|
|
Message from Russia to Italy
Roberto,
> Message from Italy to Russia in 'titleist':
>
> I've been trying to stop the French solo for as long as I can remember.
> I've run into resistance at every corner however. I am open to
cooperating
> but if you tell me you are going to do something you can't blame me if I
> 'accidentally' end up cutting your support.
Care to explain how Ank-Arm, Bla-Sev contributes to stopping the French
Solo, or even Vie-Bud, for that matter? I did order Bud-Rum as discussed,
but since I had ordered Sev S Bud-Rum, Ukr-Gal, Sil-Gal, that order
wouldn't have worked, either. Then, after Ivy wrote and questioned why
you wanted Bud-Rum, I started looking and came to the conclusion that you
were looking to force me to disband, by allowing Rum-Ser to bounce Tri-Ser
as I lost Tri to France, Vie to you, and Kiel to England, so I changed back,
not expecting you to cut Bud S and Sev S.
> I have no real desire to cooperate to stop a French solo if it means the
game
> ends in a draw without Italy.
I understand that, which is why I suggest that you hold Mun and take Kiel or
Berlin, rather than Holland.
> Yes, I imagine Allen still holds hope for winning the tournament but I
doubt
> it will happen. Where is his growth potential? From you and I and that
> just pushes Roger to his solo. He suggested Kie-Hol because your builds
> are much more critical in preventing the French solo.
If you're in Hol, Allen can take it at will, and Munich without much effort.
If I
had disbanded my Fleet, Swe and StP become "available" to Allen, and I'm
unlikely to throw the game to Roger over a couple of Centers.
Nick.
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 Russia
An anonymous telegram arrives at the French Ministry of War:
(BEGIN MESSAGE)
F WESTERN MEDITERRANEAN SUPPORT F SPAIN (SOUTH COAST) TO MID-ATLANTIC OCEAN
F MID-ATLANTIC OCEAN TO BREST
A PICARDY TO PARIS
A BURGUNDY SUPPORT F BREST TO PICARDY
F SPAIN (SOUTH COAST) TO MID-ATLANTIC OCEAN
A PARIS TO GASCONY
F BREST TO PICARDY
A MARSEILLES SUPPORT A BURGUNDY
INCREASE PRESSURE ENGLISH CHANNEL (STOP)
STRAIN DEFENSE BELGIUM (STOP)
ENCOURAGE RUSSIAN OFFENSIVE SCANDINAVIA (STOP)
(END MESSAGE)
Message [from Russia] to France
An anonymous telegram arrives at the French Ministry of War:
(BEGIN MESSAGE)
F WESTERN MEDITERRANEAN SUPPORT F SPAIN (SOUTH COAST) TO MID-ATLANTIC OCEAN
F MID-ATLANTIC OCEAN TO BREST
A PICARDY TO PARIS
A BURGUNDY SUPPORT F BREST TO PICARDY
F SPAIN (SOUTH COAST) TO MID-ATLANTIC OCEAN
A PARIS TO GASCONY
F BREST TO PICARDY
A MARSEILLES SUPPORT A BURGUNDY
INCREASE PRESSURE ENGLISH CHANNEL (STOP)
STRAIN DEFENSE BELGIUM (STOP)
ENCOURAGE RUSSIAN OFFENSIVE SCANDINAVIA (STOP)
(END MESSAGE)
Message from Italy to France
Vienna has been ordered to support Rumania to Budapest. Let me know if you
would prefer something different.
Roberto
Message from France to Italy
Roberto:
OK, you removed both the fleets. I am guessing that you have chosen to
consolidate your power? You are hoping to become a viable part of the
coalition?
So should my response should be to fall back from the area where you
have your units?
Please let me know what you are planning or hoping and we can see where
that leads us.
--King Roger XIII
Message from France to Russia
Nick:
Well, it looks like Italy opened the door for us to scramble around
fighting each other. I will have to look for a way to extract myself
from the areas where he has his holdings.
I do not expect you to attack him in the spring, but you should leave
yourself as best positioned to finish him off in the fall as you can.
You may not be able to get at Munich if Ivy protects; but if he is
reduced down to 1 unit by the end of the year, he is finished.
I will write more late. I have to go play peacemaker at home.
--King Roger XIII
Message from France to Italy
Roberto:
I sent my note before I read your note. Read it in that light. Perhaps
your note partially answered mine.
I really need to set up the board before I discuss specifics. I just do
not know when I will get the time.
Thanks for the information about Vienna.
--King Roger XIII
Message from Russia to France
> Message from France to Russia in 'titleist':
> I will write more later. I have to go play peacemaker at home.
Le Dauphin, Xavier, and Josephine at each other's throats again? ;^}
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 Observer to Observer
I was campaigning against the French win in hopes that by
wishin' and hopin', they would stop him, but Mr. Roger
has proven in these last few game years how he is playing
on a different planet than Allen or Eric.... not to even
mention Italy.... where has his head been??
Oh well, lookin' bad (or good, depending on your point of
view) now.
Jim-Bob
PS A great time was had by all at Doug's house on Saturday,
but Doug SHOULD have been crushed by Mel's and my great
"take all the German centers" stab..... but the dying
Turk miswrote his order....
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 France to Russia
Nick:
>Le Dauphin, Xavier, and Josephine at each other's throats again?
The Queen was adding her voice into the fray.
Your note made me realize that those three matched my family, a girl and
two boys. Of course when I started the game I was playing one (or two)
of them and never intended to be the parent. :-)
Thanks for telling me about Kiel. I found it interesting that England
was trying to do to you what said that you should have done him: take
the centers that you wanted and counted on him having to accept it
rather than lose.
--King Roger XIII
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 Russia to France
King Roger,
> >Le Dauphin, Xavier, and Josephine at each other's throats again?
> The Queen was adding her voice into the fray.
Ah, joy... ;^}
> Your note made me realize that those three matched my family, a girl
> and two boys. Of course when I started the game I was playing one
> (or two) of them and never intended to be the parent. :-)
Ah, I thought it was intentional. 8-) (You'll notice I never mention
Nicholas's and Alexandra's daughters, since I have only one child.)
> Thanks for telling me about Kiel. I found it interesting that England
> was trying to do to you what said that you should have done him:
> take the centers that you wanted and counted on him having to
> accept it rather than lose.
Yes, we're having the same argument about this Spring. EI are claiming
they're only interest is in stopping you, but they are more interested in
taking Kiel than in attacking you.
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 Russia to Italy
Roberto,
> > 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.
*sigh* Again, France is at 16 Centers, if I screw you at this point, France
solos. Why would I do that? As for our checkered history, I'm sure I could
find numerous occassions where you did not order as you said you would,
starting with Gal-War in S1909M and ending with Bla-Sev, Ank-Arm last
Fall. If you take Tri, and I take Rum, and perhaps Ser, France drops to
14 or 15 Centers, what advantage would I bring myself by betraying you?
> 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.
Ok, take Kiel, and wait for Ivy to eliminate you. If France doesn't solo
this
year or next, Ivy will take you out, and you're giving me no reason to even
argue against it.
Nick.
Message from Italy to Russia
> Ok, take Kiel, and wait for Ivy to eliminate you. If France doesn't
> solo this year or next, Ivy will take you out,
Again, you are free to believe what you want to believe. This is an opinion
and nothing more.
> and you're giving me no reason to even argue against it.
Perhaps that outcome is acceptable to me.
Roberto
Message from Russia to Italy
Roberto,
> Message from Italy to Russia in 'titleist':
>
> > Ok, take Kiel, and wait for Ivy to eliminate you. If France doesn't
> > solo this year or next, Ivy will take you out,
>
> Again, you are free to believe what you want to believe. This is an
> opinion and nothing more.
*shrug* I suppose Ivy could be lying to me about his intentions, but that
seems both pointless and counter-productive.
> > and you're giving me no reason to even argue against it.
>
> Perhaps that outcome is acceptable to me.
Whatever. I hope you enjoy the rest of the game as Ivy's lackey.
Nick.
Message from France to Italy
Roberto:
Would you be willing to support Venice to Trieste instead
of Rumania to Budapest?
You what would drive Nick insane? If you ended up in one
of his home supply centers again :-) If there is anyway
you can pull that off, it would be enjoyable to witness
:-)
So are you getting Kiel or is Nick insisting that no one
get it?
--King Roger XIII
Message from France to Russia
Nick:
(I never got a confirmation for this, perhaps I failed to
send it? Sorry if it is a duplicate.)
Of course they want to take Kiel. They want to reduce
you to a harmless state; declaw you. That way you will
be less a pain in their backside :-) This of course
makes it less likely for Italy to be eliminated as well.
If Ivy can pick up enough forces and he can get you to
hold me back in the south, who knows where he might go?
I know that his primary goals is preventing a solo; but
why not pick up some centers on the way?
Hey, I thought of you on the way into work today. On
they radio they played that old song about the Nuclear
Engineering student.... "my future's so bright, I gotta
wear shades" :-) I said that line to you a long time
ago. It is funny how words in a Diplomacy game can later
make you think about people that you know only via the
internet :-)
I suppose that you and Ivy have your plan all set, or are
you still negotiating?
--King Roger XIII
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 Russia to France
King Roger,
>Of course they want to take Kiel. They want to reduce
>you to a harmless state; declaw you. That way you will
>be less a pain in their backside :-)
Naw, as long as I can send press I'll be a pain in
their backsides. ;^}
>This of course makes it less likely for Italy to be eliminated as well.
Oh, I disagree. The moment I reduce you to 13
Centers or less, Ivy will eliminate Italy and
take Swe, StP and War for the tournament victory.
>Hey, I thought of you on the way into work today. On they radio they played
>that old song about the
>Nuclear Engineering student.... "my future's so bright, I gotta wear
>shades" :-) I said that line to you a long time ago. It is funny how
>words
>in a Diplomacy game can later make you think about
>people that you know only via the internet :-)
Yes, I recall you quoting Timbukthree. 8-)
>I suppose that you and Ivy have your plan all set, or are you still
>negotiating?
No, we're still arguing. 8-(
Nick.
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 France to Russia
Nick:
>Oh, I disagree. The moment I reduce you to 13
>Centers or less, Ivy will eliminate Italy and
>take Swe, StP and War for the tournament victory.
It is funny how the risk for the tourney victory goes
from me to you to Allen. It has been quite a roll
lately. He did thank me for making his position viable
again and allowing him to do some diplomacy. Perhaps
this is what he meant. I always thought he was doing
diplomacy (keeping you and Italy in check), so I did not
see the difference.
>Since no-one is enjoying this game anymore, I'm
>setting draw, and I invite you to do so, as well.
What is up?
>Naw, as long as I can send press I'll be a pain in
>their backsides. ;^}
:-)
I guess that the Judge does not allow one to filter
messages. But there is probably a way for someone who
has a decent mail program and some understanding on how
to use it. I am not included in either of those
categories! Then again, I am just happy to get any mail.
--King Roger XIII
Message from France to Russia
Nick:
Ofcourse they want to take Kiel. They want to reduce you
to a harmless state; declaw you. That way you will be
less a pain in their backside :-) This of course makes
it less likely for Italy to be eliminated as well. If
Ivy can pick up enough forces and he can get you to hold
me back in the south, who knows where he might go?
I know that his primary goals is preventing a solo; but
why not pick up some centers on the way?
Hey, I thought of you on the way into work today. On
they radio they played that old song about the Nuclear
Engineering student.... "my future's so bright, I gotta
wear shades" :-) I said that line to you a long time
ago. It is funny how words in a Diplomacy game can later
make you think about people that you know only via the
internet :-)
I suppose that you and Ivy have your plan all set, or are
you still negotiating?
--King Roger XIII
Message from Russia to France
Roger,
> >Oh, I disagree. The moment I reduce you to 13
> >Centers or less, Ivy will eliminate Italy and
> >take Swe, StP and War for the tournament victory.
>It is funny how the risk for the tourney victory goes
>from me to you to Allen.
Of course, before you it was Ken. 8-) But then,
isn't that what 'Balance of Power' play is all about?
> > Since no-one is enjoying this game anymore, I'm
> > setting draw, and I invite you to do so, as well.
>What is up?
Allen and Ken don't appreciate my style, and I'm
tired of arguing with them. *shrug* If you were
asked to give an honest assessment of my tactical
ability and style, my negotiating style, my
"approach" to the game, and my strengths and
weaknesses as a Diplomacy player what would you
say?
> >Naw, as long as I can send press I'll be a pain in
> >their backsides. ;^}
>:-)
>I guess that the Judge does not allow one to filter
>messages. But there is probably a way for someone who has a decent mail
>program and some understanding on how to use it.
Yes, you'd have to set up a rule to search the
message text for "Message from Russia to France in
'titleist':", and file it "appropriately". 8-)
Eric.
Message from Italy to Russia
>
> *shrug* I suppose Ivy could be lying to me about his
> intentions, but that seems both pointless and counter-productive.
>
*shrug* I suppose Ivy could be lying to ME about his intentions, but that
seems both pointless and counter-productive.
I tend to believe what comes to me as 'Message from England to Italy' about
England a lot more than 'Message from Russia to Italy' about England. Let's
see, where have I heard a similar argument?
If I recall, Roger lied to you about his intentions right? I'd say there's
a reasonable chance Allen is lying to you about his intentions as well. Or
are you that gullible?
While I'm on the subject, there is another thing that makes me mad about you
and your style of play. At times, you are extremely hypocritical. Case in
point.
> 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
You have done nothing productive to assist in my survival. In fact, I hear
rumors from both EF that your one main goal in this game is my elimination.
In fact, you publicly announced this message yourself. All of the sudden,
I'm supposed to be gracious and accept your support for my non-elimination.
No thanks, I don't want your support. I would rather cut my hair with a
cheese grater.
However, here is your logic flaw. You say you don't want Ivy to eliminate
me and yet you argue, vehemently, against Ber-Sil-Boh. From my point of
view, that move makes it much more difficult for Ivy to eliminate me as Den,
Hol, and Ber are all unoccupied English centers available for retreats.
Don't you think I'd see that attack coming? If France is in Bur and Tyr,
don't you think I could come up with a way to prevent Ivy from executing his
plan? In one breath, you fear Ivy advancing against your northern centers.
In the next breath, you fear Ivy eliminating me if I'm in Kiel and Munich.
In the next breath, you argue against English suggested moves that help
prevent both those occurrences from happening.
If you are so fearful of my elimination and of Ivy's advances in the north,
you will make the moves I suggested for the north and allow ber-sil-boh
unopposed. Trust me, your fears will be lessened.
> The advantage I see in you taking Rum is tactical, in that it allows
Sev-Arm
> this Spring,
Then, to cap it off, you argue that I should move to Rumania. If you wanted
to move Sev-Arm this spring you should have not disbanded Silesia. Then,
the Silesian army could have done exactly what you are asking the Bohemian
army to do. How's that phrase go......I'm not here to fix your
mistakes.......or something along those lines.
If I was interested in Rumania or some other eastern center don't you think
I might have kept the Black Sea fleet?
Take a step back and think about what I am going to say next and see if you
can see any logical flaw?
You are arguing that if I take Rumania and leave you Kiel, that will be
better than if I take Kiel and you take Rumania. You are arguing that I
stand a good chance of being eliminated if I am in Kiel rather than in
Rumania. My unit in Kiel would not have a single enemy unit next to it. My
unit in Rumania would be surrounded by not 1, not 2, not 3, not 4, but 5
Russian units and not 1, but 2 French units in Bul and Black Sea. My unit
is Kiel would have 3 currently unoccupied centers to retreat to. My unit in
Rumania would not have a retreat option. My unit in Kiel would border my
unit in Munich. Rumania's closest friend would be in Trieste (another
Italian unit surrounded by French/Russian forces without a retreat option).
Your compiler is fine. There are no syntax errors. But, do yourself a
favor, and fire your Quality Assurance personnel.
The God's honest truth of the matter is, I wanted you to disband the Swedish
fleet because I see it as a threat to my survival in Kiel.
---------------------------------------------------
I feel the need to respond to the next topic:
> As for our checkered history, I'm sure I could find numerous
> occassions where you did not order as you said you would,
> starting with Gal-War in S1909M and ending with Bla-Sev, Ank-Arm
> last Fall.
There is a huge difference in our checkered history.
First, I'll refute your case examples that you provide. In S1909M, I said I
would retreat Gal away from War if you agreed to support Ukr-Sev, at the
time held by Turkey. You failed to adequately agree to this condition and
thus the IF statement evaluated to false. Thus, I never told you what
Galicia would do. Thus, you cannot say that "[I] did not order as [I] said
[I] would".
Last fall, do you have a press message in your files that says Black Sea
will do this, Ankara will do that, Vienna will do this? No, you don't. In
fact, I sent you the only sure-fire way to destroy the French army (Ukr supp
Bud-Rum). What you failed to realize is that, in my own way, I did tell you
my moves for F1913M, namely Vie->Bud and Bla->Sev. I do have a message in
my files for F1913M from Russia to Italy that states explicitly that you are
moving Bud->Rum.
Now, go thru your files and see if you can find an example of where I
publicly (or privately) stated my moves and then did not follow them to the
letter. I could find 5, perhaps more, examples of Russian treachery in just
the last 4 years.
If that wasn't enough, you not only lied to me about your moves but you took
my moves and, in coordination with another power, used them against me. Do
you have evidence that, even if I did lie to you, that I sent your moves to
another power and used them against you in cooperation with that power? The
answer is no because I haven't. In my mind, deception is one thing; but
sending a supposed allies moves to the enemy, gloating about it, and then
crying over spilled milk is a whole other can of worms.
Here is a complete history of my deception in this game. I think you'll
find it quite amusing.
Austria: once. saved your bacon as he was attacking you
Turkey: twice. saved your bacon as he was attacking you
Germany: once. saved your bacon as he was attacking you: you remember his
last dying breath of Sil->War? I had agreed to support that move.
England: once. a long time ago - no effect on your position at the time
France: once. saved your bacon as I could have thrown the game
Russia: your perspective of how many times I've deceived you is probably
more than my perspective of how many times I've deceived you
"Deception" is defined, in this case, as telling somebody you'll make a
specific order and then not following thru with that order.
-----------------------------------------------------
I also feel the need to respond to the next topic:
> 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
We both know this is patently false. I sent you a message over five hours
prior to the deadline. My apologies if our schedules didn't match up over
the New Year's Eve weekend but please don't come off as if I ignored you
when in fact that was not the case.
Roberto
Message from Italy to France
>
> Would you be willing to support Venice to Trieste instead
> of Rumania to Budapest?
>
If you would prefer, sure. Let me know your final decision.
> You what would drive Nick insane? If you ended up in one
> of his home supply centers again :-) If there is anyway
> you can pull that off, it would be enjoyable to witness
> :-)
>
Believe me, I'm trying. :)
Roberto
Message from France to Italy
Roberto:
> If you would prefer, sure. Let me know your final
>decision.
We appear to have several days to think about it. Ivy is
out of town and I suspect that no final decisions will be
made until he returns. Spend some time teaching your
daughter how to write C code :-) OK, don't do that, just
read read read to her. (Hmmm, I hope you said daughter
and not child? sorry if I goofed that up.)
Whatever we decide, I prefer to make moves where I need
to depend the least on support from others. Ivy is very
good at making peace between you and Nick. :-)
Also, is there nothing else that you would want to do
with that army, like support Bohemia to Galicia? :-)
Welcome to 2002, a palindrome year.
--King Roger XIII
Message from France to Russia
Nick:
As I have told Allen on at least two occassions, I have
no trouble dealing with you. I get along with you quite
well. I admit that it can be frustrating at times, but I
prefer your approach and effort to that of many many
other players that I have met, some of them in this game.
Perhaps the best thing to do is limit the communication
with them for a while. Simply tell them the moves that
you will make and wish them luck. You would probably
want to explain that approach a bit, so it does not make
things worse.
--King Roger XIII
PS: Welcome to 2002, a palindrome year.
Message from Italy to France
>
> So are you getting Kiel or is Nick insisting that no one
> get it?
>
I think I forgot to answer this question.
The answer is both. :)
Roberto
Message from Russia to Italy
Roberto,
On the subject of deception:
>Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2001 14:16:34 -0500
>Message from Italy to Russia in 'titleist':
>The only sure fire way to annihilate the Rumanian army is as follows:
>bud-rum
>sev s bud-rum
>ukr s bud-rum (or supp sev)
>sil-gal
>tri-ser
>bla-bul/ec
>ank-con
Now, while you can argue that you never committed
to these moves, they were your stated plan for
destroying Rum, and I agreed to order Bud-Rum,
so there was at least an implied obligation on
your part to order Bla-Bul/EC to block his retreat.
As you yourself gave me the option to not support
Bud-Rum with Ukr, you cannot legitimately blame
anyone but yourself that our attack on Rum did
not work. I did, in fact, change my orders to
Sev S Bud-Rum, Sil-Gal, Ukr-Gal to destroy Rum,
but given your orders, that would not have worked,
either. After making the change I received a
message from Ivy questioning your sincerity, so I
looked at the orders again, and decided that it
made more sense to take both Ser and Rum from
France, but either order set would have resulted
in you disbanding two, and me one, because you
felt it was more important to attack my Units and
Centers, than to attack France.
Nick.
Message from Italy to Russia
> because you
> felt it was more important to attack my Units and
> Centers, than to attack France.
>
A correction that you are failing to see or mention. They were your units
but my centers. That's a rather large difference as the rules of the game
go.
You are correct, there was an implied agreement on my part; however, the
bottom line still remains. You had an opportunity to remove the Rumanian
army this past fall and you did not exercise that opportunity. You instead
chose the path of trying to land in 3 of my centers. So, yes, I can
legitimately blame someone other than myself.
You are also correct in that my moves were designed to make you disband and
me not; much like your moves were designed to make me disband and you build.
The difference being, you had two units that were/are effectively useless at
stopping the stated goal. I did not.
I also have word, from a credible source, that you actually knew about
France's move Ser-Rum in S1913M but failed to mention that to me or failed
to bounce the move yourself. So whose fault is it that France got to
Rumania in the first place?
Roberto
Message from Russia to Italy
Roberto,
>I suppose Ivy could be lying to ME about his intentions, but that
>seems both pointless and counter-productive.
Hardly. We're all here hoping to solo, or share in a
draw, and win the tournament. If I keep France from
winning and knock him down to 12 Centers, and Ivy
takes Kiel and Munich from you, and Swe, StP and War
from me, he'll have 13 Centers, and the tournament
victory.
>At times, you are extremely hypocritical.
> > 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
>I hear rumors from both EF that your one main goal
>in this game is my elimination.
Do you think that I always lie to you, and always tell
them the truth? Are you that gullible? 8-)
>I'm supposed to be gracious and accept your support for my non-elimination.
> I don't want your support.
You don't have to be gracious. You're at three Centers,
I'm offering you a chance at being in the Draw because
with you in Germany, it will be more difficult for
England to attack me and try for the tournament victory.
It's a perfectly selfish reason, and should therefore be
a great deal more credible than Ivy's reasons.
>You say you don't want Ivy to eliminate
>me and yet you argue, vehemently, against Ber-Sil-Boh.
I don't want Ivy to eliminate you, but I also don't
want him adjacent to my Home Centers, since he has
a perfectly valid reason to take them.
> > The advantage I see in you taking Rum is tactical, in that it allows
> > Sev-Arm this Spring,
>Then, to cap it off, you argue that I should move to Rumania.
As I said, from my perspective, with the goal of
stopping France foremost in my mind, Mun S Boh-Tyl,
Alb & Bud S Vie-Tri makes the most sense. There are
advantages and disadvantages to all three options I
listed, Boh-Rum allows Sev-Arm, but leaves your Units
separated and exposed, Boh-Mun, Mun-Kie gives you a
safe position until France's solo threat is reduced,
but it does nothing to reduce that threat, and
Boh-Tyl gives you a compact position close to your
Home Centers, but it relies on my support to get
you there.
>You are arguing that if I take Rumania and leave you Kiel, that will be
>better than if I take Kiel and you take Rumania.
Yes, in that Boh-Gal-Rum, (or Boh-Vie, Vie-Bud,
Bud-Gal, ... Sev-Arm, followed by Ukr-Rum) would
put a real strain on the French defense in the
Med, and theorectically, stopping the French Solo
is our shared goal. It, obviously presents
long-term strategic difficulties for you, but I've
never claimed that it was our best move, or your
safest move, I simply listed the advantages I saw
in it for your consideration.
>I wanted you to disband the Swedish
>fleet because I see it as a threat to my survival in Kiel.
Your survival in Kiel doesn't mean squat if France
solos.
> > 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
>We both know this is patently false. I sent you a message over five hours
>prior to the deadline. My apologies if our schedules didn't match up over
>the New Year's Eve weekend but please don't come off as if I ignored you
>when in fact that was not the case.
You have become famous in this game for waiting until
a few hours before the deadline to begin to discuss
moves. This makes it difficult, if not impossible to
reach a concensus. I disbanded based on your silence
up until the time I submitted my orders. If you want
to influence my choices, don't assume I'll be available
at the last minute.
Nick.
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 France
Roger,
>As I have told Allen on at least two occassions, I have
>no trouble dealing with you. I get along with you quite
>well. I admit that it can be frustrating at times, but I
>prefer your approach and effort to that of many many
>other players that I have met, some of them in this game.
Thanks. Hopefully once the game ends you'll be willing
to answer the questions at more length. This game has
certainly been a learning experience for me, and I think
I'll have to take some time off after it's over and
digest what I've learned. Perhaps I'll be able to take
my game to the next level. (Either that, or I'll stop
playing. 8-) )
>Perhaps the best thing to do is limit the communication
>with them for a while. Simply tell them the moves that
>you will make and wish them luck. You would probably
>want to explain that approach a bit, so it does not make
>things worse.
Sounds like an idea. Thanks again.
Eric.
Message from Italy to Russia
>
> If I keep France from winning and knock him down to
> 12 Centers, and Ivy takes Kiel and Munich from you,
> and Swe, StP and War from me, he'll have 13 Centers,
> and the tournament victory.
>
Everything is black and white isn't it. You have a simple answer to your
dilemna. Don't knock France down to 12 centers. If that doesn't work for
you, then ask yourself why Roger wouldn't support my position in Germany if
Ivy was in the process of winning the tournament?
> I'm offering you a chance at being in the Draw because
> with you in Germany,
But you just sent a message, no a threat, that you don't want me in Germany.
So which is it?
It's like you forget what you're arguing for sometimes. I can only do one
thing. At times, you seem overly passionate that I end up in Rumania. At
times, you seem overly passionate that I'm in Kiel. At times, you seem
overly passionate that I'm in Trieste. I'm not physically able to do all
three. Please, for my own sanity, pick one and stick with it.
>
> I don't want Ivy to eliminate you, but I also don't
> want him adjacent to my Home Centers, since he has
> a perfectly valid reason to take them.
>
With all due respect, you're way overboard on this one. You couldn't be
further out in leftfield if you tried.
>
> You have become famous in this game for waiting until
> a few hours before the deadline to begin to discuss
> moves. This makes it difficult, if not impossible to
> reach a concensus. I disbanded based on your silence
> up until the time I submitted my orders. If you want
> to influence my choices, don't assume I'll be available
> at the last minute.
>
Pardon me for having a life. Pardon me for taking the time to carefully
study all the options before I send press. Pardon me for wanting to do
something with my family on New Year's Eve weekend. I don't assume anybody
is available at the last minute but I also don't go around saying somebody
didn't send me squat when in fact I received something from them.
Ask your friends what would have sounded better? What you said or ......
"It was an unfortunate set of circumstances that I was unable to read
Italy's message prior to the deadline. Had I read it, it may have
influenced my disband. Hopefully we can move forward and keep our goal in
mind."
I'd be shocked if they chose your version.
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 Russia to Italy
Roberto,
> > If I keep France from winning and knock him down to
> > 12 Centers, and Ivy takes Kiel and Munich from you,
> > and Swe, StP and War from me, he'll have 13 Centers,
> > and the tournament victory.
>
> Everything is black and white isn't it. You have a simple answer to
> to your dilemna. Don't knock France down to 12 centers.
For me to stalemate France, and have a chance to win the tournament,
I need to take Turkey plus Rum and Bul, which reduces France to 12,
if no Austrian Centers change hands.
> If that doesn't work for you, then ask yourself why Roger wouldn't
> support my position in Germany if Ivy was in the process of winning
> the tournament?
Because a four-way would most likely lower Roger's JDPR, and Judge
culture values smaller draws over larger ones.
> It's like you forget what you're arguing for sometimes. I can only do
> one thing. At times, you seem overly passionate that I end up in
> Rumania. At times, you seem overly passionate that I'm in Kiel. At
> times, you seem overly passionate that I'm in Trieste. I'm not
> physically able to do all three. Please, for my own sanity, pick one
> and stick with it.
Fair enough. It is a failing of mine that I do tend toward absolutism, but
there are advantages for me in you taking Rum, Tri or Ber/Kie. Of the
three, I feel Tri makes the most sense, though, so I will stick with that.
> > I don't want Ivy to eliminate you, but I also don't
> > want him adjacent to my Home Centers, since he has
> > a perfectly valid reason to take them.
> With all due respect, you're way overboard on this one. You couldn't > be
further out in left-field if you tried.
Ivy has no intererest in winning the tournament? I believed that Roger
was no longer interested in a solo, and he took Ser , rather than
supporting me into Ser and Sev in S1912M, so from now on I'm going
to assume that everyone here is playing for the best result they can
achieve.
Nick.
Message from Italy to Russia
>
> For me to stalemate France, and have a chance to win the tournament,
> I need to take Turkey plus Rum and Bul, which reduces France to 12,
> if no Austrian Centers change hands.
>
And leaves you at 11 (Ivy has taken Kiel from me/you already). So, for you
to win the tourney, Austrian or Scandanavian centers have to change hand.
It's a miracle Allen didn't agree to fin-nor. [sarcasm mode off]
> > If that doesn't work for you, then ask yourself why Roger wouldn't
> > support my position in Germany if Ivy was in the process of winning
> > the tournament?
>
> Because a four-way would most likely lower Roger's JDPR, and Judge
> culture values smaller draws over larger ones.
>
So, are you saying that if I'm in Munich and France and England have 12
units each, Roger wouldn't issue support orders for Munich to hold? He'd
rather lose the tournament to save his JDPR and what some judge weenies
consider to be culture?
Out of curiousity, do you value smaller draws over larger ones? For the
most part, and especially in this game, I do not. If this game ended in a
4-way draw, I would not consider my success any better or worse than
Austria, Germany, or Turkey. We all lost the tournament. Judge culture and
Doug's rating system would consider my success better but that only has
value to those that think it has value.
>
> Ivy has no intererest in winning the tournament? I believed
> that Roger
> was no longer interested in a solo, and he took Ser , rather than
> supporting me into Ser and Sev in S1912M, so from now on I'm going
> to assume that everyone here is playing for the best result they can
> achieve.
>
That is a valid assumption. My point is, Ivy won't take Warsaw THIS turn.
In the future, maybe but now is not the time nor the place. He can't defend
it. You would be well within your rights to defend against his attack even
at the cost of a French solo. Ivy knows this. Ivy is the slow methodical
type. He doesn't want anybody after him. He wants to be friends with
everybody. He doesn't want his head higher than anybody elses for fear it
will get chopped off. Ber-Sil-War will not happen. I would stake my right
shoulder on it. [that one was for you Doug :) ] [sorry Eric, you'll
understand my attempt at humor in short order]
I'm still having trouble envisioning a scenario where Ivy takes
KIE/MUN/WAR/STP/SWE and Roger and you and I just sit back and let it happen.
Even if it did happen, how is England expected to defend Warsaw and Munich
from his side of the line?
Roberto
Message from Russia to Italy
Roberto,
> > For me to stalemate France, and have a chance to win the
> > tournament, I need to take Turkey plus Rum and Bul, which
> > reduces France to 12, if no Austrian Centers change hands.
> And leaves you at 11 (Ivy has taken Kiel from me/you already).
> So, for you to win the tourney, Austrian or Scandanavian centers
> have to change hand.
Okay, the odds are if I manage to take Turkey, I'd be able to take Vie
and Ser, as well, but the point I was trying to make was that if I attempt
to win the tournament, it puts the tournament within Ivy's grasp, as well.
> > Because a four-way would most likely lower Roger's JDPR, and
> > Judge culture values smaller draws over larger ones.
>
> So, are you saying that if I'm in Munich and France and England have
> 12 units each, Roger wouldn't issue support orders for Munich to hold?
> He'd rather lose the tournament to save his JDPR and what some judge
> weenies consider to be culture?
I don't know. I don't know how important his JDPR is to Roger, and I
don't know what value he places on draws of different sizes, but Judge
players, as a group, tend to favor smaller draws and improving their
rating, so it is a danger.
> Out of curiousity, do you value smaller draws over larger ones?
Generally speaking, yes. A Solo is better than a draw, a draw in which
you eliminated five opponents is better than one where you eliminated
two, and surviving in a Solo is better than being eliminated. Given that
this is a tournament, however, (and particularly since I'm the lowest rated
Power left in the game, so any draw will improve my rating), a four-way
where I win the tournament is better than a three-way where Allen or
Roger wins. Just as Center count is generally meaningless to me, but in
here and in the semi-finals, it was very significant.
> If this game ended in a 4-way draw, I would not consider my success
> any better or worse than Austria, Germany, or Turkey. We all lost the
> tournament. Judge culture and Doug's rating system would consider my
> success better but that only has value to those that think it has value.
I would argue that surviving to draw in this game is an accomplishment
regardless of your finish in the tournament. (And, of course, you'll finish
fourth in the tournament whether you're eliminated, or not, (unless we can
get you back into Venice.))
> My point is, Ivy won't take Warsaw THIS turn. In the future,
> maybe but now is not the time nor the place. He can't defend it.
If I order Ukr-Rum, as I have said I will, and Ivy orders Ber-Sil-War,
I would have to order Sev-Mos, Rum-Ukr to retake War next year,
and that would likely give Roger the game. If I do dislodge him from
War, and he retreats to Lvn, and he has ordered Nth-Den, I then have
to choose between defending StP and Swe.Is it worth it to me to lose
the game to prevent Ivy from winning the tournament? Frankly, I hope
that I don't have to make that choice.
> I'm still having trouble envisioning a scenario where Ivy takes
> KIE/MUN/WAR/STP/SWE and Roger and you and I just sit back
> and let it happen. Even if it did happen, how is England expected
> to defend Warsaw and Munich from his side of the line?
It obviously depends on how he does it, but here's one possibility,
suppose he takes War this year as you take Kiel, and I take Rum and
Ser, as Roger takes Ank and Vie. Roger stays at 16, I stay at 7, you
drop to 2, and Ivy builds his 9th. In 1915, I continue to battle France in
Austria, as Ivy convoys his build to Den and takes Swe or StP. I disband
the Fleet, or remain even due to gains in the South, Ivy builds again and
shifts to take StP. Do I throw the game to Roger at that point, or do I
beg Ivy to take StP with a Fleet and let me continue to keep Roger from
winning? Ivy takes StP with a Fleet, and I make some progress against
Roger, so he doesn't have an Army in Tyl or Boh. Ivy shifts and takes
Kiel from you. France is at 14 Centers, so even if you manage to give
him Mun, he doesn't win, and Ivy has A Ruh, A Kie, A Ber, so it makes
no sense for Roger to try for Mun. You're eliminated, Ivy's at 13, I'm
still at 7. Ivy threatens to take Mos unless I support him into a French
Center in Austria. I'm faced with the choice between watching them race
over my Centers for the Solo, or doing as Ivy wishes and taking the short
end of the three-way draw. This assumes that I value the draw more than
I value the tournament victory, but that's not an unreasonable bet to make.
So, from my perspective, I have to keep Ivy out of a position where he
can force me to make that choice. Hence my statement of intent regarding
this Spring and Fall.
Nick.
Message from France to France
End of Year Statement 1913
This year turned out quite well, despite the fact that I had no
expectations for it. After Italy's change of mind last fall and my
being reduced down to 13 units, I was honestly seeking only the 3-way
draw. I offered a friendly 3-way draw with England and Russia at
12-11-11 where the power with 12 centers would be determined randomly.
My offer was quite genuine. Neither took me up on it.
At first I said that I would not vote for the 4-way draw because I felt
that Italy should be eliminated. I had given him the choice of my solo
or an EFR draw. He did not follow through on his support for my solo,
therefore I felt it my duty to see him eliminated. Near the spring
deadline, I realized that I was being petty and that 3-way vs. 4-way,
there was no difference. But Russia did not want the 4-way at that
point.
I had told England and Russia my moves. They consisted of moves to take
Italian centers and to offer support to them to Italian centers. Russia
used that information quite effectively to make a power play and poised
himself to get 11 centers. Russia was suddenly poise to become the
dominant power and win the tournament (or perhaps even solo). England
and Italy must have reacted quite strongly to his move because in the
fall he backed away from all his moves. His actions actually helped me
quite a bit. England and Italy both focussed on Russia.
I choose to ask Italy for the help I wanted and told him honestly that
my preference was to work exclusively by myself and not risk needing
support from others, which could be betrayed. I basically politely told
him that I would not be helping him keep as many centers as possible and
he could choose to make sure that Russia had less of them or more of
them as he saw fit. This completely honest and upfront approached
yielded great dividends as Italy decided to make the moves that I
requested, despite what England and Russia expected him to do. Suddenly
I was up to 16 centers, when my expectations for that year were 12-14.
I could have been more aggressive and perhaps won (there were a set of
moves which would have done it). But I did not expect things to go so
well and I have decided to play completely upfront for the remainder of
the game. I will only not do as I say if it I see that it will propel
me to a forced win. I figure that I get just one last opportunity at
deception. Hopefully I can avoid it altogether.
For 1914, England, Russia, and Italy appear to be at each other's
throats, at least E&I vs. R. Therefore my plan is to just lay low, not
cause anyone to get upset with me, and hope for the best. I have to
decide where I put my effort though. Should it be a Northern push
(someone sent me an anonymous suggestion to get more fleets on the
Channel). Or should it be a Southern push to control the Balkans. In
the south, I am leaning towards a focus on protecting Turkey. I can
protect Italy and Turkey and then hope to pick at the Balkans with less
risk. But this may be a smaller shot at victory than a big push into
the Balkans and at Russia. But that big push risks causing cooperation
between EIR out of desperation. A more conservative approach may
keeping that sniping at each other?
At least the Italian fleets are gone. There is currently no threat to
my Mediterranean dominance. The down side is that I may see a Russian
army in Turkey. I would love to convoy an army from Marseilles or Italy
to Turkey. But I do not know if I can afford to use all the units
necessary to do it. I may have to set up some small convoy, perhaps
from Italy to Greece.
Roger
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 France to Russia
Nick:
As I write my EOY statement, I smile in remembering that the one that I
wrote for 1912 (before the fall moves actually). Just before I sent
them off I double checked the message and noticed that I had typed
'press to r' instead of 'press to f'. I send my EOY statements to
myself rather than master. Looking back it would have been funny, but
at the time I almost had an heart-attack. :-)
Let's see, do I owe you a response on anything? Nope, I guess that we
are all covered for now. I guess that I will end with a reminder that
you once offered to allow me to occupy one of your home centers, since I
was the only one in the game to never have done so. I hope to be taking
you up on that ;-) :-)
--King Roger XIII
Message from Russia to France
Roger,
> As I write my EOY statement, I smile in remembering that the one that I
> wrote for 1912 (before the fall moves actually). Just before I sent
> them off I double checked the message and noticed that I had typed
> 'press to r' instead of 'press to f'. I send my EOY statements to
> myself rather than master. Looking back it would have been funny, but
> at the time I almost had an heart-attack. :-)
*chuckle* Back in my early days of Judge Dip, I was playing Turkey for
the first time and since I had grown tired of the, "I look forward to
meeting
your Ambassadors, and to ever-lasting friendship between our nations.",
opening broadcasts, I announced the formation of the EEU, and declared
than the other nations had the option of joining the EEU, or being
incorperated into it. (The Union Steward, was Jamir "Jimmi" Hoffa.)
Austria joined, and we were courting Russia, while discussing options for
eliminating him if he didn't, and the Austrian Union Steward typed up a
message laying out a devastating attack on Russia, and typoed "press to r",
instead of "press to t". We had an interesting series of broadcasts
detailing
the hijacking of a train carrying a diplomatic courier, who was a minor
member of the royal family, by bandits, and the eventual discovery that the
bandits were in fact Russian agents, and they had killed the courier. 8-)
It was a lot of fun.
> Let's see, do I owe you a response on anything? Nope, I guess that we
> are all covered for now. I guess that I will end with a reminder that
> you once offered to allow me to occupy one of your home centers, since I
> was the only one in the game to never have done so. I hope to be taking
> you up on that ;-) :-)
Rum-Sev, Sev-Arm, perhaps? ;^}
Nick.
Message from France to Italy
Roberto:
Would not:
mun -> sil
boh -> gal s by vie
fall:
gal -> war s by sil
net you Warsaw this year? I guess it depends on where
Ukraine ends up. You may choose not to do this, but it
certainly is possible. I think that Ivy would allow you
to keep Munich. That leaves you with War, Mun, and Vie.
(There is also the possibility of Ank.)
I am still debating whether I move Con to BlS or Ank.
There is a chance that it may move out of Ank even if I
initially move there. The key is whether I decide to
focus on the Balkans or Turkey.
--King Roger XIII
Message from Italy to France
>
> Would not:
> mun -> sil
> boh -> gal s by vie
>
> fall:
> gal -> war s by sil
>
> net you Warsaw this year?
>
It would, except Ivy is probably going to move Ber->Sil to "plug the hole
left by the Silesia disband". BTW, I hope you get a chance after the game
to read S1914M press. It's rather quite amusing if I say so myself. Nick
is demanding that Ivy not move Ber->Sil since he thinks that will allow Ivy
to win the tournament since it's is so obvious that Ivy would then take
Warsaw in the fall. He's got this whole scenario dreamt up of how the game
would end 13-12-9 in England's favor. [You'd be the 12 part]
Oh, I asked him the following question. If the game were 12-12-9 and I
(Italy) had Munich, would Roger support my army or let Ivy take it to win
the tournament? His answer was he'd probably let Ivy take Munich since a
4-way would lower your JDPR and judge culture favors lesser draws. I'm
curious what the real answer is?
> I think that Ivy would allow you to keep Munich.
I doubt it, but I wouldn't care at that point. Of course, if he dislodged
me, I'd most likely have a retreat to Kiel eh.
> That leaves you with War, Mun, and Vie.
I think you're making some huge assumptions on Nick's moves.
Anyway, I'm rather not interested in having 3 centers that don't border each
other. I've got that now and look what kind of a mess I'm in. I'd rather
just have Kie and Mun than the 3 I've got now or the 3 you mentioned.
Whether you leave me Ankara is up to you. You're free to take it if you
wish.
Roberto
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 France to Italy
Roberto:
>
> It would, except Ivy is probably going to move Ber->Sil to "plug the hole
> left by the Silesia disband".
You have all day tomorrow to talk him out of it :-)
> BTW, I hope you get a chance after the game
> to read S1914M press. It's rather quite amusing if I say so myself.
That is not the first time that someone has told me that the press that I am
missing is quite good! I feel so left out :-( I think Ivy just mentioned that
Jan 1 was a particularly violent day for press. I will try to read it, but
there will be so much of it. I may have to give up Diplomacy for 3 months just
to find the time :-)
> Oh, I asked him the following question. If the game were 12-12-9 and I
> (Italy) had Munich, would Roger support my army or let Ivy take it to win
> the tournament? His answer was he'd probably let Ivy take Munich since a
> 4-way would lower your JDPR and judge culture favors lesser draws. I'm
> curious what the real answer is?
I would say that it could go either way. I have voted for the 4-way draw twice
and am not married to the idea that the draw must be reduced at all costs. But
if you were stuck on just one center you would probably get eliminated. Ivy and
I have discussed how a game should end and he said he generally follows the rule
of trying to solo or going for the smallest possible draw. He could probably
talk me into it. It would be more about how the game should end rather than
JDPR. A 4-way or 3-way will make little difference to me, I will lose a few
points either way - no big deal.
In the end it might come down to my not caring about eliminating you, but
someone else refusing to vote for the draw and I finally offer the support just
to get it over with. Ultimately you may want to hold a couple centers, but your
chances of surviving go up more than linearly.
> Anyway, I'm rather not interested in having 3 centers that don't border each
> other. I've got that now and look what kind of a mess I'm in. I'd rather
> just have Kie and Mun than the 3 I've got now or the 3 you mentioned.
> Whether you leave me Ankara is up to you. You're free to take it if you
> wish.
>
Your three centers could be Warsaw, Moscow, and St. Petes ;-) :-)
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 France
> > I'm curious what the real answer is?
>
> I would say that it could go either way.
>
I appreciate your candid answer. In a regular Dip game, I wouldn't even
have the asked the question. It's a no-brainer answer. However, in this
game and under my scenario, you would not win the tournament but Ivy would.
He would be crowned the champion and would be immortalized for life. Does
that change your answer?
Roberto
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 Russia to Italy
> Message from England to Italy and Russia in 'titleist':
>
> 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.
Boy, am I in trouble... 8-)
> I request that you not write me again until after the moves have
processed.
*sigh*
> 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.
Please let me know whether you decide to move to Kiel, or Tyl. There's not
much point in supporting you to Tri, if you're not going to try for Tyl,
too.
Thanks,
Nick.
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 Russia
>
> Boy, am I in trouble... 8-)
>
My thoughts exactly.
>
> Please let me know whether you decide to move to Kiel, or
> Tyl. There's not much point in supporting you to Tri, if
> you're not going to try for Tyl, too.
>
I have your 'statement of position' and I have your movement orders. I'm
not sure there really is much more to discuss unless your 'statement of
position' or your movement orders change in which case, I'm sure you will
give me plenty of lead time, without assuming I'll be available at the last
minute, to help me influence my decision.
Roberto
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 Italy to France
> >
> > It would, except Ivy is probably going to move Ber->Sil to
> > "plug the hole left by the Silesia disband".
> >
> You have all day tomorrow to talk him out of it :-)
>
[*chuckle*] Nick did it for me. {grin}
> > BTW, I hope you get a chance after the game
> > to read S1914M press. It's rather quite amusing if I say
> > so myself.
>
> I think Ivy just mentioned that
> Jan 1 was a particularly violent day for press.
Yep, all part of S1914M press.
> I will try to read it, but
> there will be so much of it. I may have to give up Diplomacy
> for 3 months just to find the time :-)
>
Trust me, it's a book you won't be able to put down.
In fact, I have an idea. Doug, who owns the rights to the showcase press?
What a helluva movie (or play) that would make. I can just picture 7 guys
huddled around their computer with Dip boards setup all over the house
checking their email daily, hourly, minute-by-minute. The screams of
frustation and joys of success as each player reads the results. And with
Hollywood involved, the email could be state-of-the-art 22nd century where
you don't just type but you actually talk and can see your fellow dipper
(kinda like video conferencing). Roommates, wives, girlfriends, observers
all part of the mix.
Do you think Jack Nicholson would be interested in the part of Russia?
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 Italy
Roberto:
>He would be crowned the champion and would be immortalized for life.
>Does that change your answer?
I did take that into account in my answer. My first impulse is to shrug
and say no that it would not. But I would have to be in the situation
to know for sure. I suppose that if I went down to 12 and Ivy went up
to 12, that would make me the tournament winner (at 12-12-9-1). I do
have this nasty pride thing that I try to supress. It may override my
other impulse, which is that it is just a name on a web page somewhere.
I do not see that exact scenario happening. There are too many other
things that can, and as this game has shown, will happen.
>What a helluva movie (or play) that would make. ...
LOL. I am not sure that I want the world to know what a geek I am :-)
>Do you think Jack Nicholson would be interested in the part of Russia?
A fitting choice. Can I request Jim Carrey to play France? Maybe it
might be Martin Short.
>And with
>Hollywood involved, the email could be state-of-the-art 22nd century
where
>you don't just type but you actually talk and can see your fellow
dipper
>(kinda like video conferencing).
They might have to cut getting up in the middle of the night in our
underwear to check the results (because we could not wait for the
deadline). Hey wait, that would be Hollywood (given the right actors
:-)
OK, back to Diplomacy.
>> > "plug the hole left by the Silesia disband".
> >
> >You have all day tomorrow to talk him out of it :-)
>
>[*chuckle*] Nick did it for me. {grin}
Excellent! That means that you will be moving to Galicia and Silesia
then? :-)
Should I presume that there is now peace and that I am facing a EIR
again? (At least until someone tries to eliminate you :-) Is Vienna
still willing to help keep Russia in check?
I have been pretty upfront with you lately. In fact, since the Fall
1912, I have been upfront and honest with everyone. Let me ask you how
you want the game to end? I assume that you prefer a 4-way draw. I
will not vote for that now because I have a good shot at the solo. If
there is no shot at the 4-way draw, then what do you want to occur?
I realize that you would like Ivy to do well and Russia to not have
success. Unfortunately the only way for that to occur is an English
solo, which seems unlikely and a EF draw, which also seems unlikely.
Therefore the two reasonable options (other than the four-way) is EFR or
F solo. When it comes down to it, you should know which you prefer. If
you are willing to tell me, that would be helpful and interesting.
Which ever it is (assuming that you prefer not to say or really do not
yet know), you need to make sure that you are in position to cause it.
If it is the EFR, then you need to remove yourself from the stalemate
line (which unfortunately is contrary to the hope of the 4-way). Then
perhaps you need to be position where you could transfer your centers
which ever way you wanted, but be at the front. A difficult but no
impossible task. If it is the F solo, then you need to be in position
to damage Russia or England enough that I can force my way to the
centers that I need. I may not accept support or significant
coordination, due to the 1912 fiasco.
I realize that these questions may be farther out that you want or can
afford to think. But since I am the big threat, I get little mail of
substance and I have time to ponder these thoughts. :-)
--King Roger XIII
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 France to Russia
Nick:
So what do we do now? I guess that you will leave Kiel and Munich to
Ivy when he wants them. At least Sweden is protected. I was surprised
that you did not move to St. Petes and not Finland. Were you hoping for
a build? That seems like a mistake in that you cannot take Norway (if
you ever choose to) and protect St. Petes. I suppose that you could
simply move to St. Petes now.
Are you offering to trade Sev for Arm? That is quite a generous offer.
Why would you do that? Or were you just pulling my leg?
--King Roger XIII
PS: I might be willing to trade you two centers for one of your home
centers. I feel so left out never having occupied one :-) How about
Norway and Munich?
Message from Russia to France
Roger,
> So what do we do now?
We wait for everyone to set draw or submit moves, I guess.
> Are you offering to trade Sev for Arm? That is quite a generous offer.
> Why would you do that? Or were you just pulling my leg?
> I might be willing to trade you two centers for one of your home
> centers. I feel so left out never having occupied one :-) How about
> Norway and Munich?
Well I might consider trading Sev for say Arm, Rum and Tri, but as Nwy
and Mun are not yours to give, and I'm not adjacent to Mun, anyway,
that is not really a practical offer. I moved to Swe and Fin rather than
StP
to convince Ivy that I was not trying to take Nwy, since I was not.
Nick.
Message from Russia to Italy
>Message from Italy to Russia in 'titleist':
> Please let me know whether you decide to move to Kiel, or
> Tyl. There's not much point in supporting you to Tri, if
> you're not going to try for Tyl, too.
>I have your 'statement of position' and I have your movement orders. > I'm
>not sure there really is much more to discuss
Sure there is. While you and Ivy may dislike me, and
disagree with my approach to stopping France, none of
us want France to Solo, because we all want to share
in the Draw. If you order Mun S Boh-Tyl, Vie-Tri,
then we will stop France. If you are ordering Mun-Kiel,
then it makes more sense for me to attack Serbia than
to support your attack on Tri, so I need to know what
you're ordering in order to coordinate my moves with
yours.
Nick.
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 Italy to Russia
My interpretation of your 'statement of position' is that I have no choice
but to order Mun s Boh-Tyr, Vie-Tri.
Are you now telling me that you have modified your 'statement of position'
and would allow me to move Mun-Kie without worry of retribution in the Fall?
If yes, please send me your new 'statement of position'.
If no, we have nothing more to discuss.
Roberto
Message from Russia to Italy
Roberto,
>Message from Italy to Russia in 'titleist':
>My interpretation of your 'statement of position' is that I have no choice
>but to order Mun s Boh-Tyr,
>Vie-Tri.
You issue orders for the Italian Units, of course
you have a choice.
>Are you now telling me that you have modified your
>'statement of position' and would allow me to move
>Mun-Kie without worry of retribution in the Fall?
>If yes, please send me your new 'statement of position'.
Nothing in my "statement of position" promised
retribution in the Fall. I wrote:
> > 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.
If you move Mun-Kie, I would say the odds are the
France will solo, no matter what I do, but the
decision tree is so large as to make that just a
guess. Ivy says he's ordering Ber S Boh-Mun, and he
gains nothing by lying about it, so I will not have
to defend Warsaw this Fall. If you're moving Mun-Kie,
Boh-Mun, then I have to find the best way to stop
France without your help, and I won't have time to
consider something as pointless as "retribution".
Now, the "best lone defense" against France MIGHT
include dislodging Vie, hoping you'll retreat to
Tri, Tyl, or Boh, but you've already written off
Vienna, so I don't see how that could be considered
retribution, and that certainly wouldn't be my
motivation for making the move.
Nick.
Message from Italy to France
> A fitting choice. Can I request Jim Carrey to play France? Maybe it
> might be Martin Short.
>
I've contacted the agent for Bill Murray. He's all set to play the part of
Italy. The first choice for Italy, Roberto Benigni, was unavailable. Pity.
>
> OK, back to Diplomacy.
>
> Excellent! That means that you will be moving to Galicia and Silesia
> then? :-)
>
Wellllllllllll, maybe.
> Should I presume that there is now peace and that I am facing a EIR
> again?
>
Quite the contrary. Nick's hard stand has only helped to move us further
apart.
>
> If there is no shot at the 4-way draw, then what do
> you want to occur?
>
The only outcome I have interest in is a 4-way draw. Barring that, I don't
care how the game ends.
>
> Therefore the two reasonable options (other than the
> four-way) is EFR or F solo. When it comes down to it,
> you should know which you prefer. If you are willing to
> tell me, that would be helpful and interesting.
>
Given the two choices, I would have no preference.
> I may not accept support or significant
> coordination, due to the 1912 fiasco.
>
Understandable.
Ivy and I had a little chat. I had asked him what he thought the French
orders would be. His reply was the obvious. My thought was a bit more
subtle. It also would require no significant coordination.
pie-tus
wes-tys
tun-ion
gre-aeg
sets Tuscany up to convoy to the eastern front. The disadvantage is it
leaves Ser/Tri/Tyr weakened. The advantage is it gets Marseilles to the
Balkans or Turkey in one year.
> I realize that these questions may be farther out that you want or can
> afford to think. But since I am the big threat, I get little mail of
> substance and I have time to ponder these thoughts. :-)
>
I'm a chess player. I'm accustom to thinking farther out than you care to
imagine.
Roberto
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 France to Italy
Roberto/Mr. Murray:
>Given the two choices, I would have no preference.
Fair enough. So I guess the goal is to take some
Northern centers, weaken Russia and keep me hovering near
to the solo.
>sets Tuscany up to convoy to the eastern front.
>The disadvantage is it leaves Ser/Tri/Tyr weakened.
>The advantage is it gets Marseilles to the
>Balkans or Turkey in one year.
I thought about that. It also has another disadvantage
in that I may not be able to hold Pic/Bur/MAO. It might
just come down to guesswork.
Please let me know if Vienna is available, so I can make
a request. I need to decide what I will do first, but if
I know that it is busy, that helps form my plans.
--King Roger XIII
Message from Italy to France
>
> Please let me know if Vienna is available, so I can make
> a request. I need to decide what I will do first, but if
> I know that it is busy, that helps form my plans.
>
It is available. I will need to know prior to 5:00 pm Pacific time what to
do. I can't promise I'll have time to read my mail once I get home.
Bill
Message from Italy to Russia
>
> Now, the "best lone defense" against France MIGHT
> include dislodging Vie, hoping you'll retreat to
> Tri, Tyl, or Boh
>
Hmmmm, if you dislodge Vienna this spring 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.
Idalia
Message from Russia to Italy
Ken,
> Message from Italy to Russia in 'titleist':
> > Now, the "best lone defense" against France MIGHT
> > include dislodging Vie, hoping you'll retreat to
> > Tri, Tyl, or Boh
>
> Hmmmm, if you dislodge Vienna this spring 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.
Fine, let's try it one more time.
Please assign Truth values to the following statements:
1) In the Spring 1914 Movement Phase, I have ordered Army Munich Support
Army Bohemia -> Tyrolia.
TRUE or FALSE
2) In the Spring 1914 Movement Phase, I have ordered Army Vienna -> Trieste.
TRUE or FALSE.
Eric.
Message from Russia to Italy
Oh, and for extra credit:
3) In the Spring 1914 Movement Phase, I have ordered Army Bohemia ->
Tyrolia.
TRUE or FALSE
Message from France to Italy
Roberto:
I will try to squeeze some time into looking at the map, but it may be
tough to do so before 5 Pacific. As default I ask if you would just
attack Budapest? That breaks some potential supports. The only
downside is that you cannot support Vienna to hold. Were you planning
that?
--King Roger XIII
Message from Italy to Russia
>
> 1) In the Spring 1914 Movement Phase, I have ordered Army
> Munich Support Army Bohemia -> Tyrolia.
>
TRUE
>
> 2) In the Spring 1914 Movement Phase, I have ordered Army
> Vienna -> Trieste.
TRUE
> 3) In the Spring 1914 Movement Phase, I have ordered Army
> Bohemia -> Tyrolia.
TRUE
Message from Italy to France
>
> The only downside is that you cannot support
> Vienna to hold. Were you planning that?
>
It was an option I was considering.
Message from France to Italy
Roberto:
My request is vie -> bud. I do not see Russia attack you this turn. If
you are unwilling, then I guess support Ven to Tri, allow I may not even
make the move. If you say no to vie -> bud, I will try you later,
knowing you may not answer
KR
Message from Russia to Italy
Ken,
> 1) TRUE
> 2) TRUE
> 3) TRUE
Thank you. (I know, you won't believe this either, but...)
If it's within my power to keep you in the draw, I will.
Eric.
Message from France to Italy
Roberto:
I might as well ask for everything :-) Can you order Vie -> Bud, Boh ->
Gal. Bill Murray would probably even order Mun -> Ruh, but that is
probably too much for you :-) The other two keep Russia from growing
enough to get confident and bold. The third slows down Ivy, so he is
less settled and will have to wait before considering options for
eliminating you. If Mun->Ruh is too much, at least hold and do not
attack Burgundy either. :-)
I know that this is after 5:00. My last message was 10 minutes to 5,
probably too late also. But your message to me did not state what A Vie
would do. I will have to assume Vie -> Bud and hope for the best. I
will check just before the deadline when I turn in orders. I still have
no idea what I will do. Figuring it out has been very low priority.
--King Roger XIII
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.
Message from Russia to Master
Russian EoY: 1913
"What we have here, is a failure to communicate."
Not a good year. I was ill before S1913M, and did not write to
anyone before I went late. England sent me a couple of worried
notes, saying that since I had fallen silent, he was going to make
some "harmless" defensive moves. I wasn't quite sure what that
meant, so I ordered StP-Nwy to bounce Nth-Nwy, and
Kie-Den, because England had been talking about wanting to
stay even with me, and this opened up Kiel and Holland to him.
Unfortunately, England's "harmless" defensive moves were
Ruh-Kie, NAO-Nwg, and we ended up with a mess on our
hands. England seemed convinced that I was making a solo run,
or at least attempting to assure myself of having the best shot at
the tournament victory, but it was really just a quick set of moves
intended to respond to England's "defensive" moves. My
relationship with England and Italy suffered as a result, and Italy
made moves that I can only interpret as an attempt to force me to
disband several Units, rather than stopping France in the Fall.
Though a delightful piece of irony, England and Italy both tried
for Kiel, so it remained mine. I argued that given the lack of
cooperation and distrust between Italy and I, it would make the
most sense for him to disband his Fleets, and he did, but I did
not receive his message suggesting that I should disband my Fleet
as well until after our disbands had processed. Now, we'll have
to see if we can prevent the French Solo.
Nick.
Message from France to Italy
Roberto:
I guess that support Ven to Tri is not useful.
The only thing that would be really useful is to attack Budapest. Boh
to Gal actually protects Vie. I was asking about it for the minimal
chance that Rum would not be dislodged. But it makes more sense for you
to do it for your own reasons.
I will submit orders hoping for Vie -> Bud (and Boh -> Gal). The attack
on Ruh was a joke. I know that you and Ivy are on friendly terms. You
might want to grab Kiel now and then support yourself to Munich in the
fall (or maybe move Boh there now, if I cannot convince you of the
wisdom of Boh -> Gal :-)
--King Roger XIII
PS: Can I have a ride in the Urban Assault Vehicle?
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*)
|