game ends - 4 player DIAS

[Rolan A Doobie]

If the game is ever to be replayed, the issue of the black spaces (top AND bottom) and any duplicate names (there were a couple as I recall), should be addressed from the start.

This is my point.....there are no black spaces.

Those "spaces" are the same hard borders that appears on every map, he just chose to make them squiggly.

Try looking at it this way.



The map is not fundamentally altered whatsoever. No spaces, centers, or pathways were formed or removed. (The northern part of Fei would need to be redrawn for clarity, but that's it).

The game would be functionally the same....but that Ivo-Sah fleet move looks a hell of a lot worse here, doesn't it?


If you can simply pass through the "black spaces", why stop there? You could have moved NAO to Sah, because both of those spaces share a border with the "black space".

[Paulus Toronto]

This is my point.....there are no black spaces.

Those "spaces" are the same hard borders that appears on every map, he just chose to make them squiggly.

Try looking at it this way.



The map is not fundamentally altered whatsoever. No spaces, centers, or pathways were formed or removed. (The northern part of Fei would need to be redrawn for clarity, but that's it).

The game would be functionally the same....but that Ivo-Sah fleet move looks a hell of a lot worse here, doesn't it?


If you can simply pass through the "black spaces", why stop there? You could have moved NAO to Sah, because both of those spaces share a border with the "black space".

This is the kind of clarification that should occur prior to the game. Your diagram and argument are very sensible. I'm sorry, I know it is and was obvious to you. It was not so clear to at least 2 other people in this game. I know it was a significant game altering decision which put me at as much an advantage as it put you in disadvantage. I apologize for the role I took in this and the benfit it allowed me. Perhaps it would have been better to ask for a pause in the game, and to discuss it more fully. In retrospect, I should have asked for that, but I admit, I got greedy with the advantage, and now I'm quite regretful.
Rolan, you're an excellent and committed player. I learn a lot by watching you and I hope this will not reduce future opportunities to play again, together, fair and square.

[Rolan A Doobie]

Perhaps I wasn't clear...

I've got no problem with your play. If you aren't looking for an advantage, you aren't really playing.

You tried something that would benefit you and it worked. Whether or not it should have worked doesn't fall on your shoulders.

[Pedros]

Right then. game over. DIAS between Araca, Aboriga, Japan and New Atlantis - well done all of you. I'll open an AAR thread and hope you'll all contribute.

And now it's over, I apologise totallly to Rolan for that decision. By a distance the worst GM decision I've ever made, although I still don't accept that Rolan's argument is as clear-cut as he says. Better-drawn maps (such as the classic one) say "Impassable" or similar. My only excuse, and I mentioned this at the time, was that I was in the middle of playing Russia in Youngstown, and the rules explicitly allow fleet movement along the otherwise impassable northern coast. Paulus asked the question, and in the light of Youngstown I simply said "Yes".

But despite that, once the orders were processed I expected some much stronger arguments against, and I would have considered them - and probably changed my mind. But in essence the only argument was that "It looked impassable and we weren't expecting this". That isn't an argument.

And I'm sorry Rolan that it affected your game to such an extent; I actually felt that it made vaderi's path much easier rather than Paulus's, because an important part of the opposition to his northward expansion disappeared. But it certainly did you a dis-service. And I'm sorry that you feel that you won't play in my games again, but I totally understand it.

[Rolan A Doobie]

But despite that, once the orders were processed I expected some much stronger arguments against, and I would have considered them - and probably changed my mind. But in essence the only argument was that "It looked impassable and we weren't expecting this". That isn't an argument.

This is flatout horseshit.

viewtopic.php?f=278&t=21021

#1 -- I didn't NMR.

#2 -- I don't see how a fleet in Ivo can reach Sah, since they have no shared coastline and fleets can't move over land.

My argument hasn't changed since my very first post on the subject. Tell me, what has suddenly made my argument stronger now than it was then?

Even then, EVERY other player that chose to weigh in on that thread disagreed with you. Like everything else, you chose to ignore that too.


So no....you don't get to re-write the arguments into non-existence. They have always been there. Perhaps I didn't "fight" hard enough because I felt you'd already destroyed my game by replacing NSJ with someone completely incapable of playing the game.

[Rolan A Doobie]

I tried to re-read this with a bit of a cooler head, but it seems I've just managed to find something completely new to piss me off.

And now it's over, I apologise totallly to Rolan for that decision. By a distance the worst GM decision I've ever made, although I still don't accept that Rolan's argument is as clear-cut as he says. (1)Better-drawn maps (such as the classic one) say "Impassable" or similar. My only excuse, and I mentioned this at the time, was that I was in the middle of playing Russia in Youngstown, (2)and the rules explicitly allow fleet movement along the otherwise impassable northern coast. Paulus asked the question, and in the light of Youngstown I simply said "Yes".

But despite that, once the orders were processed (3)I expected some much stronger arguments against, and I would have considered them - and probably changed my mind. But in essence the only argument was that "It looked impassable and we weren't expecting this". That isn't an argument.

So...in these few sentences...the "real problem" here is the map, for about a minute. Then the rules of another game are to blame....not the game we were actually playing, but some entirely different game.....but again only for a bit.

But clearly the worst is that 3rd one. The implication that you made a ruling expecting backlash....and further anticipating that you would change your mind in the aftermath of that backlash....but still decided to stand with your original decision anyway, presumably because you didn't get the ruckus you desired.

In essence, you are saying that you decided to put your thumb on the scales and see what happened. Well, the game went to shit. That's what happened.

And I'm sorry that you feel that you won't play in my games again, but I totally understand it.

It's not a feeling. It's a fact.

[Magmaniac]

As the original creator of this map, my intention was that Ivo and Sah did not share a coastline, and fleets would not be able to pass between them. For the reasons brought up by Rolan I had thought this would have been obvious to any playing, though I suppose drawing the map a little differently would have made it more clear as well. The black bars on the north and south of the map were meant to represent impassable ice caps.

[Pedros]

Thanks Magmaniac. I confessed to a serious error of judgement there in my own AAR! Although Rolan could have checked, since it wasn't 100% clear.