End of Game Statements
This page is part of a frameset, if you can't see the navigation bar to the left, go to the main index page.
From - Sat Mar 09 17:22:26 2002
Message from rodspade at acm.org,rodney.spade at philips.com as France to Italy in
'gutsy':
Raine,
The others decided they'd rather help me win than lose to a two-way. I
wasn't sure if they would really follow through, but of course I had to
give it a try.
Rod
From - Sat Mar 09 17:22:27 2002
Broadcast message from rodspade at acm.org,rodney.spade at philips.com as France in
'gutsy':
> The game was won by France.
> Congratulations on a well deserved victory!
Ah, that's what I like to see! :-) Many thanks to everyone who
assisted. ;-)
I'll start my EOG Monday evening and try to finish it sometime during
the week. I got quite behind on the "yearly" statements to the master,
so I have a lot of catching up to do.
Rod
From - Sun Mar 10 15:28:11 2002
Broadcast message from Elladan at arczip.com as Turkey in 'gutsy':
I told you! 8-)
> Date: Tue Oct 30 08:11:28 2001 (1004382688)
> Broadcast message from dip_power at hotmail.com as Turkey in 'gutsy':
> >Broadcast message in 'gutsy':
> > > or the 3-way draw it's going to end up being.
> >A prediction! Any guesses as to which three powers at this point?
> Well, claiming a Judge game will end in a 3-way is
> hardly a prediction, ;^} but if I was to make one
> at this point, I'd say 49% chance of a French Solo,
> (Keep in mind, though, that lack of strategic vision
> is the biggest difference between Roger's JDPR and
> mine. 8-) Lately, however, it does seem as though
> I've made a breakthrough on that front, so we'll see
> whether my prediction comes close to reality.)
Congratulations, Rod.
Eric.
From - Mon Mar 11 21:08:36 2002
Broadcast message from keith at alumni.caltech.edu as Austria in 'gutsy':
Austria's EOG
I have already written detailed notes, as requested by the master at the
end of each game year. I won't review those notes in detail here, but
I'll just mention my main thoughts now.
I don't think I would choose to play in another non-anonymous game because
of two things that happened in this game. 1. At the beginning of this
game, Italy and Russia decided to attack Turkey because Turkey had the
highest rating. Russia explicitly mentioned this, although that could
simply have been a pretense. 2. In the midgame, Germany was actively
attacking me. This was a poor strategy on his part, but Russia mentioned
to me that Germany wanted to attack me because he knew who I was or had
observed me in other games.
Now for my recollections of the game history.
In the beginning, I helped Italy and Russia attack Turkey. France and
Germany had quickly defeated England, and looked quite menacing. So, we
(AIR) cooked up a plan to attack France and Germany. I moved against
Germany, putting myself in a very vulnerable position. Italy moved
against France, who was coming into the Mediterranean anyway. But Russia
switched sides and began to attack me with Germany.
With France and Germany allied, I felt I had no choice but to prop up
Italy, giving him as many centers as he would need in order to withstand
France's assault. I hoped that France would eventually attack Germany
and give me some relief from the pressure Germany and Russia were putting
on me. The problem was that this did not happen quickly. France's
attack was so powerful that I had to give Italy quite a few builds.
Italy took Bulgaria with an army instead of a fleet, setting up a
difficult situation for me. I was being squeezed by Russia and Germany,
who would eventually break through, especially with help from France in
Piedmond. I lobbied hard for France and Russia to turn on Germany, but I
knew that when this happened if would be very tempting for Italy to turn
against me. Italy had needed too many centers to defend against France,
and with his army in Bulgria, I would not be able to defend against him.
So, when France and Russia did attack Germany, I am sure that France and
Italy had made some sort of agreement. No doubt that France promised
Italy a two-way draw. I warned Italy that France would likely win the
game, because Russia was not powerful enough to defend the north, and
France would likely be able to get Warsaw or Moscow before Italy would be
able to get into position to defend them.
Italy had an easy three-way AFI draw, but he chose to attack me instead.
France had the perfect position to be able to form a two-way with Italy,
and he likely kept this dangling over Italy's head. Of course, Russia
and I saw this too. We were in the position to throw the game to France
if Italy did not meet our demands. Italy did not believe us, I suppose.
He was too greedy.
In the last year, I was in Moscow, and I was in a position to throw the
game. Italy had stayed in Rumania to take that supply center from me
instead of moving to Ukr where his unit was needed to help take Warsaw.
Italy also chose to take Budapest from me.
I told Italy explicitly that if he did not move Sev-Ukr, Bla-Con, Rum-Bul
in the Spring that we would throw the game in the Fall. Italy did not
make those moves. It was now impossible for Germany to take Warsaw. I
was not about to reward Italy by leting him get a two-way. So, Russia,
Germany and I all threw the game to France. (Russia had made demands to
Italy some years ago that had not been met.)
Italy should really study this game. For some reason, all of us,
Austria, Germany and Russia, decided to throw the game to France. You
obviously did something wrong.
France must have played well. I don't know. I had little or no contact
with him the entire game. I was workign against him in one way or
another the entire game, but to no avail. My neighbors neutralized me.
I don't know how much coaxing Italy required in order to create this
situation that would lead to France's win. If France orchestrated that,
it was brilliant. If Italy did that on his own, it was a major blunder.
I do not have many regrets over this game. My biggest mistake was
attempting to attack Germany with Russia early in the game. This put me
out of position. I seriously considered attacking Italy at that time, but
I decided better of it, hoping that Italy would be able to stall France.
I did not consider that Germany would attack Austria. The original German
player set up his own demise. I regret that the original German player
abandoned and was not forced through the agaony of slow defeat. Again, if
France had some hand in Germany's decision to attack Austria, it was
brilliant. The sinking feeling that Germany's decision to attack me was
influenced by my identity is a huge sore point.
When Russia switched sides to ally with Germany against me, I felt I had
lost the diplomatic war to control the inexperienced players, Russia and,
to a lesser extent, Italy. Russia was easy to manipulate (the original
German player said Russia was "in way over his head" in this game). I
thought I had things under control, but Germany and France got the better
of me in the diplomatic struggle to control Russia.
Thanks to all the players and the GM for an enjoyable game. I will look
forward to hearing the others' points of view.
keith (Austria)
From - Wed Mar 13 23:07:13 2002
Broadcast message from rodspade at acm.org,rodney.spade at philips.com as France in
'gutsy':
Gentlemen,
It appears that my annual summaries to Roger extended only through 1903
(and I generally submitted them at least a year late). I have now
written text for 1904 as well (and a *very* brief summary of 05/06), and
I'll write more when I get around to it. I have included Part 1 of my
EOG below.
I saved all the press that I sent and received for this game, so if
someone has a specific question about something, I can go back and check
it out.
Rod
End-Of-Year Summary
S01
Brent accidentally sent me a message intended for Steve. Not really a
big deal - except that it led to FG agreeing to try Sealion. ;-)
Of course, I also approached Brent about ganging up on Germany. We
decided to start with a "fake" FG alliance, then I'd switch gears and EF
would hit G. I revealed to Brent that FG had already decided on
Sealion, and that I would therefore move to Eng. Brent didn't care for
that much, but he eventually agreed to it.
I suggest to Brent the Fall continuation Nwg-Nwy, Nth-Hol, Yor-Lon (with
France taking Bel but *not* supporting Germany's Sealion move Den-Nth).
This gets E a build, limits G to only one build, and discourages a
French stab in Lon. Brent replied that if he takes the risk of letting
me into Eng then he should be rewarded with my supporting his convoyed
army to Bel in the Fall. I didn't really like the idea of France
getting only one build, but I figured it'd be better to come to some
sort of agreement than to argue without resolution, so I agreed to do
Eng S Yor-Bel, Pic-Bur in the Fall.
Raine and I agreed to leave each other alone.
F01
I had to decide whether to consummate my alliance with Brent or to stab
(via Sealion or Eng-Lon). I had a feeling that Brent might be a little
more trust-worthy than Steve, but I really didn't like the idea of
England jumping to five units while I got only one build. So I decided
to hit Lon in order to deny England a build. (This seemed better than
Eng S Den-Nth, which would've let E retreat Nth-Edi and B F Lvp from his
gain in Nwy.) If Brent had agreed to my suggestion of limiting G to a
single build (with me getting two and E one), I probably would've
followed through with the attack on Germany (in 1902), since he would've
been a very attractive target with only four units. However, that
doesn't necessarily mean that Brent would've been better off if he had
done things my way - I would've had a superior position and very well
could've stabbed him shortly thereafter.
S02
I had slipped into Lon in F01, but it looked like England had a good
chance of reclaiming it in 1902. So I decided to forsake Lon and secure
Lvp instead. I ordered Lon-Wal, Bre-Eng instead of the more "obvious"
Lon S Bre-Eng, but Brent outguessed me and bounced both moves. I had
hoped that he would try Yor-Lon, giving me easy access to Lvp in the
Fall.
Also in S02, Steve and I agreed to bounce in Bur, but instead he got a
little paranoid and supported himself into Bur. That could've been very
nasty for me, but AR advanced to Sil/Boh/Tyl on the same move, so I knew
that Steve had no choice but to beg for my forgiveness. ;-)
In addition, Raine moved into Pie this turn. He had informed me of his
intentions in advance, and I had attempted to persuade him against it.
He didn't seem convinced, so I moved Par-Gas so that I could cover Mar
in the Fall without risking Spa-Mar succeeding and not capturing Spa. I
was inclined to believe Raine's claim that his move to Pie was not
hostile until I saw the turn results and had to assume the existence of
an IAR alliance.
F02
Eric suggested an EFG alliance to counter the IAR threat (and to save
Turkey's butt), and the rest of us agreed that it was necessary. Eric's
suggestion for the Fall move was:
German F Den S English F Nwy-Swe (against Russian F Swe)
Yor-Nth-Nwy
Spa-Mar, Gas-Mar
France builds F Mar, England builds A Edi.
Eric's reasoning was that an English army in Nwy is more threatening to
Russia than an English fleet in StP (nc). Also, he wanted England to
let me retain Lon so I could build F Mar from my gain in Spa.
However, Brent really wanted to reclaim Lon, so he argued for Yor-Lon,
Nth-Nwy, Nwy-StP. (Russia had no unit to cover StP, so it was free for
the taking.) Eric strenuously objected, but we eventually agreed to
follow Brent's plan.
Steve and Eric both advised me privately to consider holding in Lon, but
I didn't want to cause strife while we were facing a possible IAR. My
correspondence with I/A/R led me to believe that it was not really a
cohesive three-way alliance, but I didn't want to take any chances. I
also didn't want to annoy Brent and see a retributive build of F Lvp.
(He was certain to get a build from StP even if I held in Lon.)
Raine agreed to placate me by moving away from Pie. I decided to do Spa
H, Gas-Mar rather than Spa-Mar, Gas-Mar. If Raine really were hostile
he could try Pie S Spa-Mar, and I didn't want to risk not getting Spa
when I was losing Lon. I was hopeful that he would instead withdraw, so
I didn't worry about trying to leave Mar open for a build (and I didn't
anticipate getting a build anyway).
Russia turned against Austria this season. That was very good for
Germany, and Steve and I immediately wished that I had stayed in Lon and
he had forced his way into Nth. Regardless, Steve got a build, and we
agreed that it would be F Kie and that we would move against England in
1903.
Eric asked me to state in my EoY what I would've done if Brent had
followed his suggestion of taking Swe, convoying to Nwy, and building A
Edi. I really don't know. My first guess is that I would've eventually
stabbed him, but who can say?
F1902B
Eric suggested that we continue EFG, and that the builds be A Kie, A
Edi, and A Lvp. Brent wanted to build F Lvp, which was exactly what I
did NOT want to see. I suggested he build A Lvp, F Edi for moving
against Russia and Germany. Steve also suggested A Lvp, F Edi (in the
discussions re EFG) as a good compromise for protecting England in Nth
while allowing a convoy to Nwy. (Meanwhile, Steve was planning to build
a fleet instead of an army in order to move against England.)
Brent had originally planned to build two fleets, but he changed his
mind to A Edi, F Lvp. His intent was to convoy Edi-Nwy, save his
existing A Lon for a future convoy to the mainland (against Germany),
and use F Lvp as a defensive deterrent so that I'd go after Germany
instead of attacking England. I argued that a campaign against Germany
required a build of F Edi so that he could advance Nth-Hel, Edi-Nth.
Brent stuck with A Edi, F Lvp.
S03
Brent suggested that I order Eng S Nth, Pic S Edi-Bel, Spa-Gas, Mar-Bur
to kick off the supposed EF campaign against Germany. I replied that we
needed to strive to take both Bel and Hol from Germany that year in
order to make any real progress, and that the only feasible way of doing
it was for England to take both centers. However, I didn't want him to
grow to 7 centers while I still had only 5, so we eventually agreed that
I would "borrow" Lvp from England so that we would both have 6. Brent
agreed, with the stipulation that he had to get Bel in the Spring and at
least have a reasonable chance of also taking Hol in the Fall.
Meanwhile, Steve and I agreed that we would transfer Bel to me so that I
could build another fleet to use against England. In exchange, I agreed
to help him into Lon.
It seemed to me that EF against G would be a long, hard battle, and I
liked the FG plan that gave me Bel, so I decided to go after England. I
moved MAO-Iri and Pic-Eng-Wal, both of which succeeded. Steve dislodged
Brent from Nth and advanced to Hel.
I think Brent would've had better chances if he had gone with his
original plan of building F Lvp and F Edi. A fleet in Edi would've made
a campaign against Germany more feasible, and perhaps I would've decided
to follow the EF plan instead of turning on England. Or perhaps not,
but at least choosing between E and G would've been a much more
difficult decision for me.
F03
I convoyed and supported the Germany army in Bel to Lon, and I moved
Bur-Bel. Steve supported Russian F Swe-Nwy. I got Bel, Germany got Lon
in exchange (putting us at 6 centers each), and Brent lost Lon and Nwy
and was down to 3. Brent disbanded F NAO and A Lvp in an attempt to
unbalance FG in my favor, and I built F Bre.
1904
Brent petitioned to become my vassal. I kept that open as a
possibility, but never really made use of him, because I didn't get
around to attacking Germany until after England was gone. Brent and I
maintained amicable communications, though it never really amounted to
anything.
I was allied with Germany, and our plan was to finish off England then
turn toward the east. However, I was worried that Steve would have the
advantage in the race to 18, so I discussed with Adam the possibility of
cooperating against Germany. Unfortunately, Russia was embroiled in a
war with Austria and did not have the resources to assist me against
Germany. I needed Adam to either patch things up with Keith and turn
his focus against G instead, or to quickly find success against Austria
so he'd be able to take on G as well.
So I suggested FIR to Raine, explaining that Italian help against
Austria would enable Russia to assist me against Germany. But Raine
seemed unwilling to stab Austria, because he feared that I would attack
him. I explained that if he achieved growth against Austria then he
would have little to fear from a French attack, but I was unable to
convince him. Meanwhile, Adam wanted me to stab Germany, but I did not
believe that a campaign against G would be fruitful without assistance
from the east, and the A/R war made that impossible.
In the Fall FGR decided to move against AI. I wasn't in a very good
position to attack Italy, but it seemed to have more potential than
fighting G alone. Germany was at least offering tangible assistance
against Italy (Mun-Tyl), whereas no one was willing to help if I
attacked G. Also, it seemed that the AI allianced was too tight for
comfort; FGR feared that they would become a threat if not checked.
1905 through the Spring of 1907 saw the continuation of FGR vs AI. It
was quickly approaching a stalemate.
From - Thu Mar 14 21:03:39 2002
Broadcast message from rkyonkoski at att.net as Master in 'gutsy':
I think that we have 1.5 end of game statements out of 7 players.
Surely we can do better than that! :-) I plan to gather all the press
together and make it available to anyone who wants to read it. I give
you a chance to object, although I strong encourage you not too :-)
Before I wrap things up I want to include the end of game statements and
discussion.
Surely there must be some discussion on how Raine's actions and choices
lead to the solo. Could he have done something different. Should he
have accepted such and such a three-way draw.
Also, for general discussion. Why is it that the lead aggressor always
seems to win these games? Afterall Rod stabbed first. But because
Raine betrayed second he lost the 'throw the game to' decision. I see
this phenomena a lot. I saw it here. Is this common? Or have I just
witnessed a small sampling?
Roger
From - Fri Mar 15 04:44:19 2002
Broadcast message from tim at 9oakhill.com as Germany in 'gutsy':
Germany II EOG
I'll make a few comments, though I wasn't around for much of the game.
>Surely there must be some discussion on how Raine's actions and choices
>lead to the solo. Could he have done something different. Should he
>have accepted such and such a three-way draw.
Raine made a poor choice at the very end. If he had moved to UKR in S1913
it would have been possible to stalemate France. He perhaps did not
believe that Austria and I would go through with the game throw. Or,
perhaps he is the type who believes the game should end in a solo --
playing for a draw is the wimp's way out.
I have been involved in at least two games recently where a player made a
very low percentage play for a solo when he could have assured a draw
instead. Both times the player lost to a solo. I'm not sure either of
them really regrets his choice, though.
I recently submitted a poll to the Vermont Group mailing list:
The game is drawing to an end with you and one other power at 16 centers. A
third power owns two centers and the ability to throw the game either way.
The two-center power says that if a draw does not pass before the next turn
processes, he will throw the game based upon a coin flip. You:
1) Set draw
2) Take your 50/50 shot at the solo
There were other choices, but they weren't really serious. Option 1 got 4
votes, option 2 got 19. I thought it was be closer than that. There seems
to me to be a real movement out there to solo at all expense. Draws be
damned.
>Also, for general discussion. Why is it that the lead aggressor always
>seems to win these games? Afterall Rod stabbed first. But because
>Raine betrayed second he lost the 'throw the game to' decision. I see
>this phenomena a lot. I saw it here. Is this common? Or have I just
>witnessed a small sampling?
I think it's common for a few reasons. Once a player makes a play for a
solo, the other players generally band together to stop the solo. There
becomes something of a leader vs everybody else game going on. And, often
everybody in the "everybody else" is dependent upon each other for
survival. When one power steps out of line, they have often betrayed a
bunch of people. And, this power has likely taken away many people's hope
of survival. The initial stab for the solo probably didn't affect as many
people and those people are often long gone. In this game, I assume France
attacked England before I arrived. England as gone in the end, so the
power who was probably most bitter about the French wasn't around to take
part in the game throwing.
Anyway, I tend to work against the power that has most contributed to my
inability to survive. For me, in this game, that was initially
Russia. When I took over the German position, R/G cooperation would have
meant that we both survived. Russia betrayed me and severely weakened my
position and hope for survival. So, I worked in such a way as to make sure
Russia did not survive. I like to think that my effort to help France
against Russia tipped the balance of the conflict in France's favor and
that my actions had some significant part in Russia's loss.
Indeed, right up to the last year, I was in position to share a piece of a
stalemate line with Austria and Italy against France -- Russia would have
been left out. Italy, for whatever reason, did not care to establish the
stalemate line which meant I would not survive. Since Italy was the one
that ultimately took away my hope of survival, I worked to make sure he
also lost.
In my opinion, first Adam and then Raine did not understand the significant
power that Germany could wield. Ultimately, they both lost because of this
lack of appreciation of the power of the small guy. Adam may stand by his
decision, thinking that the chance for a three-way (rather than a larger
draw) was worth risking a loss. Raine may think the small chance of a solo
(rather than a sure 4-way) was worth risking a loss. Those decisions vary
from person to person. Rod was fortunate that in this case they both tried
for greater glory rather than take a safer path to drawdom.
Tim
From - Fri Mar 15 04:44:24 2002
Broadcast message from rkarjala at mail.student.oulu.fi as Italy in 'gutsy':
Hi folks,
sorry for the silence, we have German visitors in our department and this
week has been (and still is) busy.
Roger thank you for GMing the game. Congratulations to Rod for the win.
Special thanks for Eric for taking care of my english and thanks for Tim
for taking over the German position.
This was my 4th partial press game. So I am the unexperienced one for
sure. I don't have time to play more than one partial press game at the
time (and sometimes even that is too much). I really don't mind if you
want to blame me for my unexperience but one has to gain the experience
and it takes time.
Some answers, feedback and questions
------------------------------------
Keith:
-we had a good alliance for a long time
-in early days (and later too) I really wanted to for a AGI triple
alliance but no. Original Germany had a little to say to me.
-I did not choose to attack Turkey 'cause of his JDPR. I had a
chance to be in the ARI against T. It had nothing to do with Eric's JDPR.
It was quite the opposite I liked Eric's press a lot but the other choise
was TIE triple. I was too conservative and chose the ARI.
-Adam told that let's attack Eric due to his high JDPR but I interpret his
message to be more like whatever reason is enough, I mean if England had
had the highest JDPR I am not sure that Adam had attacked England 1st.
-I made a decision to avoid gunboat partial press games 'cause in last
game I played when there where 5 players left I knew the identity of
four players. It is so easy to sign your messages with real name instead
of Sultan, Kaiser, ... I think it is fair that everyone knows each other
or you don't know anyone.
-the easy 3way was FIR not FIA. I could have taken almost all of your
centers (Russia would have taken the rest) to ensure FIR but I choose to
try for FIA and then if possible to go for solo or 2way if solo fails.
We stabbed each other at the same time with Rod. That killed my solo
hopes. For sure I had talked about 2way with France but as long as I had a
solo chance (even tiny one) that was my goal. We had a peaceful border
with Rod and we both broke that peace at the same time.
-in the end you told me that your goal in this game was to survive longer
than Russia. You did not want to dream of draws. 'I would like to survive
longer than Russia, but I have no ambitions beyond that.' That was from
your message. I tried to talk you to try for FIA 3way and I helped you
against Russia. Then I was really surprised that you started to talk about
throwing the game 'cause you were doing fine in your way to survive longer
than Russia. I had took some centers from you before that but still you
were doing fine in surviving longer than Russia. After you made your
threat you still had a chance to be included in draw. I still cannot
believe that when there is a chance to prevent solo one is not doing it.
You never renewed (is that a real word :-) i.e. you never told me your new
goal in this game. To me your goal was to live longer than Russia. I
thought that you will try for draw in the end but you never told it to me.
In the end I felt like you wasn't listening anymore. I cannot see how you
couldn't throw the game later if you wanted to. I mean, 2way's are hard to
arrange and I was so much behind Rod in SC count that you would have had
your chance to throw the game to Rod later. So I was surprised that you
didn't even try for 3way.
-I believe that Rod got his win due to our lack of quality diploming, I
mean between AI. I am not blaming you but us both.
-about that army in Bulgaria. We talked about it before I moved there and
your final word was that it is ok if I move to Bulgaria with army instead
of fleet. If it was a problem you should have given me more press about
it.
-I admire your tactical skills. There were times when you gave me good
advice, indeed.
Roger:
-Where did I betray someone :-) From my point of view there was no
betrayal. You are the GM you have seen all the press you should now.
-Sorry for the very little effort I made to give you the EoY's. I had
sometimes troubles to write to other players so EoY's had the lowest
priority.
Tim:
-For some reason you didn't answer to my mail and it lead to quite a long
silence between us. I should have sent you more mail to get reply from you
but I guess I hadn't had the time. I didn't see that you had the chance to
be included in draw really.
Adam:
-it is still a mystery to me why you wanted to throw the game. I remember
a time when we talked of FIR triple alliance and you wanted to 'raise your
solo hopes' by taking some turkish centers from me and still you said you
are playing for FIR. Then later it was the other way around I was taking a
center from you and I have to admit that I enjoyed a bit when I could tell
you the same reasoning 'I am increasing my solo hopes but if it fails (it
was obvious that it will) then I am willing to play for FIR. FIR was the
most likely 3way draw at the time. Obviously you didn't like my style of
giving you your own excuse when I took a center from you.
-Do you think your play was weakend by the fact that deadlines occured
at 7.00 am at your time zone?
Eric and Brent:
-As you now know I had a good chance to get rid of Turkey at the beginning
by joining AR. Be honest with me had you chosen TE over AR if you had
played Italy (looking at the results makes me think I made the wrong
decision but French solo was really decided later) ?
Raine
From - Fri Mar 15 05:06:20 2002
Broadcast message from rkyonkoski at att.net as Master in 'gutsy':
Raine:
First, thanks for the comments.
Second, I assumed that when you took Sev and caused Russia to lose
Rumania to Austria, that was a betrayal. I believed that you had told
Adam that you would not do so. I cannot say for sure if you merely
implied, or directly promised. I do not recall the details. :-) I
would say that the other players can state whether they felt betrayed or
not. Part of my comments were based on their press to you after they
may have felt they were betrayed.
Sorry if I was too strong in my description of what happened. I know
that the interactions between you and Adam and you and Kieth were
paramount to their decisions for their actions late in the game. I
think that discussing it would help everyone (you, observers, even me)
learn more about end game play. But I do understand that time can make
it difficult to dissect a game and people would rather move on to the
next. I certainly do not want to get a lot of negative feelings
generated.
Roger
From - Fri Mar 15 18:39:11 2002
Broadcast message from rkarjala at mail.student.oulu.fi as Italy in 'gutsy':
Hi Roger (and rest of the gang),
> Second, I assumed that when you took Sev and caused Russia to lose
> Rumania to Austria, that was a betrayal. I believed that you had told
> Adam that you would not do so. I cannot say for sure if you merely
> implied, or directly promised. I do not recall the details. :-) I
> would say that the other players can state whether they felt betrayed or
> not. Part of my comments were based on their press to you after they
> may have felt they were betrayed.
You are referring to S1911M. That was the time when I moved against Russia
and gave him the excuse he had taught me previously. 'I am still
working with you, but don't mind that I take a center from you it is only
to raise my solo chances'. If I had attacked Austria at that time it would
have been the easy FIR I have talked about.
> Sorry if I was too strong in my description of what happened.
No problem here. Adam might interpret my action as betrayal. I thought it
more like 'Adam, I learned this from you how does it feel :-)'. At that
time I wanted to give Keith a chance to be included in draw and as a side
effect I naively (sp?) thought that Rod might make a mistake and I can
surprise him in Med and that I might have a shot for solo.
> I know
> that the interactions between you and Adam and you and Kieth were
> paramount to their decisions for their actions late in the game. I
> think that discussing it would help everyone (you, observers, even me)
> learn more about end game play. But I do understand that time can make
> it difficult to dissect a game and people would rather move on to the
> next. I certainly do not want to get a lot of negative feelings
> generated.
I think the most negative feeling comes from losing the game. After that
comes the better stuff when people can speculate about why it happened.
I think no-one should take offense if someone thinks that it was his fault
that some other won, because there are many players and they have their
goals and different reasons. I agree with you that there is no need to
generate negative feelings. I think that negative feelings can be avoided
by listening to what people have to say about their motivation to do what
they did. This is only a game, afterall.
Raine
From - Fri Mar 15 18:39:18 2002
Broadcast message from Elladan at arczip.com as Turkey in 'gutsy':
> Broadcast message from rkarjala at mail.student.oulu.fi as Italy in 'gutsy':
>
> Special thanks for Eric for taking care of my english
Generally, English is capitalized. ;^) You're welcome, by the way. You
were always understandable, and it probably wouldn't have occurred to
me to correct your usage, but you did ask, and I hoped that doing so
would form an additional bond between us and make you more likely to
agree to TIE.
> So I am the unexperienced one for sure.
I'm not sure why, but "not experienced" is "inexperienced" rather than
"unexperienced".
> Some answers, feedback and questions
>
> -I did not choose to attack Turkey 'cause of his JDPR. I had a
> chance to be in the ARI against T. It had nothing to do with Eric's JDPR.
> It was quite the opposite I liked Eric's press a lot but the other choise
> was TIE triple. I was too conservative and chose the ARI.
("choice" not "choise")
Hmmm, especially in a high level game, I think you are better off allying
with the person who writes the best press and whom you feel most
comfortable with, but I invite others to express their opinions on the
matter.
> -Adam told that let's attack Eric due to his high JDPR but I interpret his
> message to be more like whatever reason is enough, I mean if England had
> had the highest JDPR I am not sure that Adam had attacked England 1st.
I doubt it, too, really, but it is a fact that being a "name" player, or the
highest ranked one paints a target on your back. People can and do
choose to ignore that target, but it does exist.
> Eric and Brent:
> Be honest with me had you chosen TE over AR if you had
> played Italy?
Umm, "honest with me, would you have chosen TE over AR".
Especially in a high-level game, there are advantages to taking the
uncommon alliance, I think, and given Rod's and Keith's ratings,
targeting them makes a certain amount of sense for Italy. ;^) I
would have made my alliance decision based on whom I felt
most comfortable with, and it seemed to me that Brent and I both
sent better press than Keith and Adam. (Perhaps, the press
arriving in Rome was of a different quality, though.) Given
France's historical record as the strongest Power in Diplomacy,
I also feel that targeting France early is a good idea. That having
been said, though, Russia is probably Italy's best ally, and if you're
going to target Turkey, it should also be done early, so I don't have
any hard feelings about your decision.
Eric the Turkish Grammarian. ;^)
From - Fri Mar 15 18:39:25 2002
Broadcast message from pre at dalliance.net as Russia in 'gutsy':
Russian EOG.
I can confirm that while, of course, I threw every reason
I could think of into my press when encouraging Austria
and Italy to attack Turkey at the beginning, the reasons
I wanted to do it were little or nothing to do with JDPR's
or reputations (I've never heard of any of you). In the last
game where I played Russia I'd tried to get Italy to
attack Turkey with me before we crushed Austria between
us. Seemed like a good plan but the players were inexperienced
and Austria and Italy just kept fighting each other so
nothing really happened. I was fairly sure that I and
A wouldn't be doing that in this game so I suggested
that same plan to Raine and he seemed to agree.
We started falling out however when Austria opened himself
to attack more than was really needed in our attack on
Germany. Steve pointed out how easily I could take
Austrian centers so I pressed Raine pointing out that
the plan was always to take Austria when Turkey was
made irrelevant anyway, and we were doing well against
Turkey so why not? He seemed to reluctantly agree that
there would be no better time to go ahead and attack
Austria than now so I made the move expecting Raine
to join in the attack the next year.
Apparently there was some confusion in what he'd agreed
to do though because the expected help from Italy in
the attack on Austria never came.
I've always tended to try and keep small players around
if I can. I'd like my games to ideally end with me on
eighteen centers and the other six players still on three
to five centers each and squabbling like toddlers. All
of them greatful to me for saving them from elimination.
If you eliminate lots of players early you tend to just
end up with a three way draw between three roughly
equally sized countries in my experience. Raine, on the
other hand, apparently thinks that once you've started to
attack someone you shouldn't stop until they're eliminated
no matter what. It's a shame because it's essentially
that difference in style that caused most of our fighting.
I really don't think that Turkey would have been able
to stop us taking him out with the units we'd already
committed, if I were Italy I'd have definitely agreed
to my lets-take-out-Austria plan. At the worst we'd
have ended up with a two or three center A and and
two or three center T ganged up against us when we
were much larger powers. It's a fight we could have
won. Perhaps Raine had other plans rather than just
the stubborn insistence that Turkey was his first
Priority which he didn't want to tell me. I guess that
must have been it but the only reason he ever gave
me was fear that letting Turkey live would come back
and bite him.
Eventually, to try and convince Raine to attack Austria,
I took a center from him explaining to him that this
was done to force him to attack Austria or face a disband.
He could have responded to that kind of Gunboat Diplomacy
I guess, but I think it just made him even more determined
not to attack Austria at all. That's always the risk but
I was pretty desperate.
Once it finally sunk in that Italy had no intention of
attacking Austria at all, I started making peaceful
moves towards Keith. If I'd realized that Raine wasn't
going to help in Austria at all I'd have never attacked
in the first place I'd have gone with the inferior plan
of eliminating Turkey (I hate eliminating players before
an end game) and then forced Italy to attack Austria first.
I never could quite manage to make that peace with Austria
though, too little trust between either of us, the game
ended up with a more or less stalemated position
with GFR standing off against IA. France and I couldn't
really see a way out of this but it did seem that IA
were very vunerable to each other and both I and A
were insisting that if we backed off and attacked
Germany then they'd end up fighting each other. I managed
to convince myself that was true so France and I attacked
Germany. The attack went well and AI started fighting
each other too. I managed to keep my impartiality in
the south for all of about one phase if I remember
right. Eventually Austria and Italy were both starting
to sound like they thought I was either with them or
against them and I had to chose. Italy's pleas that
the three way IRF was probably the result anyway
were true, but this just convinced me that I should
side with Austria to try and keep the game fluid and
open, give myself some chance. If I could have taken
Turkey and shared half of Germany with France then
I'd have had the same number of SC's as France. Austria
and Italy would be small powers between France and I
and a race between F and R to see who got to 18 first
sounded quite exciting. I figured that the worst thing
that was likely to happen was Italy started throwing
centers at France and in the unlikely event that he did
that I could always back off and go for the draw.
In the end Italy convinced Austria to turn yet again
and attack me. I guess that Austria realized that
helping me into Turkey was increasing the chances
of a French solo or a Russian solo or a FRI draw
and not increasing the changes of Austria getting
into the draw much at all. I don't think that's
strictly true since I don't think Raine would have
tried to throw to France (his disbelief that just
about everyone else did in the end bares that out)
and I think Austria could have taken most of Italy
if he'd stayed with RA but I guess he disagreed.
I think that at this moment when Austria attacked
me I figured the game had pretty much crystallized.
I'd have thought the same if Italy had started to
throw to France. Once the game was crystalized there
wasn't a lot of flexibility or play in the game anymore,
it was clearly going to be RIF draw, assuming everyone
played sensibly, so I made my peace with Italy, told
France that we should finish off Germany quick and start
setting draw and didn't expect any real problems.
Didn't have any for a little while either. Took
Rum and War back, conned the new Germany into moves
that should have eliminated him in less than a year
if France hadn't decided to attack me and keep Germany
alive on one center. Things were going well but
I suddenly realized that Italy was in a position
to take Sev. I made it clear, many times over,
that I didn't think I could defend the German centers
from France, didn't really intend to even try, that
I felt I needed southern centers to stay in a draw
and that if he took Sev I would believe he intended
to eliminate me and I would throw a solo to France
instead. I never make game throwing threats without
meaning them, there's no point. Italy assured me that
he understood, believed I could throw to France and
that he wouldn't be taking my centers.
Italy took Sev. He tried to claim this was the same
thing as when I'd sided with Austria a couple of
years previously but (A) I knew he wouldn't throw
to France and if he had started to do so I'd have
backed off immediately and (B) that was before I
felt the game had crystallized anyway, there was
still play in the game back then. Now it was obviously
either going to be a draw or a French solo.
So I start to help France towards the solo. I pressed
Italy several times that I would continue to help France
until Sev and Rum were returned to Russian control, it's
not too late yet but each you you don't back off makes
the French solo more and more likely. He didn't let up
even as he saw me supporting France into my own centers.
I have no idea why Raine refused to back down even a little,
except that it reminded me a lot of when he wouldn't back
down even a little over his instance that Turkey had to
be eliminated first.
He probably could have still made it into a IFA draw
since I wasn't really able to throw centers at France
quickly enough, mostly because France didn't believe
and trust that I wanted to throw to him to start with
so he wouldn't take a risk to cross the stalemate line.
Strangely Raine decided to stab Austria too! Now everyone
thought that Raine intended to eliminate them so we all
threw to France.
Haven't played many active end-games. The ones that
haven't just ended in a three way draw with powers
all on about eleven centers have tended to just have
only me sending press at all and the others basically
given up so the solo came pretty easily. It's the
number of those 3*11 center draws that convinced me
that keeping players alive into the end-game is
the right thing to do and this is why I still hate
eliminating a player, until I'm personally on way
more than ten centers anyway.
It's interesting to be in the position of throwing
a game for the first time. Helps to understand why
someone would do that which hopefully will enable me
to convince others to do it in the future. However
I don't think France could have convinced me to do
it. All France really had to do was wait for Raine
to stab-stab-stab all his friends until they were
all convinced he had no intention of any kind of draw
at all. I still don't understand why, even though
he could see me doing it, he didn't believe I'd throw
the game to France enough to back off away from Sev
and Rum. That final stab of Austria is completely
bizarre and inexplicable too. It's like Italy wanted
France to win as much as I did.
Thanks for the game everyone, it was an education.
I did find myself not really motivated enough to send
much press during the last half of the game and
I figure I'm a little burned out on Diplomacy for
the moment so I'm going to take a break for a while
before my next game (I too only have enough energy for
one game at a time really).
Roger, you're welcome to put up my press and stuff
wherever, and I thought you were going to broadcast
the End Of Year Statements to get the end of game
statements going to be honest which is why I held
off writing one for so long.
Thanks again,
Adam............
From - Fri Mar 15 18:39:34 2002
Broadcast message from rodspade at acm.org,rodney.spade at philips.com as France in
'gutsy':
Gentlemen,
> I don't think I would choose to play in another non-anonymous game because
> of two things that happened in this game. 1. At the beginning of this
> game, Italy and Russia decided to attack Turkey because Turkey had the
> highest rating. Russia explicitly mentioned this, although that could
> simply have been a pretense.
> ... it is a fact that being a "name" player, or the
> highest ranked one paints a target on your back. People can and do
> choose to ignore that target, but it does exist.
In a high-level game, I would expect the players to be experienced enough to just
play the game. But I think you're right that the "target" does exist. At the very
least, it causes the others to be extra wary. When I joined the game, I was of the
opinion that non-gunboat shouldn't matter, but now I'm thinking it might be prudent
for me to play anonymously in the future.
> In the midgame, Germany was actively
> attacking me. This was a poor strategy on his part, but Russia mentioned
> to me that Germany wanted to attack me because he knew who I was or had
> observed me in other games.
I think he was aware of your tactical expertise and considered you a long-term threat.
> France must have played well. I don't know. I had little or no contact
> with him the entire game. I was workign against him in one way or
> another the entire game, but to no avail.
It seemed that the press between us (F/A) was of little benefit to either of us.
Perhaps we just never had common goals that could lead to cooperation. My impression
was that you just routinely suggested things that clearly benefitted Austria but had
little attraction to France. You also often tried to paint the threat of another player
against me, but that just led me to distrust your advice.
> I don't know how much coaxing Italy required in order to create this
> situation that would lead to France's win.
I believed that Raine was playing for a two-way, but perhaps that's just what he wanted
me to believe. Maybe he had other motivations.
> If France orchestrated that, it was brilliant.
I think I deserve credit for taking advantage of the situation, but I do not believe
that I have risen to the level of being able to orchestrate the entire board in my favor.
> Again, if France had some hand in Germany's decision to attack Austria, it was brilliant.
I think it was just the natural progression of the FG alliance after E was neutralized,
though I did worry that he would grow too quickly and stab me. (My growth against Italy
was to be considerably slower.)
> keith (Austria)
I noticed that you always signed your messages as "Austria", whereas everyone else used
their name. Was this a conscious decision to depersonalize the game? I often addressed
you as "Keith" in my messages, hoping to seem more personable. Did that work, or were
you indifferent, or did you find it annoying?
> I plan to gather all the press
> together and make it available to anyone who wants to read it.
I think it will be very beneficial to read all the press and see what went on being the
scenes. There might be some minor embarassment about unpleasant things that may have
been said behind another's back, but you can all rest assured that if I did ever say
anything negative, it was only because it was merely what I thought the other person
wanted to hear. ;-)
> Also, for general discussion. Why is it that the lead aggressor always
> seems to win these games? Afterall Rod stabbed first. But because
> Raine betrayed second he lost the 'throw the game to' decision.
I never got the impression that the victim was pissed off by any of my stabs. I guess
they were considered reasonable actions that the other may have taken if he were in my
shoes. Perhaps Raine's later moves seemed irrational and therefore insulting,
although of course that just means the others failed to understand his motivations.
> I'd like my games to ideally end with me on
> eighteen centers and the other six players still on three
> to five centers each
Just how many supply centers does your board have?! ;-)
> Thanks for the game everyone, it was an education.
In my first highly-rated game, I was the last player squeezed out of a two-way.
:-( However, I consider the game a success, because I learned lessons that
improved my play considerably. It's nice to win occasionally, but often more
beneficial to get whopped by more experienced players.
> I figure I'm a little burned out on Diplomacy for
> the moment so I'm going to take a break for a while
> before my next game
I often tell myself that too, but it never seems to work. Someone will soon start
a game that you just *have* to join! :-)
Rod
From - Fri Mar 15 18:39:45 2002
Broadcast message from rkyonkoski at att.net as Master in 'gutsy':
>I think it will be very beneficial to read all the
>press and see what went on
>being the scenes. There might be some minor
>embarassment about unpleasant
>things that may have been said behind another's back,
>but you can all rest
>assured that if I did ever
>say anything negative, it was only because it was merely
>what I thought the
>other person wanted to hear. ;-)
I think (hope) that everyone is mature enough to realize
that many things said are either said in the heat of the
moment in frustration or to cause and effect (for
diplomatic reasons).
>>Also, for general discussion. Why is it that the lead
>>aggressor always
>>seems to win these games? Afterall Rod stabbed first.
>>But because
>>Raine betrayed second he lost the 'throw the game to'
>>decision.
>I never got the impression that the victim was pissed
>off by any of my stabs. I
>guess they were considered reasonable actions that the
>other may have taken if
>he were in my shoes. Perhaps Raine's later moves seemed
>irrational and
>therefore insulting,
>although of course that just means the others failed to
>understand his motivations.
I think that there might be more too it. Say Turkey
stabs Russia and makes a run for the solo. England teams
up with Russia to stop him. Turkey backs up to give
England some room, encourages him to go for the two way
(even helps him). Russia would almost always tend to
throw the game to Turkey rather than England. First,
because England betrayed him last. Second, because
England was trying to cut him out the two-way rather than
stop the solo and accept the three way. But in reality
Turkey is also trying to cut Russia out of the draw and
not accept the three way. I would say in 9 times out of
10 Russia throws the game to Turkey rather than England.
Does other people's experience suggest that I am wrong?
I expect that Keith may be particularly suited to answer
this question. I know that he has played in over 100
games, although I bet more than half are nopress. He can
almost be an statistical average himself. What do you
think Keith?
Roger
From - Fri Mar 15 18:39:46 2002
Broadcast message from keith at alumni.caltech.edu as Austria in 'gutsy':
> I noticed that you always signed your messages as "Austria", whereas everyone
else used their name. Was this a conscious decision to depersonalize the game?
I often addressed you as "Keith" in my messages, hoping to seem more personable.
Did that work, or were you indifferent, or did you find it annoying?
I was indifferent. It is unusual for me to play in a non-anonymous
game. I suppose I was afraid of getting into the habit of signing my name.
keith
From - Fri Mar 15 18:39:47 2002
Broadcast message from keith at alumni.caltech.edu as Austria in 'gutsy':
> I expect that Keith may be particularly suited to answer
> this question. I know that he has played in over 100
> games, although I bet more than half are nopress. He can
> almost be an statistical average himself. What do you
> think Keith?
I think I have only played in 18 full-press games. I was never very good
at it. The most recent games I have played in have all been highly rated
games, and I've lost all of them. Before these games, I won a couple of
regular games and decided the best way to get better would be to play
with only really good people.
As to the question of throwing the game... I never had much contact with
France in this game. France never stabbed me. In fact, it was not
possible to throw the game to Italy. With France being likely to solo,
the only tactic I had available was to suggest to Italy that I would
throw the game to France if he tried to eliminate me.
Likewise, Germany and Russia's only chances for survival were to puppet
themselves to France, even though he had attacked them, the same way I
had to puppet myself to Italy, or else wiped out.
There were not many choices in this game. When faced with the question
of losing the game to a two-way or losing it to a solo, I decided it
would be better to lose it to a solo. Italy knew the conditions by which
he could prevent France's winning, but he did not make the right moves
for some reason. There was an easy two-way between France and Italy.
Italy had the power to keep me in the draw. If he chose not to include
me in the draw, then I was determined to make sure that he lost as well.
So, why punish Italy and not France? It was not possible to punish
France. Russia was the only one with that option, but France game him
what he wanted, while Italy did not.
keith
From - Fri Mar 15 18:39:49 2002
Broadcast message from tim at 9oakhill.com as Germany in 'gutsy':
>I was indifferent. It is unusual for me to play in a non-anonymous
>game. I suppose I was afraid of getting into the habit of signing my name.
I've always wondered about this, not in this game in particular, but in
general. In the past, whether I knew a person's name has played a
significant role for me in deciding with whom to ally.
Of course, I've also been on both sides of the inadvertent name signing in
an anonymous game.
Tim
From - Fri Mar 15 18:39:50 2002
Broadcast message from pre at dalliance.net as Russia in 'gutsy':
> Russia would almost always tend to
> throw the game to Turkey rather than England.
That's probably true but in general it's going to be
because the game is easier to throw to a larger power.
Whoever stabs first is likely to have had at least
a phase, probably a year or more to grow more quickly
so they're going to be closer to the solo. You can
only throw a game to the guy who's currently leading,
it's a lot harder to throw to the guy who's comming
second. You may as well ask why Austria didn't thow
to me!
Essentially Keith nailed it when he said that France
did what I asked and Italy didn't. If Italy had moved
back out of Sev and Rum I would have stopped helping
France.
Adam..........
From - Sat Mar 16 07:13:29 2002
Broadcast message from rkarjala at mail.student.oulu.fi as Italy in 'gutsy':
Hi all,
> As to the question of throwing the game... I never had much contact with
> France in this game. France never stabbed me. In fact, it was not
> possible to throw the game to Italy. With France being likely to solo,
> the only tactic I had available was to suggest to Italy that I would
> throw the game to France if he tried to eliminate me.
Keith,
it is true that you couldn't throw the game to anyone else than
France. But you could have chosen to throw it later. There is the key why
France won. I thought that you would throw the game later 'cause you had
no reason to throw it as long as there was a chance for you to survive.
Before the last moves you stopped talking so before the last moves I knew
it was over. I believe that the French solo was helped a lot by us and our
lack of quality press.
> There were not many choices in this game. When faced with the question
> of losing the game to a two-way or losing it to a solo, I decided it
> would be better to lose it to a solo. Italy knew the conditions by which
> he could prevent France's winning, but he did not make the right moves
> for some reason. There was an easy two-way between France and Italy.
> Italy had the power to keep me in the draw. If he chose not to include
> me in the draw, then I was determined to make sure that he lost as well.
I wonder how did you think there was going to be 2way? It was a
possiblity for sure but you still had the power to push it for 3way or
French solo. I thought that was what you were doing but I was wrong and
I realized it too late.
Eric,
I don't want to judge the quality of the press that came to Rome. At least
it wasn't _that_ much in your favour that I'd have joined the TE. On the
other hand I remember that we had some different views of how TI will work.
About messages sent to wrong persons:
There has already been talk about one Brent's message. I did it once too.
I sent a note to Keith that was supposed go to Rod. I immediately informed
both of you about it. I wanted to let Rod to know that I had made a
mistake and I wanted Keith to know that I knew I had made a mistake.
Now when the game is over could you Keith and Rod tell me how you felt
about it?
Keith was it true story that Adam sent twice the same message that was
supposed to go to Steve?
Raine
From - Sat Mar 16 08:38:14 2002
Broadcast message from pre at dalliance.net as Russia in 'gutsy':
> Keith was it true story that Adam sent twice the same message that was
> supposed to go to Steve?
Yep, it was. I was having some email trouble quite a lot
so when I didn't get a reply from the judge I'd just resend
the same message from my outbox. I didn't notice the mistake
until the actual reply from the judge came.
Adam........
From - Sat Mar 16 13:12:39 2002
Broadcast message from keith at alumni.caltech.edu as Austria in 'gutsy':
> it is true that you couldn't throw the game to anyone else than
> France. But you could have chosen to throw it later. There is the key why
> France won. I thought that you would throw the game later 'cause you had
> no reason to throw it as long as there was a chance for you to survive.
> Before the last moves you stopped talking so before the last moves I knew
> it was over. I believe that the French solo was helped a lot by us and our
> lack of quality press.
I threw the game when I told you I would throw it if you didn't move as I
demanded. You had left me with two units, and there was no way I would
be able to survive. If it looked to France like he would not be able to
get War or Mos, all he would need to do would be to pull back just a bit,
and the two-way was an easy conclusion.
> I wonder how did you think there was going to be 2way? It was a
> possiblity for sure but you still had the power to push it for 3way or
> French solo. I thought that was what you were doing but I was wrong and
> I realized it too late.
I gave you an ultimatum that you rejected. I'm sorry if you thought I
was bluffing, but your moves the previous year put me into a corner.
> There has already been talk about one Brent's message. I did it once too.
> I sent a note to Keith that was supposed go to Rod. I immediately informed
> both of you about it. I wanted to let Rod to know that I had made a
> mistake and I wanted Keith to know that I knew I had made a mistake.
> Now when the game is over could you Keith and Rod tell me how you felt
> about it?
I don't remember much about it. I knew that I had to prop you up against
France, but I also knew that once France retreated, you would likely
attack me. I don't remember the content of your message, but I don't
think it changed my point of view on anything.
> Keith was it true story that Adam sent twice the same message that was
> supposed to go to Steve?
Yes, that's right. I think these may have been more damaging.
keith