Heptarchy 12: AAR's

7 player game set on the British isles. GM'ed byJoe92

Moderator: Morg

Re: Heptarchy 12: AAR's

Postby Groo » 30 Jun 2017, 10:13

nanooktheeskimo wrote:
joe92 wrote:
Groo wrote:This looks interesting! I'd love to join the next one. Congraz to all the winners.

Heptarchy 14 is currently recruiting with a scheduled start later this summer. Look in the "Forum Games looking for players" section. There's 4 of us signed up so far.

Here's a link to it: viewtopic.php?f=253&t=55754

We won't be starting before early august (mayyyyybe doing bids and confirmations the last week of July, if we have enough players by then.. Maybe), and I would encourage newer players to sign up for it, since it's a great game to dip your toe into the water with.

(And if you're not new to the PbF side of things, I apologize for forgetting your username!)

haha it's ok Im a total newbie to the PbF, and on the site in general. I have only a few games behind me, but I was lucky to get some solos - thus the ranking.
Thanks for the link Joe, I'm checking it asap
User avatar
Groo
 
Posts: 27
Joined: 14 Nov 2016, 18:13
Class: Ambassador
Standard rating: 1434
All-game rating: 1442
Timezone: GMT

Re: Heptarchy 12: AAR's

Postby GhostEcho » 30 Jun 2017, 19:15

So. AAR. First I'd like to thank my fellow combatants and our esteemed GM for keeping the game running smoothly, and for providing a stiff competition. Too stiff in the end for my skills to bring home a triumph, alas.

So far in my Diplomacy career I've tended to be a little happy-go-lucky: after all, my real love in this game is the early-game machinations, and in the early game, the ambitious attack and stunning double-cross show up stylishly across the board. It's sticking on the board afterwards, when you've shown your cards a little too early, that's the problem. I might get better results under a C scoring system than in the standard game.

But this time I intended to solo, and I intended to get there by deliberate play. An AAR from thewysecat bumped shortly before the game started also had served to whet my appetite. The first objective I didn't meet, but the second I stuck to - despite many changes in plan - and it increased my overall satisfaction with gameplay.

Bids and Plan

I put my highest bid in for Scotland, partly because its poor results made me want to try my hand at that power, but mostly because what ancestry I know of from the British Isles is Scottish. Wales followed as having the best position in my mind for survivability, though I was worried about getting squeezed out between Mercia and Ireland once I drew Wales and started looking at the possibilities.

I think it was Richard Sharp who described the best strategy for playing Germany as being able to stir the pot all around while never taking direct part in conflicts oneself. Wales is a central power on the board. It's a bit more defensible than Germany so it seemed to me possible to be a little more active, but Sharp's scheme was the plan I adopted initially. I was hoping to take little nibbles off several powers without incurring real anger, keep a couple solid allies who would take the real blame, and the eventually storm my way through an unprotected border to victory.

I decided to target Northumbria, with Ireland to follow, and victory (in theory) by circling around on the sea to raid the Cornish peninsula from the Atlantic side, like so:

Image

I knew from the beginning of the game approximately where I wanted to find my winning centers. I may of course have mis-analyzed the position, but I knew where I wanted to get to. Even though diplomatic reasons led me a circuitous route, keeping the end goal in mind did eventually get me pretty much to the position I wanted.

The biggest weakness of my plan is that it relied on being able to keep Cornubia contained. I didn't expect to get the actual winning centers from Cornubia, but probably from Mercia or Anglia - but it was essential to be able to get that peninsula under control ind the endgame if I wanted to win.

Early Game

As it turned out, a number of difficulties quickly arose in the very first year of play. Cornubia and Anglia quickly went to war - that was good. But Cornubia got much the better of it: to keep Cornubia in his corner I felt that I had to patch things up between them. Meanwhile, Mercia declined to move against Northumbria; with the border for the three of us heavily engaged, it seemed clear to me that whoever had to fight 1v2 would lose. Therefore, although I had been counting on a strong Mercian position early to help zone out Cornubia, I decided to take the Mercian part of my goal centers first. (Rather than last: now Cornubia was either the final target, or I had to induce a weakness in Cornubia earlier and invert my planned spiral path. As it played out, I took something more like the first option: the latter might have worked better.) In Spring 653 a miscommunication with Northumbria slowed down the attack on Mercia, as did a follow-up misorder of my own in the Fall. Meanwhile Scotland collapsed. The eventual position after adjustments in 654 stood as shown:

Image


Diplomacy

Here diplomatic considerations took priority over strategy or tactics. In theory, I should have turned on Northumbria for my own positional gains. But he had armies on my border - though with no offensive options of his own - with relatively limited options against Anglia. I was on pretty good terms with Northumbria, and wanted a buffer against Ireland.

Meanwhile, Cornubia had been the most voluble communicator throughout the game. He was my original penultimate - now ultimate - target, but I wanted him to have no grounds for suspicion whenever I was in position to take the war to the seas. One of my major concerns throughout the first five or six years was to keep Northumbria and Cornubia from talking to each other in detail - and to squash all proposals for three-way communications. I don't know how well I did with the first goal: my main tactic was exaggerating concerns each power displayed about the other one. As far as I could tell from the messages, both trusted me fairly absolutely. Stopping multi-power messages succeeded fairly well until Ireland attacked Northumbria and quickly took a clear lead.

Finally, Anglia was important for containing Cornubia, and we'd had decent communication but little active coordination.

I decided to support a push in against Anglia. I thought he'd be able to hold a few centers - which was a miscalculation - and I wanted Northumbrian troops off my border. I also didn't want Cornubia looking around: if he conqured Irish centers himself too early that would make my eventual sea fight difficult. Anglia seemed the best sacrifice. In retrospect I think this might have been a mistake. One alternative strategy would have been, I think, to coordinate an attack on Ireland with Cornubia and on Northumbria with Anglia. Ireland, I think, would have held off the Cornubian attack until I swung in with my fleets - much as actually happened - but might have gotten a few Northumbrian centers more than he did first. Hard to say with hypotheticals, though. Another option might have been to simply storm the Cornish peninsula with Anglian help - but I suspect the result would have been a quick deadlock: Cornubia had too many fleets for effective encirclement.

Whatever I did was going to require subterfuge to break out of my box without declaring open war on powers who could fight back. Essentially what I did to start was to support Northumbria against Anglia while swapping into Northumbrian-held centers to get my own builds - and fleets - up. If Anglia was going down, I wanted Northumbria (or myself) to get as many of his centers as possible, rather than Cornubia. I did continue close coordination with Cornubia; the result was an eventual gain of Oxford and Cambridge, which put my SC numbers up high enough to start thinking about trying to finish the game.

Throughout this phase of the game I pretty shamelessly lied, "misunderstood" communication, and passed on information about moves. In Fall 655 I helped arrange a Northumbrian attack, then gave Anglia enough information to defend it. My goal was to keep Northumbria on my side without giving him the means to defend an eventual sucker-punch. The resolution of the attack on Anglia put me in a good position, and Northumbria in a poor one, forces split...

Image


Ireland

Although he did not much affect me - apart from the early game where Scotland's demise made attacking Northumbria a bad idea - Ireland led the board throughout most of the game. Even as Anglia was finished off, though, his size had led to growing concerns. Naturally, once it was clear we were going down to four players, everyone started looking at the board leader.

I again thought about trying to split up Northumbria - this time with Ireland - but I thought throwing in with Ireland on that front would lead to a war with Cornubia. The downside of taking Oxford and Cambridge in 657 was an exposed position - and taking over the board lead. The downside of a central position is the number of borders. I thought at this point the most likely outcome was a three-way draw, and I had no intention of being the fourth left out. So I went along with the reduction of Ireland.

I was incredibly surprised when my growing size brought no complaints. At the end of 657 I was the leader. At the end of 659 I had added another center, bringing my total to twelve.

Bust

In Fall 659, I had noted a number of undefended, or probably undefended, SCs that could be taken. Northumbria had left his border with me unguarded for several years; I was moving on Ireland. Was it worth the stab? I decided not: I could probably cut the draw to three pretty immediately, but not take enough centers for a good solo chance.

In Fall 660, things were different. First of all, I had a chance at 7 centers - the jump from 12 to 19 (with a goal of 20) was much better than a hop from 11 to 14 or 15 that I had had before. Second, discussion of the final result of the game had started. At this point, I thought the solo would be either mine or no one's. If Ireland were eliminated (or even heavily reduced), a three-way draw would be proposed and a denial would almost certainly mark me as too ambitious for my station, cutting chances of victory to nil.

Image


I had to strike first. Dublin would hold; the Isle of Man I could take by surprise, Lancaster and Kin (?) I expected to be uncontested, and Sci (?), Manchester and Sheffield were undefended. My biggest question was whether to take Kin or try to play for position going forward. I went for position: this was a drastic mistake, as I'd noticed that Northumbria would capture another SC, but not worked through the ramifications. With my home centers being so far behind the lines, I needed to wipe out as many opposing units as possible: Irish fleets mattered far less than Northumbrian armies. And one center is less of a margin of error for the defenders than two. As it was, the decision to play for "position" certainly stalled any counter-attack, but it didn't deflect it entirely, and the somewhat circular chase through once-Anglian centers was bound to come down in Cornubia's favor. Meanwhile, since Northumbria had more left than I had counted on, I was unable to ram home my attack and take the final centers.

I doubt - even had I calculated correctly - that I would have won. I was (I had discussed this with Cornubia during the turn, actually) unable to significantly damage Cornubia's position in my attack. He lost only one center and could easily disband a fleet mobilized against Ireland earlier without hurting his defense against me. I think I would have lost Oxford and Cambridge as fast as I could take Northumbrian centers, and my grabs from Ireland were never going to last more than a couple years. But I could have conducted the assault better.

Finale

Fall 662 saw me cut back to 15 centers. I proposed a four-way draw which was quickly accepted.

Image


One of my other reasons - distinctly secondary to ideas of winning - for making the solo try is that I really don't have much patience for draw-whittling. I might have taken the four-way draw (which was the eventual result anyway) that Ireland proposed in 660 if I hadn't thought I might be able to push my position to a solo. But in fact at that point the draw was premature: had we merely settled for continuing to push against Ireland, the end of 660 would have had powers with 10, 6, 9, and 13 supply centers - and Wales (with 13) not under attack.

It's true that Ireland's position was more or less unsustainable 1v3 and in that sense he didn't "deserve" inclusion in a draw at that point. Additionally, as far as I know he'd barely made any attempt to shake up the diplomatic situation, so he "deserved" to get stuck 1v3 as well. But I don't think the elimination of Ireland would have gotten anybody into a much better position to win - and if I'm going to take a draw anyway, I'd rather not waste two or three years just voting somebody off the island. Much more exciting to introduce real stakes into the environment.

Player Notes

Anglia (Gooderian): Bad luck. I was envisioning you as a late mid-game ally, but the way things shook out we just never got the opportunity to really coordinate. Maybe next time.
Cornubia (nanooktheeskimo): Really drove the diplomatic wheels of this game. I loved it, because I play best as a foil: trying to make things happen without anything to react to is something I find distinctly uncomfortable.
Ireland (Don Juan of Austria): We really barely interacted. Could maybe have talked a little more, but then there wasn't much to say.
Mercia (JoeHoya06): I think a fairly new player, but with lots of potential. Solid communicator. Just happened to get in the way of my murderous plot. Would love to catch you in another game.
Northumbria (I Love Italy): A solid ally. As revealed above, you were my number one target from the start - but with cooperation and solid trust-building added to strategic considerations, I'd determined by about the midgame that I was only going to stab for a solo attempt.
Wales (buckielugger): Survived for a while; we didn't really get into a position to cooperate. Scotland was a ways away and I never really wanted your outpost in Norwich for anything.

I've got a few questions (if I remember them) about particular moves: maybe if other AARs don't clear them up I'll ask those later as well.
"When you absolutely don't know what to do any more, then it's time to panic." - Johann van der Wiel
"I'm not panicking, I'm watching you panic. It's more entertaining." - Elli Quinn
"[Diplomacy:] No dice or chance. Just calculated insincerity." - Counter Trap
User avatar
GhostEcho
 
Posts: 1668
Joined: 10 Aug 2008, 04:56
Location: PG County, MD, USA
Class: Ambassador
Standard rating: 1019
All-game rating: 985
Timezone: GMT-5

Re: Heptarchy 12: AAR's

Postby joe92 » 05 Jul 2017, 18:07

buckielugger wrote:Excellent animation by the way. Is that a possible enhancement on all standard games?

Cheers! I imagine it's something that could be incorporated using a bit of jQuery and the images from the game, but I'm not a developer here. You could suggest it in the suggestions sub forum?

Thanks for the comprehensive AAR, GhostEcho. It was interesting to read through. You had a great game, and were so close to a solo! As a spectator I thought similar to what you've said yourself. That the mistake came in the solo run stab. Making the positional move for Essex was the mistake, and that you should have struck at Kings Lynn forcing another unit to be destroyed. With the additional destroy from Northumbria you might've been able to get the last supply centres before the counter attack from Cornubia and Ireland stopped you. But that's purely speculation at this point... Congrats on a game well played.
Designer: Modern Extended
GM'ing: ModEx

Platinum Classicist

Northumbria in Heptarchy 14
User avatar
joe92
Premium Member
 
Posts: 763
Joined: 02 Feb 2013, 00:26
Location: Leeds, GB
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: 1097
All-game rating: 1633
Timezone: GMT

Re: Heptarchy 12: AAR's

Postby nanooktheeskimo » 02 Aug 2017, 00:18

Much belated, but here's my AAR. It won't be as comprehensive as some of the others, but hopefully it'll shed some light on how I approached this game.

To start, I was pretty happy at drawing Cornubia, especially when I saw who my neighbors would be. I figured that between Don Juan in Ireland, Ghost in Wales, Gooderian in Anglia, and Joe in Mercia, I would be able to get at least two of them on my side, and that's really all you can ask for. Given Cornubia's position, I thought it would give me a bit of a leg up in early negotiations--it's easy for Cornubia to be any of their neighbors ally, and because of their relative isolation, they're not a huge threat. So I played that to my advantage, and essentially played the fearmonger card, puffing up all my neighbors to be big, bad threats, while little old me couldn't do any harm if I wanted to. I don't know how much it worked and how much I just ended up being the least bad option, but either way, I got the results I wanted the first year. A strong alliance with Wales, a good enough agreement with Ireland, a passable working arrangement with Mercia, and friendliness with Anglia.

I should probably be upfront here too: the first year, I did everything possible in my power to get Wales on my side, and to set him up for conflict with Mercia. I don't know how much he figured out of that and went along anyways, and how much my machinations worked, but regardless, it got the job done. I knew that I needed Wales fighting Mercia, and I was able to make it happen, but barely. Mercia, to his immense credit, sniffed it out very quickly. Even though it was Wales that made aggressive moves toward him, it was me that he initially blamed! With a LOT of effort and energy, I was able to get him pointed back at Wales, although it was no easy feat, and I spent the entire time very worried that he'd send my plan crumbling down. If he had kept angry at me instead of reconciling, then I probably would've been screwed.

I also lied intensely to Anglia during the early going. I set him up for an attack the second year...then made peace with him at some point, but I never truly intended to stay peaceful with him for long. I knew Wales was trying to delay that front until he could get a bigger bite, but I didn't mind--if me and Anglia hadn't come to a peace agreement that I could later break, I believe that all my momentum that direction would have stalled. By reaching an agreement and then stabbing him once his guard was down, I ensured that my momentum wouldn't be stalled completely, even if the price was that I had to cede some of that territory to Wales. Again, I saw what he was doing...but I didn't really mind, because it gave me opportunities elsewhere, so I was happy to make the concessions after the obligatory hand-wringing.

From very early in the game, I decided that Wales was going to be my ally. I worked very close with him, especially early in the game before other stuff lessened the amount of time I had to devote to it, and at every turn tried to orchestrate things both in our favor, and so that I would be his best option as an ally (or at least a bad option to stab!). The first two or three years of this game were probably some of the best diplomacy I've played in a while--I was on top of the game, playing above my normal skillset, and felt that I was in very good control of the board. That changed when I had less time to devote to it, as it will, but I think that my first three years or so really catapulted the rest of my game, and I was able to maintain from that start.

The year that Wales stabbed, Ireland and Northumbria came to me with concerns about Wales. I didn't dismiss them entirely, but I also didn't take them quite as seriously as I should have. I knew that Wales was eyeing a stab, but I didn't think it would come until the following year. I didn't quite realize how exposed NU's border was, and thought that a Welsh stab would put him at 15 or 16 centers, not 19. That was lazy on my part, and nearly cost us the game. I knew that me and Ireland would be able to mount a good counterstrike from our positions (Ireland more than me, but I knew I could give him fits), but I didn't look at it closely enough to realize just how vulnerable NU's defense was at the time. Through no fault of his own either--he had no choice but to leave himself vulnerable or stop growing altogether.

I was relieved when Wales put up the draw. In all honesty, if he had wanted to continue to fight it out, I'm not sure how long I could have held on to my centers. Once he landed a convoy near my home centers or took Bri, it would have been extremely tough for me to defend, and I don't think that I could have stopped both from happening. One, certainly, but not both. That means our defense would have relied on me making some very tough choices for disbands, and Ireland being able to push Wales back enough to compensate for his gains on my territory. It might've been possible, but I'm not sure how long it would've been able to last. So I'm glad that Ghost opted for the draw, instead of trying to keep pushing another four or five years for the solo.


The players:
Anglia/Gooderian: Didn't quite get a fair shake from me most of the game. I don't recall why, but there was a reason I was pissed at him after the first spring, and I never quite let go of it. I think he lied to me about a planned bounce, maybe? Or maybe he wasn't going to bounce me, then did? Whatever the cause was, I proceeded to lie mercilessly to him from F01 onwards, so I'm happy to call it even.

Ireland/Don Juan: Didn't talk much for most of the game. A few messages here and there, at one point I tried to set up an anti-Welsh alliance with him in the middle of the game, when I thought I was going to need a fallback. I never felt comfortable enough with his comms to pull the trigger though, or this game could've gone a lot differently. Didn't mesh great style-wise, but to his credit we were able to coordinate together effectively at the end, when the game counted on it.

Mercia/JoeHoya06: Took a lot of painstaking work to make sure he didn't undo my early game plans. I'm still baffled why he got mad at me when Wales attacked him, but he saw right through it and knew I was involved. I still maintain that Wales was the proper guy to be angry at there (after all...sure someone else might have come up with the idea...but at the end of the day there's one person on your doorstep, and one person not). Fought well, but when Wales helped me reconcile with Anglia (the other reason I agreed to reconcile temporarily with Anglia, besides momentum, is because I wanted Mercia out of the game since he was going to be the hardest to work with at that point), he was pretty much screwed.

Northumbria/I Love Italy: Talked on and off throughout the game. Should have paid closer attention to his warning about Wales at the end. Our comms were sporadic, but we were able to pull it together at the end, along with Ireland, to manage a draw we probably didn't deserve.

Scotland/buckielugger: Feisty bugger! I tried to talk him into making a play for Flanders early, but he (probably wisely) declined, since he had to deal with Ireland and NU. I thought about trying to get him on board as a vassal instead of taking (Norwich, I think? Or Ipswich?), but I hadn't done enough legwork with him leading up to that point to be able to trust his answer, even if he was on board with it. So I helped see him out instead, although I greatly respect the tenacity and ingenuity to get as far south with his last fleet as he did!

Wales/GhostEcho: My favorite ally on this board, despite his late game treachery! I can't blame him for that though--in his shoes, I would have done the same thing. I thought he was going to stab a year later than he did, but I didn't quite realize how strong his position was in comparison to NU's. I think his second-biggest downfall (aside from the move he discussed, where he played for position instead of a center) was out of his control, being that both me and Ireland had easy choices to disband after his stab. If we'd had to make harder choices, then he probably would've been able to push through, but as it stood we had very clear cut options, and it was very easy to say "I disband this and you disband that, and if either of us doesn't follow through, then there's no ALA." And it was equally easy to follow through on that, despite the mistrust between myself and Ireland at that point. That's not really something Wales could have controlled though. All in all, I had a lot of fun playing with him, and scheming together, even when we had separate schemes of our own, until the stab those separate schemes lined up with each other in terms of what we wanted to do. For example, when he played peacemaker with me and Anglia, he had ulterior motives for it...but so did I, and they were compatible with each other. So it worked out pretty well for us, and was a fun alliance to be in. I don't begrudge him his solo run, and if the positions were flipped I probably would've done the same thing.


Big thank you to Joe for doing an exceptional job GMing as well, and for accommodating me in a sort of last minute pause request in May. You did a great job GMing, and it did not go unnoticed :)
Platinum Classicist
(h/t lordelindel)

I am your (co-) Leader.

GM of Sengoku, Heptarchy 14.

France

Need a forum game GM'ed? PM me!

Mod
User avatar
nanooktheeskimo
Premium Member
 
Posts: 4363
Joined: 19 Jun 2014, 19:52
Location: East TN
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: 1190
All-game rating: 1386
Timezone: GMT-5

Re: Heptarchy 12: AAR's

Postby nanooktheeskimo » 02 Aug 2017, 00:35

GhostEcho wrote:As it turned out, a number of difficulties quickly arose in the very first year of play. Cornubia and Anglia quickly went to war - that was good. But Cornubia got much the better of it: to keep Cornubia in his corner I felt that I had to patch things up between them.

I was happy to go along with this, because from my perspective things against Anglia were going to stall pretty quickly, especially since he was able to get a fleet onto the board (if I'd been able to prevent that though, then it might've been a different story). This, from my POV, presented the perfect chance to lay back off Anglia for a bit, get him to put his guard down, and then go for the jugular as soon as he presented an opening. It also achieved my secondary goal of putting more pressure on Mercia, which I definitely wanted given that I didn't want two neighbors mad at me, and things were easier to patch with Anglia than with Mercia. So anything that got Mercia out of the game faster at that point was fine by me, even if it meant delayed progress for me (delayed being the key word, rather than stalled).


GhostEcho wrote:Therefore, although I had been counting on a strong Mercian position early to help zone out Cornubia, I decided to take the Mercian part of my goal centers first. (Rather than last: now Cornubia was either the final target, or I had to induce a weakness in Cornubia earlier and invert my planned spiral path. As it played out, I took something more like the first option: the latter might have worked better.)

I think that stabbing me in the mid game probably would have gone better. If you had done so, it would've been tough for me to really rally anyone to my cause--Ireland I was on shaky ground with, and NU wouldn't have been charging in to save me. It's only because of your obvious solo threat at the end that I was able to work well with them, but in the midgame they don't necessarily have that motivation. Maybe I could've gotten Ireland on board, since you would've presented a challenge to his board topping, but that's far from a sure thing. Easier in hindsight though, and I'd like to think that my play had something to do with you making the choice to save me for last.


GhostEcho wrote:I don't know how well I did with the first goal: my main tactic was exaggerating concerns each power displayed about the other one. As far as I could tell from the messages, both trusted me fairly absolutely. Stopping multi-power messages succeeded fairly well until Ireland attacked Northumbria and quickly took a clear lead.

I don't know if I trusted you completely, but at that stage, I definitely trusted that I was your best option. In part that is/was arrogance speaking, because I'd done a lot of work to make sure I was your best option, but I think it was also true on the board.

I have very little interest in multi-power messages, both in this specific context, and in general. I'm much better at communicating one on one, and so that's usually where I prefer to focus my efforts, with some exceptions. I can't speak for ILI, but personally, I didn't really talk much to him for reasons that had little to do with you playing his concerns up, and had more to do with him being seemingly unwilling to really commit to anything. At no point in the first 5 or so years did he give me anything concrete to work with, even when I was trying to coordinate plans with him with regard to Mercia and Anglia, which made me disinclined to work with him given that seeming lack of desire to work with me. Perhaps you were responsible for that on his end, but for me, my lack of communication with Northumbria had more to do with him not being willing to share an iota of information however vague about his plans, which made it functionally impossible for me to really work with him.
Platinum Classicist
(h/t lordelindel)

I am your (co-) Leader.

GM of Sengoku, Heptarchy 14.

France

Need a forum game GM'ed? PM me!

Mod
User avatar
nanooktheeskimo
Premium Member
 
Posts: 4363
Joined: 19 Jun 2014, 19:52
Location: East TN
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: 1190
All-game rating: 1386
Timezone: GMT-5

Re: Heptarchy 12: AAR's

Postby GhostEcho » 02 Aug 2017, 16:24

nanooktheeskimo wrote:I should probably be upfront here too: the first year, I did everything possible in my power to get Wales on my side, and to set him up for conflict with Mercia. I don't know how much he figured out of that and went along anyways, and how much my machinations worked, but regardless, it got the job done. I knew that I needed Wales fighting Mercia, and I was able to make it happen, but barely. Mercia, to his immense credit, sniffed it out very quickly. Even though it was Wales that made aggressive moves toward him, it was me that he initially blamed! With a LOT of effort and energy, I was able to get him pointed back at Wales, although it was no easy feat, and I spent the entire time very worried that he'd send my plan crumbling down. If he had kept angry at me instead of reconciling, then I probably would've been screwed.


Obviously, I don't have access to all Mercia's communication or planning, but looking through my comms I found two things that might have helped give him that impression:

1) I'd forgotten about this, but there was a 3-way conversation between myself, Northumbria, and Mercia working out what to do to avoid fighting each other. (I don't recall who started it - it looks like it may have been Mercia, if the system preserved the message chain correctly - but I definitely used it as cover for my stab.) So to Mercia, if that plan got broken up, the impetus must have come from somewhere else - and you talked more than Anglia, so would have been the natural target of suspicion.

2) After/around the time of my stab, I sent a couple messages implying you were leaning on me to attack Mercia or else, though I never said so straight out.

The funny thing is, Mercia was actively trying to avoid conflict with me, and I made the decision to attack Mercia - at least consciously - solely as a result of my frustration with him being unwilling to move North. Hard to tell how much your comms actually influenced that, but it played into your hands.
"When you absolutely don't know what to do any more, then it's time to panic." - Johann van der Wiel
"I'm not panicking, I'm watching you panic. It's more entertaining." - Elli Quinn
"[Diplomacy:] No dice or chance. Just calculated insincerity." - Counter Trap
User avatar
GhostEcho
 
Posts: 1668
Joined: 10 Aug 2008, 04:56
Location: PG County, MD, USA
Class: Ambassador
Standard rating: 1019
All-game rating: 985
Timezone: GMT-5

Re: Heptarchy 12: AAR's

Postby Don Juan of Austria » 03 Aug 2017, 21:50

Yikes! I meant to put up my AAR way earlier than this...anyway, better late than never, right? ;)

When the bids came out, I was quite happy to get Ireland. It has legitimate nosey-rights to all other factions, which
would make comms easier, I thought.

My initial plan, even before I had sent or received any PMs, was to play a very cautious game, and try not to over expose
myself. To me, previous Irelands seemed to start off well, but were then easily flanked/stabbed/deaded. ;)
Early discussions started off okay...I was naturally hoping to pick up three builds from the neighboring islands, but
at the same time, I wasn't going to gamble for 3 vs 1, when I could get a sure 2. Cornubia asked nicely enough for Sci,
and Scotland demanded Heb, while NU was okay with me taking the Isle of Man. I told Scotland to go for Flanders, and
that I didn't want a war over Heb, but that I could take it. He refused, and so I decided that Scotland would be my first
place of interest, and then NU got on board with that too. I sort of tried to see if I could get Wales into Sci, but
Cornubia ended up with it year one.

Now...I don't really remember why, but Cornubia and I never were on the friendliest of terms. And as such, I was trying
to watch my back most of the game, and kept a fleet in the NAO a lot of the time. Having a fleet there, meant that I sent fleets
around Scotland, and was thus constantly putting a new fleet into the NAO...leaving me with a severe lack of armies.

Anyway, Scotland was taken care of, and I needed a new place to go...which turned out to be Northumbria. Where after
a gain, he talked me out of fighting him, and being allied once more. We were to become the infamous "Lemon Lime"
alliance, and push south together. I felt happy with this, though we didn't have any immediate specific plans, except that
we both agreed that we needed a disposable helper down south, where we would be going. I suggested the remains of Anglia,
and he agreed, (in the Spring I think). In the Fall, he attacked Anglia, which to be honest, really annoyed me at the time.
So I attacked NU again, where we whittled for quite awhile.

When Wales and Cornubia attacked me, it wasn't a great time for me diplomatically, as I was traveling...and I didn't really
write much to anyone. But I could decide who I gave my centers to.... so, I chose Wales, hoping Cornubia would stab him
at seeing his growth, or...letting him solo. Cornubia wasn't stabbing, so I moved out of a center, and somewhere in here,
I also misordered, and Wales got into Dublin easily. Right after that, Wales stabbed NU, and we finally had a coalition
going! It was fun being with NU and Cornubia again, knowing a stab at this point would simply be suicidal.
I was satisfied with a 4 way in the end. The Welsh solo attempt was a nice ending.

I quite enjoyed the game, and when I did write, I quite enjoyed writing to all of you. And especially, thank you Joe
for running another wonderfully GMed game. :)
"In everything, moderation". ~Aristotle
A proud member of the Whippersnappers,
Bronze Classicists,
and Lancer in the PBF cavalry.


Italy in ModEx 2,
Hojo Ujimasu in Sengoku,
The Victorious Inland Over-Land Expeditionary Team, in Great Expeditions!
User avatar
Don Juan of Austria
 
Posts: 730
Joined: 19 Feb 2014, 11:50
Location: South Africa, though given to travel
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: 1064
All-game rating: 1078
Timezone: GMT

Re: Heptarchy 12: AAR's

Postby nanooktheeskimo » 04 Aug 2017, 01:17

Don Juan wrote:Cornubia and I never were on the friendliest of terms.

I don't recall us being especially unfriendly--we just weren't especially friendly either. At least, that's how I remember it.

Ghost wrote:The funny thing is, Mercia was actively trying to avoid conflict with me, and I made the decision to attack Mercia - at least consciously - solely as a result of my frustration with him being unwilling to move North. Hard to tell how much your comms actually influenced that, but it played into your hands.

I think we might've screwed Mercia's diplomacy unintentionally. Your implications made him mad at me...and him being mad at me made me unwilling to work with him. Not sure we could've put him in a worse spot if we'd tried to.


I also want to loop back to this:
Ghost wrote:One of my other reasons - distinctly secondary to ideas of winning - for making the solo try is that I really don't have much patience for draw-whittling.

I actually hate draw whittling. If I'd understood that you don't like it either, I would have played it much, much differently. But I misread that situation--which is partly why I thought the stab would be coming the next turn! Now I know though, that I'm not the only one that doesn't care for whittling.
Platinum Classicist
(h/t lordelindel)

I am your (co-) Leader.

GM of Sengoku, Heptarchy 14.

France

Need a forum game GM'ed? PM me!

Mod
User avatar
nanooktheeskimo
Premium Member
 
Posts: 4363
Joined: 19 Jun 2014, 19:52
Location: East TN
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: 1190
All-game rating: 1386
Timezone: GMT-5

Re: Heptarchy 12: AAR's

Postby Don Juan of Austria » 04 Aug 2017, 09:09

nanooktheeskimo wrote:
Don Juan wrote:Cornubia and I never were on the friendliest of terms.

I don't recall us being especially unfriendly--we just weren't especially friendly either. At least, that's how I remember it.


Right. Next game, hey? :D
"In everything, moderation". ~Aristotle
A proud member of the Whippersnappers,
Bronze Classicists,
and Lancer in the PBF cavalry.


Italy in ModEx 2,
Hojo Ujimasu in Sengoku,
The Victorious Inland Over-Land Expeditionary Team, in Great Expeditions!
User avatar
Don Juan of Austria
 
Posts: 730
Joined: 19 Feb 2014, 11:50
Location: South Africa, though given to travel
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: 1064
All-game rating: 1078
Timezone: GMT

Previous

Return to Heptarchy 12

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest