PDL 1. Round 3 Game 3. AAR

After game reports for PlaDip Diplomacy League games

Moderator: mjparrett

Re: PDL 1. Round 3 Game 3. AAR

Postby Pootleflump » 27 Jul 2018, 01:07



Just noticed this, Sin-Fus, lol

There was much CHEERING in the ally camp

Not CHEATING. :twisted:

There was definitely NO CHEATING in the ally camp. That's been proven categorically!!
But, I nearly forgot, you must close your eyes otherwise you won't see anything

Imagination is the only weapon in the war against reality
User avatar
Pootleflump
Premium Member
 
Posts: 464
Joined: 28 Feb 2017, 22:21
Location: Scotland
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: 1823
All-game rating: 1898
Timezone: GMT

Re: PDL 1. Round 3 Game 3. AAR

Postby sinnybee » 27 Jul 2018, 02:30

Pootleflump wrote:


Just noticed this, Sin-Fus, lol

There was much CHEERING in the ally camp

Not CHEATING. :twisted:

There was definitely NO CHEATING in the ally camp. That's been proven categorically!!

lol! Sorry! That's probably about the only word I heard wrong, though. I mentioned it because it didn't make sense to me--because I thought that I had to be misunderstanding you.

So, basically, this was the allied camp:



The "holy grail" of Vienna had been acquired.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aZJZK6r ... be&t=2m25s
Gold Classicist since 1-11-11
FT Asst GM of 35 player WWIV Aug 2011-Feb 2012
#1 ranked player of playdip early 2013
4th highest forum karma count at Apr 2013 ending (behind Craw, Dipsy, and Rick)
Tournament Director of the 31 game PDVT Feb-Dec 2014, the first playdip tourney with over 100 sign-ups
User avatar
sinnybee
 
Posts: 5816
Joined: 03 Sep 2010, 07:01
Class: Ambassador
Standard rating: (1332)
All-game rating: (1467)
Timezone: GMT-7

Re: PDL 1. Round 3 Game 3. AAR

Postby AleBelly » 27 Jul 2018, 03:30

That's great! Just have a question - what's an 'EER'? :)
User avatar
AleBelly
Premium Member
 
Posts: 49
Joined: 11 Dec 2016, 17:36
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: 1176
All-game rating: 1159
Timezone: GMT

Re: PDL 1. Round 3 Game 3. AAR

Postby mhsmith0 » 30 Jul 2018, 18:28

Couple quick notes on video:

1) Great video, enjoyed it a lot!

2) The 3wd offer of EFT that I was part of, the "Turkey will get less centers" bit was actually my idea (I sent this to England relatively early in the discussions) rather than something suggested to me, wasn't really so much a "Turkey buys it" thing as it was "well shit there really aren't any other options on the table" and "well there's a CHANCE that EF will just take this offer and be in the sweet spot of greedy enough to want more centers but not so greedy and mutually trusting they'll 2wd it" thing. "EF are really hard to make into a 2wd" was also a meaningful part of my thought process there... which actually turned out to be correct! just didn't help me get a result :P
Proud holder of the Superior Tophat of Solving, an item entrusted with the forum's most prominent smartass
User avatar
mhsmith0
Premium Member
 
Posts: 3595
Joined: 11 Dec 2015, 06:55
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: (1269)
All-game rating: (1439)
Timezone: GMT-7

Re: PDL 1. Round 3 Game 3. AAR

Postby jay65536 » 30 Jul 2018, 20:47

mhsmith0 wrote:2) The 3wd offer of EFT that I was part of, the "Turkey will get less centers" bit was actually my idea (I sent this to England relatively early in the discussions) rather than something suggested to me, wasn't really so much a "Turkey buys it" thing as it was "well shit there really aren't any other options on the table" and "well there's a CHANCE that EF will just take this offer and be in the sweet spot of greedy enough to want more centers but not so greedy and mutually trusting they'll 2wd it" thing. "EF are really hard to make into a 2wd" was also a meaningful part of my thought process there... which actually turned out to be correct! just didn't help me get a result :P


Honestly, I am flummoxed at the prevalence, even among "top" players on this site, of 2way draw plans that make absolutely no sense but that the person offering sincerely expects will fool the target. I've received such a proposal in half the games I've played here.
jay65536
 
Posts: 420
Joined: 10 Sep 2016, 18:13
Class: Ambassador
Standard rating: 1120
All-game rating: 1126
Timezone: GMT-5

Re: PDL 1. Round 3 Game 3. AAR

Postby V » 30 Jul 2018, 21:15

jay65536 wrote:
mhsmith0 wrote:2) The 3wd offer of EFT that I was part of, the "Turkey will get less centers" bit was actually my idea (I sent this to England relatively early in the discussions) rather than something suggested to me, wasn't really so much a "Turkey buys it" thing as it was "well shit there really aren't any other options on the table" and "well there's a CHANCE that EF will just take this offer and be in the sweet spot of greedy enough to want more centers but not so greedy and mutually trusting they'll 2wd it" thing. "EF are really hard to make into a 2wd" was also a meaningful part of my thought process there... which actually turned out to be correct! just didn't help me get a result :P


Honestly, I am flummoxed at the prevalence, even among "top" players on this site, of 2way draw plans that make absolutely no sense but that the person offering sincerely expects will fool the target. I've received such a proposal in half the games I've played here.


So well said! I’ve even christened it “2-way Bait”. Offer everyone a 2-way in S01 & see who’s a “believer”! I’ve had fun sometimes after receiving a suggestion, checking in with other potential recipients to see if the 2-way tempting is being shared out equally.
Despite the amusement, it requires a “diplomatic” response when offered at such an early stage, because you might just want them as an ally. Maybe that’s why the approach is used? However if you got offered a 2-way you’re unlikely to be alone, which itself has implications.
Platinum Classicist
Voilà! In view, a humble vaudevillian veteran cast vicariously as both victim and villain by the vicissitudes of Fate. This visage, no mere veneer of vanity, is a vestige of the vox populi, now vacant, vanished.
V
 
Posts: 622
Joined: 04 May 2014, 21:28
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: (1718)
All-game rating: (1754)
Timezone: GMT-6

Re: PDL 1. Round 3 Game 3. AAR

Postby mhsmith0 » 31 Jul 2018, 00:09

FWIW I actually think that an EF 2wd is much more doable than people give it credit for, but the spread of forces in this game didn't really make much sense for it, and on top of that France had such a large lead on England that stabbing for the solo is monumentally easier to pull off.

Essentially, (I think) you can sort of make it work if EF run the Juggernaut line where England takes Brest (with a fleet, can be early to midgame) and (very very late) Paris, and then you mutually negotiate things in the east. It's certainly HARD to get there but it's not as impossible (or as wildly carebear dependent) as, say, EG or FG or IA etc.

It might also be doable to run a Juggernaut variant whereby England takes something like Brest and Portugal while France keeps Paris, but I haven't much bothered to validate that one lol
Proud holder of the Superior Tophat of Solving, an item entrusted with the forum's most prominent smartass
User avatar
mhsmith0
Premium Member
 
Posts: 3595
Joined: 11 Dec 2015, 06:55
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: (1269)
All-game rating: (1439)
Timezone: GMT-7

Re: PDL 1. Round 3 Game 3. AAR

Postby jimbobicus » 13 Sep 2018, 00:07

Hi all, I thought I'd pop my head back round here and see how things went after I left and give my views...

Firstly, well played Pootle for grabbing the victory. I have very little sympathy for how either Germany or England played, but you took full advantage of their weakness and deserve credit for that.

Although, I'm afraid this game will probably be remembered for all the wrong reasons - and I have to accept responsibility for my part in that.
On my actions looking back, I do regret things a bit... this game came at a time when I was quite busy work-wise which didn't help and also I was still pretty annoyed at how things went in my round 2 game. All this led to me not being in the most sympathetic frame of mind. So when things went wrong in this game, I acted rather petulantly in looking to quit. This was a selfish and disrespectful decision on my part and I apologise to the other participants and mjparrett for the negative consequences this had. With hindsight, I wish I had stuck it out and played the game. That would have been the correct and respectful thing to do. When we all joined the league and this game in particular, I think there was an understanding that people should see it through. Indeed at the time of my actual departure, I was prepared to do so - but unfortunately nanook in his role as moderator had other ideas. I was rather surprised when I was kicked out for breaking a rule I didn't even know existed and seemed pretty pointless (IMHO). Although I wasn't too bothered - in fact I was quite happy to be relieved from my duty of completing this horrid game.

In all my games of diplomacy on this site, this has to be in my opinion the worst I've seen. Although I have noticed a growing trend in this direction of what I'll term "personality politics". In this game England, France, Germany had all decided to stick to each other come what may. Not even interested in discussing the board and looking for other alliances. They just thought "who do I like the most" and go with that. Not even paying any attention to what is happening on the board. If this is how we're going to play, then we might as well pack the game in and just head down the pub where we select the winner based on a popularity contest.

Germany (V) was so blinded by this approach that he entered into a Western Triple which could never ever be good for him. Personally I'm not sure whether Western triples ever can be good for Germany - it would certainly need a very pro-German division of SCs for it to ever even be worth considering. And this certainly wasn't the case here. As such, Germany was always living on borrowed time. To agree to these plans is to voluntarily puppet yourself from the start of the game. To me, utterly mind-boggling. Also a great shame as I know V has many great characteristics - he communicates very well and can be quite friendly and likeable. For someone with such strengths to basically throw away any chances they had of winning from the get-go is really quite sad.

But even worse was England (rd45). So blinded by Pootle's charm that he gave her an easy solo. And this was after so many times that he could have stabbed her to put himself into very good positions. And at many times this game, England's position was awesome. I'd have loved to have been in that position and would have been going for a solo. He would have had great solo opportunities either with an ET or possibly even an EG alliance, but instead decides on a path where the very best he can get is a 2 way draw. And he doesn't even get that.

This personality politics way of playing I think is really sad... you remove all the beautiful strategic complexity the game has to offer. Also, as seen by how England reacted to being stabbed (rightfully) by France at the end, it can really lead to hurt feelings too. Really in an ideal world, I think the game would be so much better if we could all leave personalities out of it and just play the board. But instead we get people (Rd45, V) looking to make friendships instead of just play the game and others in Pootle taking advantage.

One participant who I think does deserve special mention is WarSmith as Italy. Unlike me, he had the patience to stick this game out to the end despite all the crap that happened.
And this is a guy who really plays the game properly... in both this game and my round 2 game with him, he would ally with me if he thought it was in his interests or attack me if he thought if he thought that was in his interests. In our conversations we'd always be very respectful to each other. I also liked the fact that his messages were just about the board and never engaging in this personality politics nonsense. I think we got on well, but (and here's the big point) whether he would regard me as a friend and vice-versa is irrelevant because we both knew we would each play the board as per our own country's interest. If that meant allying we'd do so. But if that meant one of us attacking the other then so be it.
"A friend to all is a friend to none" - Aristotle
jimbobicus
 
Posts: 575
Joined: 03 Apr 2009, 19:30
Location: Coventry, UK
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: (1742)
All-game rating: (1662)
Timezone: GMT

Re: PDL 1. Round 3 Game 3. AAR

Postby WarSmith » 13 Sep 2018, 11:09

That last part is awesome :)
Much appreciated!
"A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth even has a chance to put its pants on”
User avatar
WarSmith
Premium Member
 
Posts: 2105
Joined: 01 Mar 2009, 22:12
Location: Scandinavia
Class: Ambassador
Standard rating: 1724
All-game rating: 1716
Timezone: GMT+2

Re: PDL 1. Round 3 Game 3. AAR

Postby jay65536 » 17 Sep 2018, 21:17

jimbobicus wrote:In all my games of diplomacy on this site, this has to be in my opinion the worst I've seen. Although I have noticed a growing trend in this direction of what I'll term "personality politics". In this game England, France, Germany had all decided to stick to each other come what may. Not even interested in discussing the board and looking for other alliances. They just thought "who do I like the most" and go with that.


My perspective on this is as someone who plays FtF, where this can sometimes also be a thing.

The thing about this dynamic is, the top players are using it to their advantage.

In this game, Pootleflump didn't let her "stick[ing] with" her 2 allies get in the way of what she wanted to do. When you look at the game from an outsider's perspective, she did exactly what you're supposed to do in this game--find allies who would not stab her, have them help her get past the stalemate line, then stab them for their centers. So how is Pootle's game tainted by "personality politics"? She is playing the game.

I think what you're annoyed at is the fact that you were playing with at least 2 players on whom the techniques she used worked. And as someone whose 2 favorite games are Diplomacy and poker, I have to tell you, if you are going to take it personally when bad players play badly, you may as well just quit the game. I don't consider myself a top Diplomacy player--yet--but I do know this: if you want to be a top player, you have to adapt your methods of persuasion to your opponents, not just bail when they don't respond as you like.
jay65536
 
Posts: 420
Joined: 10 Sep 2016, 18:13
Class: Ambassador
Standard rating: 1120
All-game rating: 1126
Timezone: GMT-5

PreviousNext

Return to PDL AARs

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest