| End of Game Press in pouchtoo |
Broadcast message from Italy in 'pouchtoo':
Although I am the only survivor not involved in the draw, I must say that I am probably among the happiest people that this game is over. Congratulations to you three. As Jamie said, I really didn't have much of a chance for a mightly long time now, and it was kind of inevitable. It was nice to think that either Cal and I could break through a line somehow or set up a line of our own that required me or that A/R would break, but well, you juggle those three options up in the air and pretty soon they work at cross-purposes with each other; one person catches one ball, another catches a second, and the third drops out of the air. And it turns out to be an egg. And lands on your (my) face. Anyway, congratulations to you guys. You'd have thought you'd have the decency to let me win or at least share in a draw in a game named after my own humble little contribution to the hobby. But nooooo! :-) Manus
Broadcast message from Italy in 'pouchtoo':
As for EOG's, I think I've said far more than my share, and I'll let my recent statements, taken together, stand as an EOG. I'll respond when insulted and stuff (I'm already cringing beneath my desk in expectation) but I don't plan another original broadcast. (And there was much rejoicing.) Addio! Manus
Broadcast message from England in 'pouchtoo':
>Game 'pouchtoo' has been declared a draw between Austria, Russia and England. >Congratulations on a game well-played. Guess that answers THAT question. Fun game guys. Now to go write some scathing slander, er, insightful end game statements. Cal
Broadcast message from France in 'pouchtoo':
Jamie wrote: > EOG statements? Who wants to go first? Are any other players still > watching, besides the four survivors? I'm still here. I think I already wrote my EOG, shortly after my elimination. But congrats to the three winners! Hohn
Broadcast message from Master in 'pouchtoo':
OK, the game is over. Interesting game to watch, especially from my perspective. I mean, you guys all did known that the press was eventually going to be public domain right? >From my point-of-view, we had three different sets of players: 1) Hohn and Steve, who each made it a point to try to make sure the guys on the other side of the board attacked the other one. Both were quite successful! Perhaps the next time they play together they'll have an early game "let's not rally the troops against each other" agreement. Though, I would have to say that it did not require much convincing for people to go after either Steve or Hohn. 2) John, Cal, Dave, and Jamie, who played the game mostly as I expected it to be played, with varying degrees of success. Jamie again made it to the draw, a fact which didn't surprise me at all, and flew in the face of many of the early-game "expert" analyses by observers. 3) Manus. Oh my god, I had a hard time keeping a straight face reading Manus's press. Those of you who were playing the game have an inkling of what I am talking about. When all of this becomes public (which should not take long) we will see really incredible efforts by Manus to always appear like he's on everybody's side. The crazy thing is that one of these efforts almost worked, and would have if Dave and Jamie had stuck with it. I encourage everybody to read _all_ the press surrounding the sequence of events when Manus invited Dave to take one of his SCs. I don't consider myself a great player of the game. I watch and I try to learn. The extremes Manus went to in this game were quite something to observe. It was rather amusing, because most of the time, the other players would make comments to each other to the effect of how unbelievable they found Manus's explanations, yet repeatedly Manus was able to find somebody to work with, up until the end. Manus, I know that you're expecting a new Issue of the Pouch to come out soon. Can we get a pointer to this game in that issue? I'll try to get the press files to Ry4an Brase quickly. Any ideas for a new showcase game? Rick
Broadcast message from Italy in 'pouchtoo':
> 3) Manus. Oh my god, I had a hard time keeping a straight face > reading Manus's press. > You and me both. :-) > Those of you who were playing the game > have an inkling of what I am talking about. When all of this becomes > public (which should not take long) we will see really incredible > efforts by Manus to always appear like he's on everybody's side. > That's because I was! :-) > The crazy thing is that one of these efforts almost worked, and would > have if Dave and Jamie had stuck with it. > Yep. &^%@ them, anyway! > I encourage > everybody to read _all_ the press surrounding the sequence of > events when Manus invited Dave to take one of his SCs. > Well, I stuck myself out on a limb to try and break something somewhere (I don't remember what it was I was trying to break, but it turned out to be the limb I was on). Frankly, I was real disappointed by that. I was hoping that this game would feature some close alliance play, with SC sharing and stuff. I think it might have broken to something better than a three-way (though perhaps not). But it was not to be, and I was not to be one of the three. But all my wriggling did indeed secure my survival. I played my normal Italy, working east then west then east again. Usually this slow expansion side-to-side in each of the two directions proves successful for me with my style of press, but in this game, the buffers that are usually there just plain weren't. And the extra turn before the stab never happened. Still, I suppose, I can live with my performance. Without a true ally throughout the game, I still managed to live more than a decade. Even to the end, I thought I had a chance with Cal of doing something, but I zigged when he zagged, and Dave stabbed, and the thing became moot after that. > I don't consider myself a great player of the game. I watch and > I try to learn. The extremes Manus went to in this game were quite > something to observe. It was rather amusing, because most of the > time, the other players would make comments to each other to the > effect of how unbelievable they found Manus's explanations, yet > repeatedly Manus was able to find somebody to work with, up until > the end. > I'll take that as a compliment. (Uh, may I?) One thing, though -- I will be interested in learning which of my explanations were found most unbelievable, because by and large (and this may be a shock to everyone, or it may, I suppose, be a product of my faulty memory), I don't recall any real zingers. I think I told the truth in the main It may just have been that the truth was rather out there. I remember when I snuck into a Russian Ankara (was it) back in the original A/I/R alliance, on a Spring move, and then told Jamie it was a feint and I'd be out in Fall. Poorly timed message, but the God's honest truth. That's just the way I play. If I have an ally, I play SC sharing and fake wars, even if only for a single season, to gain a press advantage. This took Jamie and Dave by surprise, and the fact that it took them by surprise took me by surprise. I suppose I simply thought that everyone played that way. As the most experienced player in most of the games I'm in, perhaps it is just that I teach others my modus operandi and mistake it for something common. I do think it's the best and most fun way to play. Well, now that I think a little, I believe I *do* remember a couple times when a pretty extragant cover story had to be contrived. I always thought I fared pretty well with them, though, and I guess they worked decently enough. (Well, other than the fact that the final tactical mistakes on the last two turns, one a case of crossed judges and the other of crossed wires, cost me a possible [though, admittedly, not likely] place in a draw). > Manus, I know that you're expecting a new Issue of the Pouch to come > out soon. > Finished it up a couple days ago. Go and get it. > Can we get a pointer to this game in that issue? I'll > try to get the press files to Ry4an Brase quickly. > Thanks. Just change my name to protect the guilty before sending it to him. :-) > Any ideas for a new showcase game? > Something (if I am involved) in which I don't keep shooting off my foot just so that it will fit better into my mouth. :-) Manus
Broadcast message from Observer in 'pouchtoo':
> ========================================================================== > > Broadcast message from [email protected] as Master in 'pouchtoo': > > OK, the game is over. Interesting game to watch, especially from > my perspective. I mean, you guys all did known that the press > was eventually going to be public domain right? > I think they did! And this time everyone used the Judge so that the press will be lined up correctly as it was NOT in ghodstoo?? ghodstoo also is still available for viewing and when we announce pouchtoo we might want to remind people about ghodstoo as well. > > Manus, I know that you're expecting a new Issue of the Pouch to come > out soon. Can we get a pointer to this game in that issue? I'll > try to get the press files to Ry4an Brase quickly. > > Any ideas for a new showcase game? > > Rick > One idea I have for a new showcase game is that I think Rick did a better job of managing it than I did. ghodstoo was my rookie GMing on the judge attempt and though I didn't royally screw anything up, I did make a few errors. In the next game, I think that Keith Sherwood should be invited to play and perhaps Paul Rauterberg from my szine.... plus of course Mark Fassio could be asked again. Then perhaps some Brits should be asked to play. Mark Stretch might be one who I know is very E-Mail connected. In fact, with some Scandinavians etc. perhaps the next game could be called "worldtoo". My opinion is that these series of games should continue with Rick as the GM. Jim Burgess
Broadcast message from Italy in 'pouchtoo':
If Faz plays, may I please be reinvited? Manus
Broadcast message from Russia in 'pouchtoo':
(Rick said) >> The crazy thing is that one of these efforts almost worked, and would >> have if Dave and Jamie had stuck with it. (Manus said) >Yep. &^%@ them, anyway! What does it mean? That is, I think I know what 'effort' you guys are talking about, but what was *supposed* to happen, what would have happened if it 'worked'? (Manus) >Frankly, I was real disappointed by that. >I was hoping that this game would feature some close alliance play, >with SC sharing and stuff. Well, I think we all would have! I don't have to explain to anyone present how it can happen that everyone prefers that there be close alliance play, yet it never comes to pass. Just from my own perspective, I think that there *almost* was a close endgame alliance between me and Cal, but the fateful move in F1905 prevented this from happening. (Cal may correct me; it may be that he never intended such an alliance. If that's right, he had me fooled!) Going back a little further, I probably could have had a nice tight alliance into the ending with Dave, but I jumped the wrong way at the fateful juncture. (Yes, in retrospect it was the *wrong* way, but I still think it was the sensible choice given the information I had at the time.) (Manus again) > I remember >when I snuck into a Russian Ankara (was it) back in the original A/I/R >alliance, on a Spring move, and then told Jamie it was a feint and I'd >be out in Fall. Poorly timed message, but the God's honest truth. I believed you. (And yes, it was Ankara.) But, it worried me anyway. It wasn't so much *what* you did, as the fact that you *surprised* me with it, that bothered me. I am willing to 'share' centers, especially if they are going to be behind the lines, it's often a good idea. But I certainly expect my ally to ask first, or at the very least warn me! I had grave misgivings about entering into a long term arrangement with Manus at that point. The next surprise might be a very nasty one. Stabs, well, those I expect, count on, calculate, etc. But Manus pulled a surprise that wasn't a stab. I didn't want to have to plan for *those*. Jamie (formerly Tsar J)
Broadcast message from Italy in 'pouchtoo':
> (Manus said) > >Yep. &^%@ them, anyway! > > What does it mean? > Bless them? :-) > That is, I think I know what 'effort' you guys are talking about, but what > was *supposed* to happen, what would have happened if it 'worked'? > I can't really remember; it's been a while. I think, though, that the intention was for me to allow a center take by Dave, run crying to Cal, getting his moves, and break through to some kind of glorious triumph. Vague enough memory for you? I guess we'll find out when the press is published, and I'll read it and wonder what I was drinking that night. But if I remember right, A/R professed an interest in it working, and according to Dave, he came close to going through with it instead of taking such rude advantage of my hospitality. > Well, I think we all would have! I don't have to explain to anyone present > how it can happen that everyone prefers that there be close alliance play, > yet it never comes to pass. > :-) > Just from my own perspective, I think that there *almost* was a close > endgame alliance between me and Cal, but the fateful move in F1905 > That was fateful indeed. Hohn basically saved the day that turn, from my POV (though how someone who didn't make the draw can call the day saved is tough). > I believed you. (And yes, it was Ankara.) > But, it worried me anyway. It wasn't so much *what* you did, as the fact > that you *surprised* me with it, that bothered me. I am willing to 'share' > centers, especially if they are going to be behind the lines, it's often a > good idea. But I certainly expect my ally to ask first, or at the very > least warn me! I had grave misgivings about entering into a long term > arrangement with Manus at that point. > For what it's worth, I knew after that move that I had lost Jamie's trust completely in the game. Despite my profuse explanations, which all centered around the fact that here it was time to put in moves, I was the last one to do so, and what is the most logical move for that unit from my point of view, given the diplomatic objectives we were after at that time? Holding didn't seem useful, so I assumed that in my position Jamie would have done the same thing, even without time to give notice. I assumed wrong. And, as I say, I could tell that from then on Jamie didn't ever speak to me the same way again. I knew that my zig-zag method of playing Italy would be tougher because Jamie would keep a close eye on Turkey. I knew I had to shift my diplomatic strategy to court Dave a lot harder than I had been doing (I think at the time I was thinking that the A/I/R would more likely break to an I/R than an A/I, but I could tell that I/R got completely shot right then and there). I knew that Jamie would start courting Dave as well, wanting the three way to break against me, just as I had to begin hoping it would break against him as a result. My move into Ankara was intended to build trust, but it had the opposite effect, and I could tell I wouldn't get the trust back. And in the battle for Dave's friendship, Jamie won. That was probably my biggest failure; and I didn't see the break coming. I thought I had another turn or two before Dave would make his choice, and I thought I stood as good a chance as Jamie did of being chosen. Like I say, that was my biggest failure diplomatically. Then I scrambled to join John and Hohn and Cal and I hung on for dear life until Cal's E/R plan to turn Jamie on Dave (and himself on everyone else) hit us all, and Hohn seemed to be the only one prepared for it, which foiled Cal just enough to give me an ally in Cal, to join the repentant (for the time) Dave. > The next surprise might be a very > nasty one. Stabs, well, those I expect, count on, calculate, etc. But Manus > pulled a surprise that wasn't a stab. I didn't want to have to plan for > *those*. > I won't say I underestimated Jamie, but that I overestimated myself. My M.O. when playing (admittedly, against less expert players than Jamie) is that I have enough faith in my press ability to explain things like this even after the fact, and that it only builds *more* trust when I fulfill promises made *after* any kind of surprise. Obviously, I may use all this extra trust to advantage first chance I get, and one surprise down the road may not be the same kind, and the stored-up trust gives me an extra turn to twist the knife. Now I'm not saying that in this case I hoped to someday surprise Jamie and then not unsurprise him, as I did in Ankara. In many of my games, I never cash in on the trust I build in that kind of way. But, of course, I'm not saying that I didn't consider the possibility that if I could get Jamie used to harmless little surprises from me, maybe one little one might turn bigger when Dave and I wanted it to. This turned out to be a case of not giving Jamie his full due, and I realized that as soon as the moves went through. Jamie took the, "hey! I don't care HOW good your intentions are; don't you EVER surprise me like that!" tone (which I completely understand) and my "oh, don't worry; it's nothing" messages had far LESs effect on Jamie than they usually do. As I say, I usually press my way through those things and come out way ahead, but I could tell in this case that Jamie had just plain stopped, cold-turkey, considering me a potential two-way partner, and that nothing I could say would change that. I wasn't surprised that what I usually find success with wouldn't work on Jamie, but I wish I'd have found out a different way. Though not surprised by Jamie's reaction, I was surprised that that my press talents weren't able to undo that reaction at least a LITTLE more than they did. But they didn't. I could tell from that point that the someday sooner rather than later Jamie and I would be on opposite sides of the fence, and nothing I could do or say would possibly change that. I had cost myself what I considered to be a pretty darn good alliance. Manus
Broadcast message from Observer in 'pouchtoo':
I hear Manus' message loud and clear. As someone who also often uses "zig-zag" strategies, I will say that the loss in credibility can sometimes be excruciating to manage. The current "Arsenic and Old Farts" demo game, which unfortunately only can be seen by postal subbers to my szine, is playing out in somewhat similar fashion where I am playing France like Manus played Italy. Right now (and I can't say much more without potentially affecting my future), I am trying to rebuild trust among some neighbors to try to make it through to the endgame. It is interesting to contemplate whether one can switch base strategies in the middle of a given game. I do know that pursuing "zig-zag" strategies can force others to play in that arena much more than long alliance strategies can. They also are much more fun and exciting to play!! Jim-Bob
Broadcast message from France in 'pouchtoo':
Rick Desper wrote: > 1) Hohn and Steve, who each made it a point to try to make sure > the guys on the other side of the board attacked the other one. > Both were quite successful! Perhaps the next time they play together > they'll have an early game "let's not rally the troops against each > other" agreement. Though, I would have to say that it did not > require much convincing for people to go after either Steve or > Hohn. I think Steve and I simply fell into our old habits, here. He and I have played FTF dozens of times, as we are friends who both live in the greater Los Angeles area. He is definitely one of the best FTF players around, and I understand his postal play is similarly distinguished. Whenever we play, particularly at the local conventions, we almost always go for each others' throats, either immediately or as soon as possible. I'd estimate that he gets the better of me more often than not, but at least this time I can claim the incredibly valuable bragging rights of lasting a whole handful of seasons longer than he did. :-) As for the Fall 1905 move, I have to say, that was the most satisfying move (and corresponding result) that I've ordered in a long, long time. And no one tipped me off; I just had a feeling about it. I guess I should listen to my intuition more often. ;-) Hohn
Broadcast message from England in 'pouchtoo':
>Broadcast message from [email protected] as Master in 'pouchtoo': > >OK, the game is over. Interesting game to watch, especially from >my perspective. I mean, you guys all did known that the press >was eventually going to be public domain right? Sure, we all knew, but that didn't always stop some comments from being made... >Any ideas for a new showcase game? I think the idea for ghodtsoo was a good one, when the idea was to pit the best from the e-mail, postal and FTF worlds. Cal
Broadcast message from England in 'pouchtoo':
>Broadcast message from [email protected] as Russia in 'pouchtoo': >Just from my own perspective, I think that there *almost* was a close >endgame alliance between me and Cal, but the fateful move in F1905 >prevented this from happening. (Cal may correct me; it may be that he never >intended such an alliance. If that's right, he had me fooled!) Going back a >little further, I probably could have had a nice tight alliance into the >ending with Dave, but I jumped the wrong way at the fateful juncture. (Yes, >in retrospect it was the *wrong* way, but I still think it was the sensible >choice given the information I had at the time.) No "almost" about it. My absolute favourite type of game is when I have a solid two-way alliance right from the start, but NOT with one of my closest neighbours. I like to ally with someone from across the board (jn this case, Jamie's Russia) and not only keep it a secret, but make it look to everyone else in the game like my alliance is the most unlikely thing on the board. Until it was forced to break up after 1905, the fact that there was a solid E/R was news to everyone except Jamie, myself and Rick. Now, in an idealistic world, this "secret" alliance would sweep the board and end in a 17-17 draw. But since this is Diplomacy we're talking about, my preferred result is that I can grab that 18th dot. Although I WOULD have gone for the win in this alliance (unlikely as I thought it would be for Jamie to leave me an opening), I really was prepared to follow this two-way right through to the end. Cal
Broadcast message from Observer in 'pouchtoo':
> ========================================================================== > > Broadcast message from [email protected] as England in 'pouchtoo': > > >Broadcast message from [email protected] as Russia in 'pouchtoo': > > > >Just from my own perspective, I think that there *almost* was a close > >endgame alliance between me and Cal, but the fateful move in F1905 > >prevented this from happening. (Cal may correct me; it may be that he never > >intended such an alliance. If that's right, he had me fooled!) Going back a > >little further, I probably could have had a nice tight alliance into the > >ending with Dave, but I jumped the wrong way at the fateful juncture. (Yes, > >in retrospect it was the *wrong* way, but I still think it was the sensible > >choice given the information I had at the time.) > > > No "almost" about it. My absolute favourite type of game is when I have a > solid two-way alliance right from the start, but NOT with one of my closest > neighbours. I like to ally with someone from across the board (jn this > case, Jamie's Russia) and not only keep it a secret, but make it look to > everyone else in the game like my alliance is the most unlikely thing on the > board. Until it was forced to break up after 1905, the fact that there was > a solid E/R was news to everyone except Jamie, myself and Rick. Now, in an Actually, Jamie and I had been having some off line discussions that led me to understand the tricky depth of the ARE interchanges to some degree. In any case, I wasn't surprised. But Jamie admitted some things to me during those discussions that I don't think were common knowledge. To me, more than the ER machinations, it was the games that Jamie and David were playing that were most interesting to me. I was having fun tweaking the observers as they were following the day to day results and not seeing the larger picture. This was very much of a "big picture" game. Very much fun to watch. > idealistic world, this "secret" alliance would sweep the board and end in a > 17-17 draw. But since this is Diplomacy we're talking about, my preferred > result is that I can grab that 18th dot. Although I WOULD have gone for the > win in this alliance (unlikely as I thought it would be for Jamie to leave > me an opening), I really was prepared to follow this two-way right through > to the end. > > Cal > And from this observer's vantage point, you played that way. This is just my opinion, but I think Jamie was subconsciously or consciously playing for the three way draw around that period, not the "battle England out for the two way or win" that you were playing with him. It was that "three way draw" play that Jamie does so well that keeps him in every one of these demo game draws. Again, just my opinion, but if Jamie HAD been playing Cal's game, I think David would have beaten him, even with the maintained secrecy of the ER alliance. Then, the three way might have been different! Since I was sympathetic to Manus' style of play, I probably would have been trying to make that scenario play out more than Manus apparently did, since that would have been a AIE three way. Jamie is real tough to beat on that score though.... perhaps no one would have succeeded in taking that line. Just some observer thoughts, Jim-Bob
Broadcast message from Italy in 'pouchtoo':
I tried for the vowel alliance. I tried for just about everything that had more than one letter (I) in it. In fact, it was my last attempt at a vowel alliance that cost me the game. Anyway, I do think that when the press comes out, you'll see that I was pretty active in thinking I was in quite a number of three-way alliances. But I was always the odd-man out when it came to it. Manus
Broadcast message from England in 'pouchtoo':
>Broadcast message from [email protected] as Observer in 'pouchtoo': >To me, >more than the ER machinations, it was the games that Jamie and David were >playing that were most interesting to me. I was having fun tweaking the >observers as they were following the day to day results and not seeing the >larger picture. This was very much of a "big picture" game. Very much >fun to watch. Sounds like you think only Jamie can/was play/ing the "big picture" game? Hmmm.... Cal
Broadcast message from Observer in 'pouchtoo':
> > Broadcast message from [email protected] as Italy in 'pouchtoo': > > I tried for the vowel alliance. I tried for just about everything that had > more than one letter (I) in it. In fact, it was my last attempt at a vowel > alliance that cost me the game. Anyway, I do think that when the press > comes out, you'll see that I was pretty active in thinking I was in quite > a number of three-way alliances. But I was always the odd-man out when it > came to it. > > Manus > Yes, Manus, I know, but what I was trying to say was that at the bottom of all that was the machinations of the Russians. Them keeping themselves in meant, in this game anyway, keeping you out. Jamie didn't let that vowel alliance thrive. I think he did it masterfully and delicately. Jim-Bob
Broadcast message from Observer in 'pouchtoo':
> > Broadcast message from [email protected] as England in 'pouchtoo': > > >Broadcast message from [email protected] as Observer in 'pouchtoo': > > > >To me, > >more than the ER machinations, it was the games that Jamie and David were > >playing that were most interesting to me. I was having fun tweaking the > >observers as they were following the day to day results and not seeing the > >larger picture. This was very much of a "big picture" game. Very much > >fun to watch. > > > Sounds like you think only Jamie can/was play/ing the "big picture" game? > > Hmmm.... > > Cal > No, no, Cal, not at all. I probably should have separated those thoughts. I was enjoying watching the games that Jamie and David were playing with each other (1). Then, separate idea (as I was tweaking the observers), it WAS a big picture game. You HAD to be in that game Cal, or Jamie and David would have rolled over you and THEY would have been battling for that two-way/win you were talking about. You played a quieter game, for sure. I didn't have as much insight into what you were doing and how. Perhaps after seeing the press I will get more of a picture of it. But, in sum, with Hohn on one side and Jamie on the other, you were NOT surviving without some damned good play!! I thought even the eliminated players played will. That one turn that Hohn pulled off like a magician absolutely floored me! Jim-Bob
Broadcast message from Russia in 'pouchtoo':
I am very glad to hear that Cal was indeed prepared to 'go the distance' with me (had things not gone awry for him in Spain). Jim-Bob comments (to Cal) > This is just >my opinion, but I think Jamie was subconsciously or consciously playing >for the three way draw around that period, not the "battle England out for >the two way or win" that you were playing with him. Well, far be it from me to claim any special insights into my own subconscious, but I can tell you for sure that *consciously* I was not at all settling for a draw, at *that* point. Once Cal attacked me in the north, then I had to change my objectives, and I would have accepted a 3-way draw right then if I could have. But before that, I had higher hopes, essentially the same as Cal's (pressing an E/R forking attack, trying to stay roughly balanced, going for a solo if I had a reasonable opening, not expecting to see much of an opening...). > It was that "three >way draw" play that Jamie does so well that keeps him in every one of >these demo game draws. Again, just my opinion, but if Jamie HAD been >playing Cal's game, I think David would have beaten him, even with the >maintained secrecy of the ER alliance. Now that I would like to see explained. What exactly do you think would have happened if "Jamie HAD been playing Cal's game"? (Because I think, to all intents and purposes, I *was* playing Cal's game!) Nobody has commented on Dave's endgame play, by the way. I was very impressed. Tactically, he was beat, he just had to hope I would make some mistakes. But diplomatically, he won outright. Not only did he keep England after me, which must have been pretty easy, but he kept Manus from taking the Austrian centers and attempting to be the Third Man. Finally, he identified the right move to level his ultimate threat against me: that he would throw the game to England if I didn't withdraw. At just that moment, England was big enough that it was a completely credible threat, and Dave couldn't wait any longer because in another year, even another season, I might well have been close enough to eliminating Austria that I could have afforded to risk it; I would have had some decent chance of holding a line against England myself, or with some help from Italy. Jamie (formerly Tsar J)
Broadcast message from Observer in 'pouchtoo':
> > Broadcast message from [email protected] as Russia in 'pouchtoo': > > > I am very glad to hear that Cal was indeed prepared to 'go the distance' > with me (had things not gone awry for him in Spain). > > Jim-Bob comments (to Cal) > > > This is just > >my opinion, but I think Jamie was subconsciously or consciously playing > >for the three way draw around that period, not the "battle England out for > >the two way or win" that you were playing with him. > > Well, far be it from me to claim any special insights into my own > subconscious, but I can tell you for sure that *consciously* I was not at > all settling for a draw, at *that* point. Once Cal attacked me in the > north, then I had to change my objectives, and I would have accepted a > 3-way draw right then if I could have. But before that, I had higher hopes, > essentially the same as Cal's (pressing an E/R forking attack, trying to > stay roughly balanced, going for a solo if I had a reasonable opening, not > expecting to see much of an opening...). > To be honest, I'm having some trouble sorting out the time frames in the game in my thinking. I do recall though (at a point that I thought was fairly early on in the game) sending zingers at the observers which were not very explicit, but thinking in the back of my mind that the Women's Lib ERA draw was the likely conclusion. Exactly what point that was (I know it was while I was still watching Hohn do wonderous gymnastics in the West and Italy was still relatively strong), I can't recall. Perhaps, though, on this tradeoff I am all wet. If so, apologies. > > It was that "three > >way draw" play that Jamie does so well that keeps him in every one of > >these demo game draws. Again, just my opinion, but if Jamie HAD been > >playing Cal's game, I think David would have beaten him, even with the > >maintained secrecy of the ER alliance. > > Now that I would like to see explained. What exactly do you think would > have happened if "Jamie HAD been playing Cal's game"? (Because I think, to > all intents and purposes, I *was* playing Cal's game!) You would ***SURELY*** know better than I. I'll say what I meant, but I'm not sure if that was going on. At the point when the ER alliance was secret (and David would have to say when he figured it out), I am suggesting that Jamie was seriously dealing with David about some alternatives. This was a point where I was having some side discussions with Jamie and David (that I was trying not to know too much and step into interference), but some turn (I forget which one) I could see that Jamie and David were reaching a deal and at that point I was thinking... aha, Jamie is moving toward that ultimate ERA draw. No one is saying that he at that point had given up on winning himself, just that he was inclined toward making a deal with David instead of putting him out. As I said, though, perhaps my timelines are all mixed up here. > > > Nobody has commented on Dave's endgame play, by the way. I was very > impressed. Tactically, he was beat, he just had to hope I would make some > mistakes. But diplomatically, he won outright. Not only did he keep England > after me, which must have been pretty easy, but he kept Manus from taking > the Austrian centers and attempting to be the Third Man. Finally, he > identified the right move to level his ultimate threat against me: that he > would throw the game to England if I didn't withdraw. At just that moment, > England was big enough that it was a completely credible threat, and Dave > couldn't wait any longer because in another year, even another season, I > might well have been close enough to eliminating Austria that I could have > afforded to risk it; I would have had some decent chance of holding a line > against England myself, or with some help from Italy. It is this time period that I am thinking about. The turn I am thinking about is the one where Jamie withdrew. Do I just have the timing on that messed up? I distinctly recall BEFORE that turn, though, thinking that this was the turn that Austria and Russia will make a deal and then they did -- shocking the observers, but not me. Jamie, were you thinking I was talking about some earlier point??? If so, sorry about that. Jim-Bob, just your everyday kibitzing observer > > > Jamie (formerly Tsar J) > >
Broadcast message from Russia in 'pouchtoo':
Yeesh. Ok, let me try to explain the time sequence. Once Cal was attacking me full force in the north, it is most certainly true that the idea of an E/R alliance that would drive toward 17-17 with the possibility of one of us making some timely stab for victory was a pretty dim and distant idea in my mind! Not *totally* out of the question, but not exactly my main plan. If I put it this way it ought to sound extremely obvious: at the moment in the game when every surviving power was attacking me, I was thinking mainly about how I could get into a small draw, and not about how I was going to win. All of that happened as the result of the Fall 1905 move, when Cal tried to capture a few centers in and around Iberia and Hohn Cho foiled the attempt. But also in Fall 1905, I stabbed Dave. When I decided to stab him, I was indeed deciding to try for a serious, game-ending E/R alliance, one which might get me a 2-way, might get me a solo, and might end in an English solo. (And, needless to say, might go all wrong, as it did!) So, >You would ***SURELY*** know better than I. I'll say what I meant, but >I'm not sure if that was going on. At the point when the ER alliance >was secret (and David would have to say when he figured it out), I am >suggesting that Jamie was seriously dealing with David about some >alternatives. This was a point where I was having some side discussions >with Jamie and David (that I was trying not to know too much and step >into interference), but some turn (I forget which one) I could see that >Jamie and David were reaching a deal and at that point I was thinking... >aha, Jamie is moving toward that ultimate ERA draw. No one is saying >that he at that point had given up on winning himself, just that he >was inclined toward making a deal with David instead of putting him out. And what point was that? Say, 1904. Somewhere in there I was not entirely decided whether I wanted to try an E/R or an A/R. (And of course I was well aware that I might be on the short side of an A/E.) But I definitely wanted one of those two. A few considerations tipped me in favor of allying with Cal. I think I won't say what they were. But then, >It is this time period that I am thinking about. The turn I am thinking >about is the one where Jamie withdrew. Do I just have the timing on that >messed up? I distinctly recall BEFORE that turn, though, thinking that >this was the turn that Austria and Russia will make a deal and then they >did -- shocking the observers, but not me. Yeah, that was in 1908. King Kal had been attacking me for years, and I had been attacking Kaiser Dave for those same years (plus one season). There was only one alliance in place at that point: EVERYONE-BUT-RUSSIA against RUSSIA. Dave and I each knew that if that vowel alliance held together, eventually I would have to give up and rejoin Austria to stop England from winning. It did hold together, and so I did give up and rejoin Austria, and we did stop England from winning. :-) I tried everything I could think of to break up the AIE alliance. No doubt I should have thought of something better. It was quite frustrating. I felt dumb and powerless. Still, I never felt really *worried*, since I always had the reserve plan of rejoining Austria and forging a 3-way. > Jamie, were you thinking I >was talking about some earlier point??? Yes, I was, and so was Cal. There was no secret E/R alliance in 1907! The secret Cal means was one that was secret in (and until) 1904), and then came out in the open exactly when the alliance itself disintegrated (per force). -Jamie (formerly Tsar J)
Broadcast message from Observer in 'pouchtoo':
Never mind.... Jim-Bob PS Thanks for that illuminating message, Jamie. That helped me sort it out.
Broadcast message from England in 'pouchtoo':
>Broadcast message from [email protected] as Russia in 'pouchtoo': >I am very glad to hear that Cal was indeed prepared to 'go the distance' >with me (had things not gone awry for him in Spain). I figured then (as now), that we had the same goals after about S1902. Play the E/R for all it was worth, steal dot #18 if possible (albeit unlikely) and show the demo-watching world a great way to work an unlikely alliance (unlikely as in starting right from the get-go, not that E/R isn't a bad team onec the early game settles down). One advantage I had in this alliance is that I knew if there WAS going to be a late stab for the victory, it was more likely to work in my favour than Jamie's. Given the direction we would have been heading (both towards Austria or Turkey as we neared the 17-17), *I* would have units free to commit to an attack. Jamie would have no reason to build fleets up north and I'd be able to grab something like St Pete's for the final dot. Even so, I knew it was more a fond hope than a likelyhood. Sigh. Until 1905, it was a MAHVELLOUS alliance! >Nobody has commented on Dave's endgame play, by the way. I was very >impressed. Tactically, he was beat, he just had to hope I would make some >mistakes. But diplomatically, he won outright. Not only did he keep England >after me, which must have been pretty easy, but he kept Manus from taking >the Austrian centers and attempting to be the Third Man. Finally, he >identified the right move to level his ultimate threat against me: that he >would throw the game to England if I didn't withdraw. At just that moment, >England was big enough that it was a completely credible threat, and Dave >couldn't wait any longer because in another year, even another season, I >might well have been close enough to eliminating Austria that I could have >afforded to risk it; I would have had some decent chance of holding a line >against England myself, or with some help from Italy. I think the turning point in this game (along with Hohn's stopping me from getting three builds in 1905, of course) was Dave's ability to convince me that he would throw the game to Jamie if I didn't turn north. Now I ALWAYS have some doubt as to whether or not someone will actually suicide (especially with the "world" watching), but it only takes a little doubt as to whether or not they will do it. It was true enough that, if I didn't turn around, Dave would have little to lose by doing so, so I had to take the threat seriously. It was really then that the real "trench war" started. Cal Formerly King Kal
Broadcast message from Austria in 'pouchtoo':
Sorry for the batch load of my comments. I don't have time to respond to each post, so here are my thoughts on a bunch of things. Manus I think you played a fun game and I enjoyed it. I was aware of your zig-zag approach, it shows clearly even now in the end comments. Not that you have said both that you thought an A/I had a great chance all along and that while the AIR was going you were always leaning towards the I/R. The thing is that I don't doubt that you not only honestly held both these opinions, I believe you honestly held them at the same time! Like all of us, I felt the AIR could not last all that long and I felt that the most likely break up would be to squeeze the guy in the middle. That's a good part of why I broke it up with my stab before you could zig back east again. As to why I chose attacking you over Jamie, that was more of a long term decision. I thought I was in a better position to hammer you quickly (nice defense by the way!) and I felt that Jamie was in a better position to make the move we needed on Cal. Yes, even that early Cal was the one I was really concerned about. England has the easiest position to secure and Cal was on his way there. I didn't think that AI could take ER in a straight 2 on 2 slug fest, but I thought AR had a good shot at taking EI. And the fateful year of 1905. I made two mistakes (what, only two Dave? Okay, only two that were pivotal) in this year. The first was my analysis of the game position. Of course I knew that Cal and Jamie were talking and that Cal was working hard for the ER. It wasn't that I had been told about it, it was just that it had to be happening. I knew what Cal and I were talking about, and I didn't think that Cal was putting all his money on the alliance with Italy so that only left Russia. His strategy of working long term with non-adjacent neighbors is also one I favor so there was the added fact that an ER is what I would have been doing at the time. I also knew that if Jamie was going to switch to the ER, now was the time. However, I had looked at the situation and decided that it would not work out for him and that he would be better off with the A/R. The problem was that I didn't clearly communicate this to him along with all my reasoning. I made some allusions to it but make the mistake of assuming he'd reach the same conclusions I did. Doesn't help any to know I was right either! The second mistake was tactical. In planning the attack on Manus I had the concern of where his fleet in Ionian would retreat. I was willing to let it go into Aegean because I wanted to maintain my position in Turkey and despite Jamies gentle prodding in the other direction had decided on that. Unfortunately I didn't send in my moves that night and when I came in in the morning I had them all set to go except the fleet and army and I looked at it quickly only from the tactical perspective of attacking Italy and so moved the army from Con to Bul, forgetting the strategic reasons for leaving it there. This meant that Jamie was actually able to take a center from me in F 1905, whereas if I had left the army in place he would not have been able to. I expect this opportunity was the final piece in tipping the scales in favor of the stab. The other momentous part of this turn was of course Hohn's move. A wonderful move and it will long stand as one of my favorites. While I have to admit that it was a complete surprise to me, Cal's stab was not. My hope and planning was of course that Cal would stab Manus but Jamie would opt not to follow through on the stab of me, in which case AR would have been off to the races and I think we could broken through all the lines. Both of us would have course have been maneuvering for the solo as well. My planned play was to try and take Manus out after that in one massive attack. With Cal successfully stabbing him and him needing to disband, I would have argued that England was too dangerous and I would join Manus in the fight and turn on Russia, aiming to get Manus to disband A Rom and attack to hold the Med with Tun - Wes, Tyr s Tun - Wes, Pie - Mar. I don't know if I could have pulled it off, but I thought I had a good shot at it. Who knows. If I didn't, then it was just a straightforward attack. The interesting point is that with the stab by Jamie, if Hohn had moved to Wes as "planned" and Cal's stab had succeeded, the above plan would have been all the more reasonable and the odds of Manus accepting it would have risen dramatically I think. With the spring moves of: Pie - Mar, Tun - Wes, Tys s Tun - Wes Ion - Tun, Adr - Ion, Apu - Nap, Ven - Rom, Tyr - Ven We are actually down to a three way game immediately! Yes, I've given up a lot to Jamie, but we're back in the can anyone move to a two way without the victim throwing the game to one of the other two. Right or wrong, the reason I started with the AR and the reason I kept coming back to it is that I thought it had the best chance tactically and I thought that Jamie and I were the two who would most effectively use the above strategy, so the best hope for getting close to a two way had to be with both of us together. I did make one last try at the end to see if I could move with Cal. I would have made the "stab" of Jamie if I could have gotten him to agree to it on the basis of a pretend war in order to try and set up Cal. The reason we ended up in a three way was that there was no way I could make a move on Jamie and get far enough to prevent him handing the game to Cal. Not that I expected him to really suicide if he could help it, but he would hand over enough centers fast enough that I would have to call off the war and shore him up to prevent Cal's winning and the odds were too great that I couldn't shore him up in time to prevent the solo. If'd Jamie'd gone for the pretend war there was a chance I could reach a position to try for it, but Jamie of course was aware of this and too wise to let that happen. TTFN Dave (the southern Kaiser) PS. I made some notes in the first two years and I just looked back at them. The first note to myself about an ARE hopefully going to AR vs E shows up in 1902! PPS > I think the turning point in this game (along with Hohn's stopping me from > getting three builds in 1905, of course) was Dave's ability to convince me > that he would throw the game to Jamie if I didn't turn north. Now I ALWAYS > have some doubt as to whether or not someone will actually suicide > (especially with the "world" watching), but it only takes a little doubt as > to whether or not they will do it. It was true enough that, if I didn't > turn around, Dave would have little to lose by doing so, so I had to take > the threat seriously. It was really then that the real "trench war" > started. > As mentioned above I would not really have wanted to suicide but I would definitely thrown enough to Jamie that Cal had no choice but to try and prop me up. I was convincing because I did mean it. Of course I would have tried to survive, but if I couldn't then I would have taken Cal with me. I picked Cal rather than Jamie as the threat was more viable there. _________________________________________________________ DO YOU YAHOO!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
Broadcast message from Austria in 'pouchtoo':
Tsar Jamie, I'm interested in your decision to go with the E/R rather than the A/R. How set in stone was that decision and when did it occur? Was I fooling myself that there was a real shot at A/R? I'm getting a lot of these messages out of order, so if you haven't read my previous long post you might want to first. Just wondering what I could have said/done that would have kept you on the AR track, not that it would necessarily have worked out better for me. Kaiser Dave
Broadcast message from Russia in 'pouchtoo':
Hm, a lot of questions to answer and comments to offer. Cal: >I figured then (as now), that we had the same goals after about S1902. Almost -- my goal was a Russian victory. ;-) More seriously, see below in my response to Dave. More Cal: >One advantage I had in this alliance is that I knew if there WAS going to be >a late stab for the victory, it was more likely to work in my favour than >Jamie's. Given the direction we would have been heading (both towards >Austria or Turkey as we neared the 17-17), *I* would have units free to >commit to an attack. Jamie would have no reason to build fleets up north >and I'd be able to grab something like St Pete's for the final dot. Even >so, I knew it was more a fond hope than a likelyhood. Sigh. Until 1905, it >was a MAHVELLOUS alliance! Suffice it to say that it seemed to me that *I* would have the advantage, more of a chance of winning, if the ending came down to E&R against everyone else. I won't go very specifically into my reasons, but, I think Russia almost always has this sort of advantage. Russia expands very, very quickly in an endgame, when he decides to shoot the moon. Yet more Cal: >I think the turning point in this game (along with Hohn's stopping me from >getting three builds in 1905, of course) was Dave's ability to convince me >that he would throw the game to Jamie if I didn't turn north. Oh yeah, I had forgotten about that. I was somewhat surprised about that, myself. Mainly because I didn't think Dave really *had* that ability. But in any case, I basically expected that once Cal started his attack on me in '05, he would continue until he had gathered up a great deal of northern territory. One thing I half-heartedly tried to do was to let this happen relatively quickly, on the theory that if I could get Cal reasonably satisfied reasonably quickly, he might head into the Med early enough to do me some good. (He would force Manus to look westward, and without Manus's props I would be able to eliminate Dave quicker, I thought.) Dave: > [....] However, I had looked at the >situation and decided that it would not work out for him and that he >would be better off with the A/R. The problem was that I didn't >clearly communicate this to him along with all my reasoning. I made >some allusions to it but make the mistake of assuming he'd reach the >same conclusions I did. Doesn't help any to know I was right either! Here's what I think: if Cal hadn't had his 'bad luck' (or bad judgment, or underestimation of Hohn, or whatever it was) in his Fall 1905 moves, then the E/R alliance would have held a couple of years at least; in that case, I would have been able to take so much out of Austria that Dave would have had very little threat left. So I feel that my stab was 'right', although it didn't work out well in the end, due to an unforeseeable circumstance. My stabbing potential was considerably greater than it looked. I was counting on that. I could only stab for one center, and I could only move other units *near* the Austrian border (and also an army to Rum, *onto* the border), but my follow-up moves were very strong and the Austrian defense was very hard to muster. I was counting on my position *looking* less threatening than it was. Reading Dave's recent comments, I guess I didn't get any advantage from that at all! More Dave: >Tsar Jamie, > >I'm interested in your decision to go with the E/R rather than the A/R. >How set in stone was that decision and when did it occur? Was I fooling >myself that there was a real shot at A/R? I'm getting a lot of these >messages out of order, so if you haven't read my previous long post you >might want to first. Just wondering what I could have said/done that >would have kept you on the AR track, not that it would necessarily have >worked out better for me. My decision was not set in stone until the very moment I stabbed. I liked the A/R possibility for a number of reasons. I won't go into all of them (a tsar has to have some secrets, as I recently mentioned to Manus). One main one was as follows. The E/R alliance was going to be very 'open', with each of us driving as many units as we could muster into the opposition, and not having to leave much defense each against the other. We would each grow fast, leading to potentially very unstable situations, with the possibility of a win on each side if one of us made a lucky guess here or there, now or then. An A/R alliance would be much more 'closed'. We would have had to cooperate a lot in Germany, and each of us would have had a relatively slow time against our main targets. And, Austria and Russia have a big long land border, and we each had a lot of armies, so there would be permanent issues of border defense. Well, I like slower, closed positions, just as a matter of my personal style. So I sort of hoped for A/R for that reason. In the end I chose E/R for two reasons. First, as I said above, I thought my winning chances were somewhat better with E/R than with A/R. Second, at the fatal moment I saw that I had a pretty good stab of Austria, and that I was not going to have that opportunity again. To attack England, I was going to have to build a northern fleet before I got anything going, and this was going to telegraph my choice. So I wasn't going to get any surprise stab against England at all. I was afraid that if and when I stabbed one way or the other, the Big Three (ARE) combination might not break my way. If I hadn't gotten in a pretty good stab, I might be in huge trouble. Whereas if I did get in a good solid stab, then I would probably be in reasonably good shape even if the triple didn't break my way. Which, in effect, is just what happened -- right after I stabbed, everyone ganged up on me, but I was big enough and in an aggressive enough position that I was able to continue to be one of the Big Boys anyway. Jamie (formerly Tsar J)
Broadcast message from Austria in 'pouchtoo':
>Nobody has commented on Dave's endgame play, by the way. I was very >impressed. Thank you. Perhaps it's because I've had so much practice trying to pull myself out of desperate situations. Especially as Austria. Did this remind you a bit of the Dip World Demo Jim? Jamie: >Suffice it to say that it seemed to me that *I* would have the advantage, >more of a chance of winning, if the ending came down to E&R against >everyone else. > >I won't go very specifically into my reasons, but, I think Russia almost >always has this sort of advantage. Russia expands very, very quickly in an >endgame, when he decides to shoot the moon. > >Yet more Cal: > >>I think the turning point in this game (along with Hohn's stopping me from >>getting three builds in 1905, of course) was Dave's ability to convince me >>that he would throw the game to Jamie if I didn't turn north. > >Oh yeah, I had forgotten about that. >I was somewhat surprised about that, myself. Mainly because I didn't think >Dave really *had* that ability. Doesn't the first (you had a better chance, you expand rather rapidly) sort of imply the second (I could throw to you). Russia + Turkey + Austria + Balkans is 14. Russia currently owned Ber, Kie, Den and Swe as well. That's 18 right there with Mun an easy target as well. Of course you could have negotiated a careful sharing there if you had time, but I wasn't planning on allowing any time, rather a full scale abandonment of everything east of Italy. You would have grown so fast that the temptation and possibility of the win would have been very large. At least I convinced myself and Cal of that (<:. More Jamie: >Here's what I think: >if Cal hadn't had his 'bad luck' (or bad judgment, or underestimation of >Hohn, or whatever it was) in his Fall 1905 moves, then the E/R alliance >would have held a couple of years at least; in that case, I would have been >able to take so much out of Austria that Dave would have had very little >threat left. So I feel that my stab was 'right', although it didn't work >out well in the end, due to an unforeseeable circumstance. I feel the same would have applied had Cal's stab in 1905 succeeded. With my 1906 moves being an attempt to wipe out Manus, which I think would have had a fair chance of succeeding, I would have owned Italy, Tunis and some scatterred holdings in Austria and the Balkans. Cal would not yet have had a presence of any size in the Med and would have been facing the same threat as in the actual line, that I would keep my fleets, put up my best line in the Med and let Russia run rampant. It is certainly possible that you two could have gone to a two way from there, but it would not have been easy and would have required an awful lot of trust on Cal's part. And from the Jamie/Jim exchange: >Yeah, that was in 1908. King Kal had been attacking me for years, and I had >been attacking Kaiser Dave for those same years (plus one season). There >was only one alliance in place at that point: EVERYONE-BUT-RUSSIA against >RUSSIA. >Dave and I each knew that if that vowel alliance held together, eventually >I would have to give up and rejoin Austria to stop England from winning. It >did hold together, and so I did give up and rejoin Austria, and we did stop >England from winning. :-) > >I tried everything I could think of to break up the AIE alliance. No doubt >I should have thought of something better. It was quite frustrating. I felt >dumb and powerless. Still, I never felt really *worried*, since I always >had the reserve plan of rejoining Austria and forging a 3-way. > This was an interesting time for me. I never expected to be able to take the vowel alliance to the end game. I was the odd man out and if we carried it through to really wipe out Jamie either Cal would be in a position to take the solo or I would be nailed as Italy would be all around me. On the other hand, I had to keep the alliance alive long enough to make the threat against Jamie very real, but not so long that Cal was unstopable. Jamie made it all the harder by concentrating on attacking me. As he mentioned before, this meant that we didn't just flow to the A/R as England grew, I had to precipitate it with the threat of throwing the game to Cal. Kind of like dancing in a minefield. > >> Jamie, were you thinking I >>was talking about some earlier point??? > Jim, I do remember that you did seem to have a reasonable grasp of things at that point that other observers seemed to be missing. I remember some of your barbs and they were fairly close to the mark. >Yes, I was, and so was Cal. >There was no secret E/R alliance in 1907! The secret Cal means was one that >was secret in (and until) 1904), and then came out in the open exactly when >the alliance itself disintegrated (per force). BTW I did not mean to try and appear omniscient and say I knew the strength or the details of this alliance before it came into the open. It's just that I knew that Jamie and Cal had to be talking and I assumed they were following a plan and I figured on ARE for the end game from around 1902. I did misjudge Jamie's committment to the plan, along with the mistake of leaving him the opening for the one center stab. As Jamie mentioned, after 1905 he would not have been in a good position for the stab as my build would have shored up my home defenses significantly. If the stab could only have been positional, without center gains, that might have tipped the balance to AR instead of ER? Dave