Tournament Game - STELLA - AARs

4-qualifying rounds and a Final Board. TDs: Uncle Monty, Samarkand, Sheddy Winner: bitwise.

Re: Tournament Game - STELLA - AARs

Postby jeanphi » 02 Mar 2009, 05:27

OK from my English point of view.

FIRST: I NEED TO KNOW WHO THE SWISS OBSERVER IS!!!!!!!!!! You are invited to all my games! You really made this game fun!

The game started and I quickly messaged to try to prevent any F/G against me and a sealion. Quickly, I contacted France and agreed to a strong alliance with him with the door open to a WT, Germany joined in but I was worried about him and agreed with France that in case he was going to go banana, we would have to act. Thankfully: it never happened. I was happy to the WT setup and unless G was to stab me or France, I would not stab him.

1901 came with lots of comunication fro Germany, France and Russia. Russia proposed at first that we share the scnadinavian countries which I "agreed" but I really wanted to see a bounce in Sweden: which happened. F/G agreed that I temporarly take BEL showing aggressivity and trying to hide the WT (probably did not work) but I was happy to see that I had 2 builds in 1901!!! Nice for a change with England!

I was also happy to see the bounce and that France had his fleets south.

I also had the messge from Russia about setting up a R/G/E: I accepted (oooppssS) but was too commited to France. I also messaged Germanyy accidently but "accidently" said that Russia asked me to ally with him against Germany... darn keyboard... (sorry Russia).

By that time and based on some syntax in his messages, I thought France was one of 3 players: Bitwise, Superhick or a 3rd one (can't remember who) but since I was with bitwise on first rounds, I doubt it but in any case, I assessed that I was going to trust France no matter what (or close to it).

Germany seemed to be great and I was also going to trust him after the bounce as I figure Russia would be more mad at him than me.

In the 01 build, I made the controversial decision to actually build 2 armies. The idea was to #1: show to F/G that if they wanted to attack me, it was not going to be club med in the British island. #2: reassure france on my intends south #3: really encourage Germany to help me land in the north.

As I promised, I exited BEL and continued to move north. Russia actually seemed to have been worrried more about me than G (which was great) and ended up bouncing himself in FIN and I got into SWE with St pete basically dead man walking.

Whoaaa it was working great.

Then it kind of moved smooth: I am sorry I had Germany worried about my lack of communication: this is a lesson learned: for me it was WT to the end and no need for much communication except the moves.

Then the only glitch was the missed order for the LIV convoy. At that point I was worried a little. It was either #1: a missed order/mistake, #2 the most stupid move ever as his other moves matched what we needed or #3: something really smart and that something big was going on and I was missing it and France was going to slam me or China or something from Mars. I was worried (a little).

After thinking about it, I eliminated #2 as germany already proved he was a great player.

It was spring 03 and I looked at the map and even with my total paranoid hat on: I could not see any #3 scenario. Germany messaged me and France and appologized and said it was a mistake. So I figure the only explanation was #1

Then the rest for my point of view was continuing close work with France and Germany and enjoying the Swiss observer.
Just don't forget: it is a GAME. The only reason to play is for fun.
FIER D'ETRE LYONNAIS
User avatar
jeanphi
 
Posts: 5164
Joined: 26 May 2008, 17:56
Location: Chicago
Class: Diplomat
Standard rating: (1000)
All-game rating: (1000)
Timezone: GMT-6

Re: Tournament Game - STELLA - AARs

Postby lotr_freak » 02 Mar 2009, 06:18

Wow sounds like a great game, especially if you were England Germany or France. ;-)
"I wish the ring had never come to me. I wish none of this had happened. So do all who live to see such times, but that is not for them to decide. All you have to decide is what to do with the time that is given to you."

Gold Member of Classicists
User avatar
lotr_freak
 
Posts: 3342
Joined: 18 Aug 2008, 06:25
Location: Fort Collins, CO
Class: Diplomat
Standard rating: (1000)
All-game rating: (1000)
Timezone: GMT-7

Re: Tournament Game - STELLA - AARs

Postby Diplomat » 02 Mar 2009, 07:22

FIRST: I NEED TO KNOW WHO THE SWISS OBSERVER IS!!!!!!!!!! You are invited to all my games! You really made this game fun!


Thank you thank you! 8-)

It was fun writing it and I'm glad you enjoyed it.
Avatar courtesy of TheCraw. Many Thanks.
User avatar
Diplomat
 
Posts: 4460
Joined: 30 Jan 2008, 23:00
Location: Anytown, CA
Class: Diplomat
All-game rating: (1000)
Timezone: GMT-8

Re: Tournament Game - STELLA - AARs

Postby jeanphi » 02 Mar 2009, 08:06

Ok... I take it back!! Since it is Diplomat.. he is NOT invited to al my games: only the ones I expect to loose... wait wait.. that IS EXACTLY all my games!!!!
Just don't forget: it is a GAME. The only reason to play is for fun.
FIER D'ETRE LYONNAIS
User avatar
jeanphi
 
Posts: 5164
Joined: 26 May 2008, 17:56
Location: Chicago
Class: Diplomat
Standard rating: (1000)
All-game rating: (1000)
Timezone: GMT-6

Re: Tournament Game - STELLA - AARs

Postby Diplomat » 02 Mar 2009, 23:25

:cry: but... I thought we were fwends!
Avatar courtesy of TheCraw. Many Thanks.
User avatar
Diplomat
 
Posts: 4460
Joined: 30 Jan 2008, 23:00
Location: Anytown, CA
Class: Diplomat
All-game rating: (1000)
Timezone: GMT-8

Re: Tournament Game - STELLA - AARs

Postby camroc » 03 Mar 2009, 00:37

Thanks for the post jeanphi.

I figured all along that you and France were close and I had serious doubts as to whether or not I was ever really a part of your alliance - I had thrown out the WT as I couldn't get either of you to work against the other!!

You will have seen that by the Fall of 02 I was having major doubts as to where I stood with the two of you but thankfully it all worked out - the only suggestion I would make is that it was a lack of communication that made me jumpy.

Once we got that behind us, you were a great ally - it isn't always that case that allies will hand over centres even if it is for the good of the alliance but you had no prolems doing that.

I look forward to playing with you again.
camroc
 
Posts: 324
Joined: 12 May 2008, 11:54
Location: Dublin
Class: Diplomat
All-game rating: (1000)
Timezone: GMT

Re: Tournament Game - STELLA - AARs

Postby camroc » 03 Mar 2009, 00:55

mdmuff and Dip - just a couple of questions before we leave this

mdmuff - in Spring 01, Turkey was pushing very hard for a commitment for R/T/G/I. You agreed to it which put me under big pressure. I assume from the AAR's that you weren't abandoning Austria at that stage. What was your play if I had signed up to that deal?

Dip - I am interested in your comment that you change your communication in Anon games so as not to be identified. With a reputation as an alliance builder, it might be better to be identified :) (although obviously not deliberately).

As you say, you tried to convey inexperience at the outset - very credibly too as I see from my "diary" that I had you down as a "young* player and I thought that your pushing of the Russian/Turkish position was almost hysterical which I now know was deliberate. However that might have had a big impact - when I was at my lowest with my alliance, the choice was to go with R/T/G/I and to take you out first and then turn on the WT. As that alliance would have left me exposed to R/T/I who had allied against me previously, it wasn't a very attractive option. However, if the alternative was an alliance with Italy (who I knew was strong) and Austria (who I now know was strong!!), I would have had a much harder decision and who knows...
camroc
 
Posts: 324
Joined: 12 May 2008, 11:54
Location: Dublin
Class: Diplomat
All-game rating: (1000)
Timezone: GMT

Re: Tournament Game - STELLA - AARs

Postby Diplomat » 03 Mar 2009, 02:08

Dip - I am interested in your comment that you change your communication in Anon games so as not to be identified. With a reputation as an alliance builder, it might be better to be identified (although obviously not deliberately).


I've had both positive responses, and negative ones. The Negatives tend to be 'kill him at all costs! Don't let him win again' type of statements (and they get passed to me by the folks that DO want the alliances ;) ). In addition, for me any game that resulted in 3-4 players in a draw is a 'win' since I already had 16 points and if I could not get 4-6-12 myself then making sure no one else got 6-12 was almost as good. My position in the tournament, not in this 1 game, affected how I approached it.
Avatar courtesy of TheCraw. Many Thanks.
User avatar
Diplomat
 
Posts: 4460
Joined: 30 Jan 2008, 23:00
Location: Anytown, CA
Class: Diplomat
All-game rating: (1000)
Timezone: GMT-8

Re: Tournament Game - STELLA - AARs

Postby mdmuff » 03 Mar 2009, 02:21

camroc wrote:mdmuff - in Spring 01, Turkey was pushing very hard for a commitment for R/T/G/I. You agreed to it which put me under big pressure. I assume from the AAR's that you weren't abandoning Austria at that stage. What was your play if I had signed up to that deal?


I don't recall this situation, do you have more information or explanation? I don't think I was approached by Turkey about such an arrangement. I was only approached by Russia & Austria about alliances and only approached you (& Turkey later on in the game) about any deals.

Perhaps there was false information being sent around or are you talking about after the Spring 1901 moves?
Don't argue with an idiot; people watching may not be able to tell the difference.

Ham & Eggs: A days work for a chicken; a lifetime commitment for a pig.
User avatar
mdmuff
 
Posts: 917
Joined: 28 Jan 2008, 11:30
Location: Wisconsin, USA
Class: Diplomat
All-game rating: (1000)
Timezone: GMT-6

Re: Tournament Game - STELLA - AARs

Postby Kian » 03 Mar 2009, 02:56

mdmuff wrote:
camroc wrote:mdmuff - in Spring 01, Turkey was pushing very hard for a commitment for R/T/G/I. You agreed to it which put me under big pressure. I assume from the AAR's that you weren't abandoning Austria at that stage. What was your play if I had signed up to that deal?


I don't recall this situation, do you have more information or explanation? I don't think I was approached by Turkey about such an arrangement. I was only approached by Russia & Austria about alliances and only approached you (& Turkey later on in the game) about any deals.

Perhaps there was false information being sent around or are you talking about after the Spring 1901 moves?


Mdmuff...

I think this is what germany was referring to...

'From: ITALY
Date: Feb 11 2009 02:15
CC: GERMANY, RUSSIA

Re:The friendless mouse squeaks...

I apologize, couldn't get online before now, but I am in. We need to remove the central threat and start to organize and prioritize. I agree with Turkey's sentiments and will join this new Quad Alliance in the hopes of gaining some ground and clarity in this game.



==========Original Message=================
(This was Turkey - Me) Chill a little - remember time zones?

It is midnight with me - barely teatime in other parts of the world... breakfast with my Australian friends...

It IS retreat mode - there's time yet for people to digest the proposal.

I do not mind waiting - it's one of my last throws :)




==========Original Message=================
(This was Russia - and he was in) Excellent email and nice try, just a shame they don't seem interested :-/


==========Original Message=================
(My original Mail Titled 'The friendless Mouse Squeaks)

Some statements - then a proposal.
Not one of us has an established 2 way that you trust for 6 points

Not one of you has an established 3 way that you trust for 4 points

All of us have looked West, East and Central for allies we can work with.

It's Fall 02 already.

Each of us (so comms from all of you suggest) have issues of varying degrees with Au.

Others have issues with France and England.

Is it time to make our minds up and go for a point It,Ge,Ru,Tu 4 way?

Cons:
TRUST (is it a hidden Jug? will it just conceal a party who is already committed to another alliance?
WHO DOES WHAT?
Potential for clumsiness, getting in each others way, inefficiencies,

PRO's
UNEXPECTED
At least England and Austria are sure their bullying has paid off...
SECURE BUILDS
We surround 4 SC's (Au) easily taken quickly with minimum fuss and distributed perfectly with all parties getting 1 each...
It Gre, Ge Vie, Ru Bud, Tu Ser.

These would bolster all of us to take care of the two (read my lips... 2) remaining foes.

Why suggest it?
1
I am about to be toast
2
Things are so complicated out there - this would be very simple, very effective, very quick.
3
While you are in hostile territory, not knowing if you can trust the guy on your left OR your right to actually be a friend or foe, sometimes its better to grab 3 other guys, agree to be a team, agree who the enemy is and go for it... with a four way there should be an understanding that if you defect the other 3 will make your defection prioity one. :)
4
I am tired of trying to spot forked tongues...
so a simple qustion often suffices

SIMPLE QUESTION
... Are you in or are you out?

Regards

Turkey'

Do not get me wrong... no foul. Things went the way they did - and so be it... but he was right... and at the same time he was the one who would never have agreed :D Again Camroc, no foul :D

I was wrong - there wre more than 2 foes.... :D though dealing with just two could have been enough :)

I tried to get an alternative 4 way - it failed. Such is life.

Just for clarity,

Kian
"Tell the truth, and so puzzle and confound your adversaries. ” Sir Henry Wotton

"I'm better pleas'd to make one more,
Than be the death o' twenty." Lines on War - Rabbie Burns
User avatar
Kian
 
Posts: 2710
Joined: 30 Dec 2008, 01:52
Location: UK
Class: Diplomat
All-game rating: (1000)
Timezone: GMT

PreviousNext

Return to PlayDip Grand Tournament FIN

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest