if there is anything you need to work on in your Dip game,
it's proof-reading and proof-reading and proof-reading some more the parts
of your messages that contain movement information. There have been
countless little slip ups that only slow down the communication process. I
usually know what you mean, but.... Yes, I realize I did it myself the
other day. :) ]
> You seem to be considering three options.
>
> (1) Bohemia->Munich->Kiel plus something with Vienna. In
> that case I need to cover the Tyrolia/Bohemia/Silesia
> corridor with Berlin.
>
> (2) Munich supp Bohemia->Tyrolia in the spring to hold back
> France and then pull back to Munich and Kiel in the fall.
> Then I still need to cover the Tyrolia/Bohemia/Silesia
> corridor with Berlin.
>
> (3) Munich supp Bohemia->Tyrolia with Vienna making it to
> Trieste. Then you protect Trieste. This costs you a unit,
> so I still need to bring berlin south to help.
>
If I made it to Trieste, I'd probably still want to move boh-mun-kie in the
fall. So protecting Trieste is probably the least desirable alternative.
>
> Am I overlooking any of your options?
>
I don't think so. Those pretty much cover it.
Currently #1 is ordered but I could be convinced to change.
Roberto
Message from Italy to England
Perhaps we might be looking at this the wrong way.
What do you think France will order?
I have a guess but I don't want to influence your thinking by revealing my
thoughts.
Roberto
Message from England to Italy and Russia
I am changing my Berlin move to "hold."
Nick, you can work out the rest of the moves with Roberto. You have a much
better relationship with him than with me. I request that you not write me
again until after the moves have processed.
Roberto, I'll respect your judgment on your moves no matter what the
consequences. Let me know if there is anything I can contribute to your
decision.
Allen/Ivy
Message from Italy to England
>
> Nick, you can work out the rest of the moves with Roberto.
> You have a much better relationship with him than with me.
>
Wow! I'm not sure this is possible. :)
Can I ask? What sparked these comments? Or do I even need to ask?
Message from England to Italy
>What do you think France will order?
That's tough, since against an organized defense his options are poor. But
he knows we are in disarray.
If I were France I would issue Venice supp Piedmont->Tyrolia and follow
with Marseilles->Piedmont. I might even use Trieste to support the move to
Tyrolia. France needs more armies on the battlefield, while he can afford
the lose of a supply center or two. Furthermore I would plan a retreat for
Rumania.
Allen/Ivy
Message from Italy to England
>
> Roberto, I'll respect your judgment on your moves no matter what the
> consequences. Let me know if there is anything I can
> contribute to your decision.
>
You might as well change your orders to:
ruh supp hol-bel
ber supp boh-mun
I am still uncertain whether I will move boh-mun but the above seems the
better approach. No sense in wasting the Berlin unit.
Roberto
Message from England to Italy
Roberto,
>> Nick, you can work out the rest of the moves with Roberto.
>> You have a much better relationship with him than with me.
>>
>
>Wow! I'm not sure this is possible. :)
>
>Can I ask? What sparked these comments? Or do I even need to ask?
Eric's reaction to my blunt statement was remarkably restrained. In
fairness, I would have to say it was an apology. Two days later he is the
same Eric, sending me long, tiresome, worthless drivel.
By my holding Berlin, he and I have no need to discuss anything further
this turn. That's it.
Allen/Ivy
Message from Italy to England
Here is something I got from Roger in response to a question I asked
regarding Kiel and Munich.
Take it for what it's worth and consider the source(s).
>
> Actually, I do understand your point. That is why you should
> probably just take Kiel. The odds of my ending up in Ankara
> are greater than 50%. I think that you should do it even if
> Nick gives you an ultimatium not to. I have gotten to know
> him pretty well and I have played with him once before. I am
> very confident that he would not throw the game when he could
> still take part in the draw. The press might be hard to deal
> with, but you would be OK. Of course you have to make your
> own assessment.
>
> --King Roger XIII
>
Message from Italy to England
>
> >What do you think France will order?
>
> That's tough, since against an organized defense his options
> are poor. But he knows we are in disarray.
>
> If I were France I would issue Venice supp Piedmont->Tyrolia
> and follow with Marseilles->Piedmont. I might even use
> Trieste to support the move to Tyrolia. France needs more
> armies on the battlefield, while he can afford the loss of a
> supply center or two. Furthermore I would plan a retreat for
> Rumania.
>
I was thinking something along the lines of:
pie-tus
mar-pie
wes-tys
tun-ion
rum-gre
bur-mun
rum-bud
con-bla
ven/tri are toss-ups and would either hit Tyrolia or Tri->Ser or support
each other
The fleet moves set him up to convoy Tuscany to the front via GRE or CON and
of course Bul->Aeg opens a retreat for Rumania and also defends Smyrna if
need be in the fall.
Just my two cents.
The question is, do EI(R) have a counter for those moves.
Roberto
Message from England to Italy
Roberto,
>The fleet moves set him up to convoy Tuscany to the front via GRE or CON
I never thought of that, and it wouldn't surprise me if Roger overlooked it
also.
>The question is, do EI(R) have a counter for those moves.
I don't think so. If he sets up a convoy, then he will get a convoy. I
just hope he loses a couple of centers at the same time.
I will come right out and recommend Munich supp Bohemia->Tyrolia. These
two armies can still end up in Kiel and Munich if you choose in the fall.
Vienna->Trieste feels right also, although this depends on whether or not
you prefer to hold Vienna instead of Trieste at the end of the year.
Allen/Ivy
Message from France to England
Ivy:
Welcome back. I am regretting that I gave you so much freedom last
fall. You will establish your stalemate line so quickly. That part I
do not mind because I was not going to move North. But it forces me to
expend so many resources to hold my end of it. That still leaves Russia
quite open in the North. I did notice that he did not remove his units
in Scandinavia. That surprised me. Any reason that you know?
Can you establish your stalemate line a bit further back to give us each
some comfort zone?
--King Roger XIII
Message from England to France
King Roger,
>Can you establish your stalemate line a bit further back to give us each
>some comfort zone?
That's a reasonable request which I will grant, inasmuch as we have not
been engaged in any serious warfare for a long, long time. I will instruct
my admirals to stay close to the English shoreline in the North Atlantic,
Irish Sea, and the Channel, far away from your ships.
Ivy/Allen
Message from England to Italy and Russia
Just so there is no misunderstanding here are my moves:
England: Fleet North Sea SUPPORT Army Holland -> Belgium.
England: Fleet English Channel SUPPORT Army Holland -> Belgium.
England: Fleet Norway HOLD.
England: Army Berlin SUPPORT Italian Army Bohemia -> Munich.
England: Fleet Irish Sea SUPPORT Fleet English Channel.
England: Army Ruhr SUPPORT Army Holland -> Belgium.
England: Army Holland -> Belgium.
England: Fleet Liverpool -> North Atlantic Ocean.
I do not actually know what the Italian army in Bohemia is doing.
Allen/Ivy
Message from France to England
Ivy:
>I will instruct
>my admirals to stay close to the English shoreline
>in the North Atlantic,
>Irish Sea, and the Channel, far away from your ships.
OK, OK, you could have just politely told me to go jump
in the Mid-Atlantic Ocean :-) I may have to just
encourage you to look for one farther back ;-)
--King Roger XIII
Message from England to Master
Doug,
My 1913 report:
************
The year 1913 began with uncharacteristic silence from Russia. I
anticipated the worst and got it. He occupied two of my supply centers,
Norway and Denmark, while advancing Warsaw->Silesia to pressure
Berlin. Fortunately I had countered with NAO->Norwegian Sea and
Ruhr->Kiel, abandoning my defense line against France. I think Russia's
moves were poorly thought out and impulsive. Did he really expect me to
defend against England and permit Russia to consume my centers?
Russia's explanation was lame, insulting even. He was worried that I might
attack him and was engaged in "forward defense." It was becoming
increasingly difficult to talk to him. He insisted that I move back to
defend against France and said he would retreat from Norway and Denmark. I
said his words were worthless, and although I rather thought he was going
to back down (he did), I refused to agree to retreat back to Ruhr and
NAO. This I was able to say and do, because France calmly told me that he
was not going to try to take advantage of the two holes I had created in
Ruhr and NAO. France easily believed. He is the sort of player who hates
a lie and who proceeds very carefully.
So all went well with England and Russia in the fall of 1913. Italy,
however, shocked me -- and probably Russia and England also. The moves
agreed to would have given France an additional setback. The French army
in Rumania would have been destroyed, making it very difficult for France
to be effective in the southeast. Italy, however, made totally different
moves. This gave France 3 units! It actually cost Russia a unit on a turn
in which I thought Russia was going to grow. I was so concerned with
Russia's expected growth that I threw in Berlin->Kiel at the last
minute. But Italy had attacked Kiel as well and we bounced. Had Kiel
fallen, Russia actually would have lost two units. There is no telling how
angry he would have been had that happened. As it is, Russia's personality
is deteriorating by the minute.
Russia destroyed Silesia instead of Finland or Sweden, units that are
relatively worthless against France. France now has 16 units, but his
position in the southeast is highly vulnerable. Any decent set of
coordinates moves between England, Italy, and Russia would set back
France. Unfortunately, the personal relations with Russia are now
horrible. He argues and argues and bullies. He and Italy have not gotten
along for some time. Each lies to the other and makes moves the other does
not expect. I too have had enough. I actually told Russia that I did not
enjoy playing Diplomacy with him. Italy thanked me for that message.
Although we do not get along, Russia and I presumably both want to weaken
France. Italy, however, would be in danger of elimination if the French
threat disappeared. Italy is best off if France remains so strong that it
remains dangerous to harm Italy.
It is still not possible for France to win unless one of England, Russia,
or Italy gets so disgusted that they throw the game to France. This is
entirely possible.
Allen
Message from Russia to England and Italy
Gentlemen,
I have altered my orders to Alb S Bud-Ser, Bud-Ser, Gal-Bud, Sev-Arm,
Ukr-Sev, Fin-StP, Swe S Nwy. I think the position in Arm is important
enough to allow Rum to retreat when we take it this Fall, and Bud-Ser
serves to split the French forces in two. We should still be able to take
Rum and Tri this Fall. I should be online for another couple of hours,
if you have questions, comments or concerns.
Nick.
England: Army Berlin SUPPORT Italian Army Bohemia → Munich (*void*)
England: Fleet English Channel SUPPORT Army Holland → Belgium (*cut*)
England: Army Holland → Belgium
England: Fleet Irish Sea SUPPORT Fleet English Channel
England: Fleet Liverpool → North Atlantic Ocean (*bounce*)
England: Fleet North Sea SUPPORT Army Holland → Belgium
England: Fleet Norway HOLD
England: Army Ruhr SUPPORT Army Holland → Belgium (*cut*)
France: Fleet Brest → English Channel (*bounce*)
France: Fleet Bulgaria (south coast) → Aegean Sea
France: Army Burgundy → Ruhr (*bounce*)
France: Fleet Constantinople → Black Sea
France: Army Marseilles → Piedmont
France: Fleet Mid-Atlantic Ocean → North Atlantic Ocean (*bounce*)
France: Army Paris → Picardy (*bounce*)
France: Army Picardy → Belgium (*bounce*)
France: Army Piedmont → Tyrolia
France: Army Rumania → Sevastopol (*bounce*)
France: Fleet Spain (south coast) SUPPORT Fleet Western Mediterranean → Mid-Atlantic Ocean
France: Army Trieste → Serbia (*bounce*)
France: Fleet Tunis → Ionian Sea
France: Army Venice → Apulia
France: Fleet Western Mediterranean → Mid-Atlantic Ocean (*bounce*)
Italy: Army Bohemia → Galicia
Italy: Army Munich → Silesia
Italy: Army Vienna SUPPORT Army Bohemia → Galicia
Russia: Army Albania SUPPORT Army Budapest → Serbia
Russia: Army Budapest → Serbia
Russia: Army Finland → St Petersburg
Russia: Army Galicia → Budapest
Russia: Army Sevastopol → Armenia
Russia: Fleet Sweden SUPPORT English Fleet Norway
Russia: Army Ukraine → Sevastopol (*bounce*)
|