AAR

[Diadem]

A lot of talk about my motivations in this thread. I'll try to clear a few things up, but first a little business.

Regarding Terrorist -- I am actually the one that had that power in VR1 and found it weak for three reasons:
1. You could not place bombs in SCs. I never challenged that reading of the rule, though I don't have anything to prove that asudevil confirmed that to me or it was only my suspicion (I delete PMs after the AARs peter out for a game). Based on what asudevil posted in the thread, he agrees with my interpretation there and just let it slide for you for whatever reason.

Interesting. This is what Asudevil wrote to me in response to my question about what happens if I mine a SC that is also being build in:

Its been determined in the past (And I will keep with that mentality) that you CAN build a mine in home SC's. However, if someone tries to build in the SC the same winter, the build will get preference. However, if you lay it this winter and someone builds there NEXT winter, then they will be destroyed.

Basically I will adjudicate all builds, then your mines....same concept if Crooks Tourist or Foreign build or neutral build are in paly

Asudevil is clearly saying here that building in SCs was already allowed in previous games. I don't know where I got the VR1 from, maybe that's from a different message, maybe I misremembered that, but asudevil definitely told me that mining SCs was allowed in previous games.

That's also how I always remembered Terrorist. Like I said, I bid on it assuming this would be allowed. I'll look through my archive again when I have more time, but I'm pretty sure I never even asked if it was allowed, and asudevil I think never ruled on it. It remember it as always being just natural and obvious, a following of well-established precedent.

The cooldown on bombs was in order to up the the power of terrorist...Diadem's argument was that the rules say that the bombs can't be placed in SC's in Winter 1900...so they can be placed there in subsequent seasons...Perhaps IF that rule was allowed, then it would explain the cool down...

How is something that weakens terrorist supposed to make it stronger? I'm confused.

But I would prefer the cool down period and no mining SC's.

Also, I am now going to say that ALL jokers have to be ordered in the previous ORDER season. So fall ones are due in spring...and spring ones in fall.

From the point of view of game balance, I would disagree with both of these. Terrorist really ain't that strong, and without mining SCs it would be very weak, especially in the late game. I was quite lucky, and very careful, with my mine placement, but you can very easily permanently lose mines because people figure out where they are and can then just ignore them - or worse, remove them from play permanently with earthquake. And despite being allowed to place in SCs I found it difficult to get sufficient mileage out of my mines in the later game.

As for hyperspace. It's one of the weakest mPs already, imho. It much needs a boost, not a nerf.

Also, I don't find guild OP

All I can say is that I on average found my mP much better than my MP.

[asudevil]

Joker is actually really a strong mP because it prevents illusioning of territories which is very helpful.

And I believe when I said it was determined that it can mine SC's was because I had already allowed it for THIS game, so THIS game I had already allowed the precedent.

And the cooldown is the bigger weakness which is why it was removed... Removing the cool-down made it stronger...I think allowing the mining of SC's made it too strong.

Again, if I was to run this again I wouldn't allow it to mine SC's. Other GMs can do what they please....or I would put the cooldown back in if I let it mine SC's

[marsman57]

... various rants

Your immaturity in this thread is amazing. It is seeing that same immaturity privately that consciously made me only want to be your ally as a last resort. As for the final attack against you, your bristling at my actual laid out plan to move against French Africa, which I was genuine about at the time, led me to believe you had no interest in truly working together and saw us as permanently entwined to be enemies, thus I planned to reduce you to only Egypt and then leave you alone. Also, the fact that I found out that mambam would be allowed to "King" in Fall helped me determine that I would aid you. As I said, I definitely did not want EE able to target me every season, so I was planning to keep you in the game.

You really should look back at the old VR results. I agreed to a draw containing a one center Russia (stalin btw!) in VR1 because there was no reason to whittle it. A draw is a loss for everyone, not a win for the powers included.

I will make a few short comments on presser's rants though that I think need response.

I would have been limited in my army builds so an inland push didn't make much sense.

If you look at the Fall 1907 map, you will clearly see that precisely two of my SCs (Warsaw and STP) were not considered coastal from your home centers. So while you couldn't have eliminated me, you could've put me into a position where an opportunistic Germany or Austria could take out my vestiges.

You keep trying to transfer culpability for YOUR loss onto me but when you leave me no credible options and show that you wish to eliminate me I AM MAXING MY CONTRIBUTION by ensuring you lose and France solos.

I guess I get this position, but really you were in no position to be eliminated, at least not by me. Of course, I could say the same for Italy and then he was knocked out by others, so I suppose that an opportunistic France could have done so. I tried to impress upon him the importance of keeping a 5th player in the game though.

Now to a few other things...

As part of this message, I looked back at the Fall 1907 adjudication and part of the problem with my stab was that France either did not get my message in time, didn't believe what I was saying, or chose not to follow through on the order of Gre-Aeg. As I knew you were ordering Aeg-Gre-Ion with strength 2, my supporting Gre-Aeg would have caused that to be a bounce and left Turkey with 4 SCs and 4 units and no build in Ank. Had that been the case, I would have been able to clean up much easier.

Also checking back again, the Fall of that stab France was down to precisely 11 supply centers (12 if my plan had gone through as I wanted). I believe we floated the number 13 before. Is that really a solo threat? I still can't see how Turkey thought I was betraying an ALA when there was no L.

Basically I will adjudicate all builds, then your mines....same concept if Crooks Tourist or Foreign build or neutral build are in paly

I know this does not match up with what I was told in VR1 regarding Neutral Build (and assumably applicable to the others). I recall being told that as it was "too big of a penalty" for a build to blow up in Winter 1900 and thus in that case the build would be adjudicated first, but I was told that beyond that point that build+bomb in the same square would be an explosion with no note that I needed to bomb it a previous year.

Oh well, not a big deal really as we never ran into the issue to my knowledge.

[marsman57]

All of presser's rants aside, I still think that Diadem played an awesome game diplomatically and definitely have taught me some lessons about how to treat those with-whom-you-are-not-currently-at-war (I won't use the word allies since you said you avoid that).

My diplomacy was hindered by having presser and haroonriaz as neighbors. The reasons for my trouble with presser have been shown at length above and are probably limited to the circumstances of this game. As to the other, despite being an amazing player, I have found that haroonriaz and I approach the game very differently and I have never been able to successfully work with him for the long term thus far. Hopefully we will be able to change that in the future in other circumstances.

[presser84]

Why is it "immature" not to want to be a 1 center subservient country? What you keep missing is that you had weakened me so greatly and with the size and ambitiousness of this group I assessed there was no chance of me surviving. Even if I helped to contain France I would have to ally with a player that, at a minimum, I did not trust.

You used me in the first ALA. I should not care about VR1 and you "allowing" Russia into the draw. I need to look at my chances of surviving the second ALA and I saw that as low odds. As I said before following through on my threat maxes my contribution to the game.

I suspect you're a little butt hurt that you weren't able to kill me and really miscalculated your stab. You refuse to accept culpability for your own contributions to your failure. That is immaturity.

Or
Are you talking about my using the Fbomb? That's hilarious. Why don't you put on your big boy pants so the big bad words dont hurt you?

[presser84]

There you go again blaming others for your own failed strategy.

[marsman57]

Nah dawg, I'm giving Diadem props for being able to work with players I consider difficult. It's a hallmark of his skill at the game.

[marsman57]

As to the rest, I like you as a person and found you to be a great GM presser. I worry this AAR is straying way too far into becoming a personal feud. As I don't want that to occur, so I'm going to end the bickering here.

In the end, I stabbed you, wasn't able to follow through as well as I wanted to, and tried some tough diplomacy with you that wasn't well accepted. It's how the game goes sometimes. We all start out equal next time... you know unless it is Imperial where some are more equal than others.

[marsman57]

I believe had I got the French intel in time that the solo was, if not stoppable, at least delayable. While it is possible that I could not have stopped the solo in the long run, I believe that it could have easily been possible to cobble together a quick ALA in response to that message. Austria could have moved Turkish units to bounce Egypt with Hawkonen while Germany could have locked down another French unit with Evil Eye.

On a more general note, I am starting to feel that a power that can benefit others is much more diplomatically useful than powers that only benefit yourself. It is hard when you are unable to contribute anything across the board while many others have that ability.

[haroonriaz]

I was once reprimanded on the forum for making a comment about how @attitudes played, which I regret doing sincerely, considering now that I was wrong in reading a diplomacy tactic (threats, intimidation and I don't know, maybe even "vulgar" provocations (as in presser's case) can possibly be considered a diplomatic tactic (you might disagree if you think it's whatever they call a "gentleman's game" but if you don't think so, visit US-Iran-Israel diplomacy or India-Pakistan diplomacy or local party politics in just about any country) though I am not a fan of adopting the latter tactic because mostly I think you can do without it, but emotions do play a part in this game and not everyone has the same level of tolerance) and would never repeat that mistake against anyone, or would try not to (no guarantees, it is OK to vent). But this thread should win an award for bringing personal differences into discussing gameplay and strategy. Again not saying, it's wrong. But we are humans, and this brings in a LOT of metagaming bias for the future, which worries and saddens me. Because my understanding of diplomacy is that I play a different character in each game, depending on the power and scenario (@marsman57, this is all how I approach Diplomacy, nothing much complicated). In this game, I feel I have been subconsciously playing kingmaker to France by the virtue of my own impotence (yes, it would offend me too if I were you, sorry). But I don't entirely think it was nonsense. And those who have played with me before know I don't have a habit of doing it.

While it's only a game, this is what makes Diplomacy unique because you cannot leave personalities out of it.

Now that Russia/marsman57 has finally spoken, I appreciate and understand his strategy much more than before. I concede that my demand that he should attack Austria and Turkey simultaneously was a stupid blunder, and it cost me much. Apologies for that, Russia. But it made life more difficult for me than you.

Having said that and despite everything, I still think his ambitions of soloing were incredibly naive and that cost the rest any hope. I would totally agree with pursuing a draw with France sans Germany, because I had no allies in the end, a diplomatic failure, and it would have made sense to be eliminated. It does not even matter now that Austria and Russia were sincere to each other till the end, because their play didn't add up to anything. They were shooting arrows in thin air, sorry, because it was not that easy eliminating me. At least what I and France offered to Russia was a plan, even if Austria drowned Moscow. I'd really like to hear the specific Russia plan for soloing to have respect for marsman's strategy in this game.

I am terribly disappointed in learning about Italy/mambam's inconsistency in ordering powers. I recall him missing a couple of times, but didn't know it was that bad.