Four Seasons: AAR

GMd by attitudes. Winner: Diadem (England)

Re: Four Seasons: AAR

Postby attitudes » 20 Feb 2013, 19:52

Like I said, your opening can be explained. At the time, it was a head-scratcher because I don't think that is the direction I personally would have taken. But, I was not part of the negotiations. Only you knew what you were discussing with the other nations. That's why your opening could work given a certain set of circumstances of which I was not privy to.

The rest of your post, kind of proves my point. Yes, England probably has the best starting position. But he ultimately soloed because the other 6 nations, as a group for whatever reason, failed to come together in time to stop him.

In this variant, I think the alliance that needs to form is R/A/T (my favorite alliance acronym by the way). I thought that alliance might be forming based on the Winter '00 builds but, alas, it never came to be.

But I disagree that England would win 50 games out of 100. It would not take long before players adjusted to the strengths and weaknesses of each power and the game balanced out. Not that I'm in any rush to play enough games of this variant to provide a correct statistical analysis.
Don't sweat the petty things and don't pet the sweaty things.

Be careful when you blindly follow the masses. Sometimes, the M is silent.

on indefinite hiatus
User avatar
attitudes
 
Posts: 2254
Joined: 28 Nov 2011, 18:01
Location: San Francisco Bay Area - go SHARKS!!
Class: Ambassador
All-game rating: (1000)
Timezone: GMT-8

Re: Four Seasons: AAR

Postby mr bump » 20 Feb 2013, 22:51

Agreed if this was started again right now everyone would gang up on England
mr bump

Veni, vidi, percussit.
User avatar
mr bump
 
Posts: 867
Joined: 25 Jun 2009, 14:27
Class: Ambassador
Standard rating: (970)
All-game rating: (873)
Timezone: GMT

Re: Four Seasons: AAR

Postby attitudes » 21 Feb 2013, 00:14

mr bump wrote:Agreed if this was started again right now everyone would gang up on England

And when that game ended with a Spring 1905 concession to Turkey, everybody would once again rethink their strategy. After enough play tests, it would become somewhat more balanced and the person who played the best game of Diplomacy would then have the best chance of winning and not the player that drew England.

I'm going to take a wild shot in the dark on this next statement because I had no clue what the game of Diplomacy was before my first game back in 1984. I'm willing to bet you $100 that the first two people who thought of the Juggernaut alliance swept the board and all the others wrote in their AAR, "Wow, didn't see that coming!". So players adjusted. Now, the Juggernaut is easy to stop and quite frankly I haven't seen a decent one executed in a long, long time. But players playing A/I/G always seem to remind us of its potential because nobody has forgotten that very first game when it happened.
Don't sweat the petty things and don't pet the sweaty things.

Be careful when you blindly follow the masses. Sometimes, the M is silent.

on indefinite hiatus
User avatar
attitudes
 
Posts: 2254
Joined: 28 Nov 2011, 18:01
Location: San Francisco Bay Area - go SHARKS!!
Class: Ambassador
All-game rating: (1000)
Timezone: GMT-8

Re: Four Seasons: AAR

Postby diplomat42 » 21 Feb 2013, 04:51

joelsdaman1 wrote:
diplomat42 wrote:I highly doubt that. Them going for Portugal makes about as much sense as Kenya declaring war on the US.

It's not that they will, it's that they could. The ability to do that and put no risk on your home centers is too great.


Guys.
England can get to Portugal.
France can get to Liverpool.
France can get to Vienna.
Turkey can get to Vienna.
Italy can get to Smyrna.
Russia can get to Burgundy.
Italy can get to Spain.
Germany can get to Serbia.
Austria can get to Tunis.
Your point is what, exactly? That you can get farther in 3 moves than 2?
Glorious Nation of the Himalaya et.al in CYOC.
Classicist, Whippersnapper.

Generation 32 (The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment.)

JOIN CITY-STATES AND ZOMBIES!
IT WILL BE OFF THE CHAIN
diplomat42
 
Posts: 10504
Joined: 21 Nov 2010, 19:32
Location: Swagland
Class: Diplomat
Standard rating: (1140)
All-game rating: (1289)
Timezone: GMT-6

Re: Four Seasons: AAR

Postby joelsdaman1 » 21 Feb 2013, 04:55

Blarg, make all the arguments you want, you cannot say it was as balanced as regular diplomacy.

And my point is that England is basically impregnable. And can now reach places that normally only a middle country could.
How is an atomic wedgie different from a regular wedgie?

Let's find out.
User avatar
joelsdaman1
 
Posts: 993
Joined: 26 Apr 2012, 13:53
Location: Ravnica, Selesnya Conclave
Class: Diplomat
Standard rating: (796)
All-game rating: (795)
Timezone: GMT-5

Re: Four Seasons: AAR

Postby diplomat42 » 21 Feb 2013, 04:57

Basically impregnable?
Germany can get to Edinburgh, France to Liverpool, and both of them to London IN 1901.
England can't get to 2 of Germany's centers and 1 of France's.
One game does not a balance test make. With Bre-Eng, England is limited significantly.
Russia has more options in the north (i.e. putting 3 units on Norway in fall).
So does Germany.
England's chances are slightly better. Not a ton. Every word you say to the contrary makes their chances lower and lower in future games.
Glorious Nation of the Himalaya et.al in CYOC.
Classicist, Whippersnapper.

Generation 32 (The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment.)

JOIN CITY-STATES AND ZOMBIES!
IT WILL BE OFF THE CHAIN
diplomat42
 
Posts: 10504
Joined: 21 Nov 2010, 19:32
Location: Swagland
Class: Diplomat
Standard rating: (1140)
All-game rating: (1289)
Timezone: GMT-6

Re: Four Seasons: AAR

Postby joelsdaman1 » 21 Feb 2013, 05:01

diplomat42 wrote:Basically impregnable?
Germany can get to Edinburgh, France to Liverpool, and both of them to London IN 1901.
England can't get to 2 of Germany's centers and 1 of France's.
One game does not a balance test make. With Bre-Eng, England is limited significantly.
Russia has more options in the north (i.e. putting 3 units on Norway in fall).
So does Germany.
England's chances are slightly better. Not a ton. Every word you say to the contrary makes their chances lower and lower in future games.

Perhaps. But the victory was overwhelming - a win in 5 years is very very quick. Sure you can argue that "people will go after England", and I agree. With enough practice, people would get the hang of taking down a large England. However, it is not balanced.
How is an atomic wedgie different from a regular wedgie?

Let's find out.
User avatar
joelsdaman1
 
Posts: 993
Joined: 26 Apr 2012, 13:53
Location: Ravnica, Selesnya Conclave
Class: Diplomat
Standard rating: (796)
All-game rating: (795)
Timezone: GMT-5

Re: Four Seasons: AAR

Postby diplomat42 » 21 Feb 2013, 05:03

A win in five years IS quick. But it would've taken 6-7 years for you to seal the deal.
Plus, it's 3 seasons per year. Based on number of seasons alone, it's about a 9 year game. That's normal at best.
You're comparing apples to oranges and saying oranges are too orange in color.

England, Italy and Turkey gain from this. Austria loses. Germany, France, and Russia can either gain or lose.
Glorious Nation of the Himalaya et.al in CYOC.
Classicist, Whippersnapper.

Generation 32 (The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment.)

JOIN CITY-STATES AND ZOMBIES!
IT WILL BE OFF THE CHAIN
diplomat42
 
Posts: 10504
Joined: 21 Nov 2010, 19:32
Location: Swagland
Class: Diplomat
Standard rating: (1140)
All-game rating: (1289)
Timezone: GMT-6

Previous

Return to Game 2

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest