Page 1 of 1

AARs

PostPosted: 11 Jun 2012, 10:11
by Pedros
Reports here please! By the time I became GM Greece's victory looked fairly certain, so I'm especially keen to hear how we got here.

Re: AARs

PostPosted: 12 Jun 2012, 15:04
by Aerdirnaithon
A little backbround - this game is played each year at my school during the ancient history class. When I played, I was Carthage and allied with Rome to take a draw. I approached this game from my previous experience - Greece is, from each of the three games I've seen, the most disadvantaged power.

Therefore - my first diplomatic move was to ensure I could get three builds and stop Persia from expanding quickly. I did this by arranging Rome to take Vindobona and myself to take Dalmatia in the first year, and went for Miletus instead of Byzantium in the first turn. This trust with Rome allowed me to focus on the East. From that point on, it was a series of carefully planned moves which Persia could have handled but for a large scale Egyptian incursion.

Once it became clear that Rome was over-engaged with Carthage, I stabbed him. From that point on, it became a war on three fronts - expanding in the now-called Holy Land, defending Greece from Egypt and Rome (though I did lose Sparta for a while, and Crete altogether), and attempting to break into Northern Italy. An NMR from Rome and Carthage's revival certainly helped, as did SidneyKidney, who substituted for me and put me into a great position in the north.

All in all, a fantastic game, much more exciting than the ones I have seen at my school. A nice flashback to my introduction to Diplomacy.

Re: AARs

PostPosted: 13 Jun 2012, 12:14
by Pedros
That's really interesting Aerdinaithon - from what I've seen (here and elsewhere) I'd have said that Carthage is weakest - if he can persuade Rome to ally then it might be a different story, but what's in it for Rome? They're bound to fight each other without an alliance, and as I see it Rome should always win.

Persia is at the mercy of Greece and Egypt, but there's more chance for Persia to get an ally in one or other of them than Carthage has. If it gets onto main site (have you all voted yet?) then the increased number of games may shed more light.

Re: AARs

PostPosted: 13 Jun 2012, 18:34
by Aerdirnaithon
I've seen two games in which a strong Rome-Carthage alliance worked very well, and I feared it in this game. With the two working together, it becomes very difficult to marshal an effective defense against them - think a Russia-Turkey Juggernaut. If you manage to play one or two of the eastern factions against the others, they become incredibly weak as this game is designed to have each of the nations fighting on two fronts. If you can eliminate one of those fronts for your country, you gain an advantage in that you can focus all forces on one enemy.

In this game, we had Rome and Greece able to eliminate a front with an alliance, and both gained territory quickly. Egypt halted the Carthaginian advance and also gained an advantage. The two players who fared the worst - Carthage and Persia - failed to eliminate said fronts.

Also, what is this voting you speak of?

Re: AARs

PostPosted: 14 Jun 2012, 00:36
by BobMyYak
It was a very good game!

Initially the Egyptian plan was to move West into Carthage, but we managed to agree on expanding the other way. I managed to sneak into Leptis, when Carthage did not bounce me there. This gave me stronger options against Persia, although an early mistake in leaving Cyprus made things tricky.

I was working well in taking out Persia, but not as well as Greece, and I knew it would come to blows. As I was preparing for a prolonged war in the East, the Carthaginians snuck round the south of my blocking armies to threaten my home centres unexpectedly, we had agreed to no further expansiopn in this arena... Live and learn, as they say. As this threat subsided, the Romans disappeared from the game, leaving Greece gaining fast, and little hope of creating a stalemate line alone.

I am interested why as to you caused trouble behind my lines Carthage? There appeared to be easier gains from the Romans... But then again, I had left a small hole!

Re: AARs

PostPosted: 14 Jun 2012, 02:10
by Freddafred
To me Rome seemed stronger. I didn't want them to re engage after seeing the devastation.

Re: AARs

PostPosted: 15 Jun 2012, 16:28
by BobMyYak
Aye, that is true :D And that bloody little hole for you to exploit too - lol. Should have shored up earlier, but I was a bit pre-occupied with Greece at the time.

Re: AARs

PostPosted: 16 Jun 2012, 03:29
by Pedros
Aerdirnaithon wrote:Also, what is this voting you speak of?

viewtopic.php?f=34&t=29229