Tournament Game - STELLA - AARs

4-qualifying rounds and a Final Board. TDs: Uncle Monty, Samarkand, Sheddy Winner: bitwise.

Tournament Game - STELLA - AARs

Postby camroc » 26 Feb 2009, 15:12

Game Players
ENGLAND (jeanphi) WINNER
FRANCE (superhik) WINNER
ITALY (mdmuff)
GERMANY (camroc) WINNER
AUSTRIA (Diplomat)
TURKEY (Kian)
RUSSIA (AQ)

AARs and discussion to be posted here.
camroc
 
Posts: 324
Joined: 12 May 2008, 11:54
Location: Dublin
Class: Diplomat
All-game rating: (1000)
Timezone: GMT

Re: Tournament Game - STELLA - AARs

Postby camroc » 26 Feb 2009, 15:15

HEALTH WARNING

Before the game started, I decided to keep a “diary” which I could then post as my AAR. It turned out to be much longer than expected (I won’t be doing it again!!) and I’m sure it won’t be of any interest to anyone who wasn’t in the game and not of much interest to those who played!

Most of the game was resolved over the opening couple of years and the diplomacy died down after that as is reflected in the AAR. I am pasting it as written and haven’t edited it in light of later events. Feel free to skip to the next posting.


OPENING

Where to start. By the time I logged on to this new game, I already had three messages waiting…..all from Russia. Messages were open and friendly and certainly came from an experienced player.

However my initial thoughts were to find out where I stood with my western neighbours. By preference, I would ally with France rather than England as I feel that in an E/G alliance, England is in a great stabbing position as the game progresses, but ultimately the real key will be how I read the players. I was also up for a western triple but again had concerns about England in my rear.

My messages to France and Germany were open and looking to see if either would ally with me against the other, my message to France being a little stronger. I also threw out the possibilities of a triple but emphasised to France that in a triple we might both have concerns about England so I put it to him that we should commit to each other to prevent an English stab – no reflection on the English player, but rather on geography. After a little more communication, France proposed the triple and both of us agreed.

First question was could I trust my two allies – as being over-loyal to allies can be a fault of mine, I had to consider this as a priority. I received a little more communication from England who seemed genuine and while France was a little less communicative, he too seemed trustworthy. While I couldn’t be sure, I felt that I should go with this plan.

The priorities for a triple were twofold, firstly keeping it disguised for as long as possible and secondly getting Russia/Austria/Italy/Turkey into a two v two. Clearly no-one would believe that none of F/E/G were allied with each other so the natural plan was to show E/F allied together but not with Germany. France moving to Burgundy was to be a start.

While all of this was going on, I was communicating with the other players. Turkey didn’t really respond other than to offer a cup of coffee  I had quite a lot of communication with Russia who appeared to be a serious player although putting together some feed-back from others, he may have been a bit over-manipulative. He came out quickly and offered a three-way alliance with the third still to be selected. He suggested R/G/E which sounded interesting but given that I was, at this time, attempting to get into an alliance with France and England, I certainly wasn’t prepared to propose that to England so I suggested that Russia should. In due course England told me that Russia was offering to ally with him against me – that might or mightn’t have been true (AAR’s?) but it certainly left me even more wary of Russia.

I was also anxious to find out what was happening with Italy and Austria and it quickly seemed that they were close together – not unexpected. There was early chat and then a A/G/I alliance was proposed. That put me in a difficult position as I did not want to join in an alliance when I had prior commitments but it would have looked very odd if I refused so I went along with it with some feelings of guilt (you Diplomacy players can look it up in a dictionary!!).
That was where we stood with less than 24 hours to the deadline. I was getting less and less feed-back from England and particularly France and I wasn’t sure how to read this. I went out of my way to overload them with information, telling them about my discussions and arrangements with A/I and what I had learnt from Russia with the hope that my openness would encourage them to stay with our alliance.

Matters then moved on to the eastern front. There had been a suggestion of DMZ’s between Russia, Austria and I along Pru-Sil-Gal although Austria and I were considering this from the point of view of an A/G/I alliance. Then there seemed to be a big falling out between A and R over whether or not a Juggernaut was coming. I was happy to encourage this gently as it fitted our plans perfectly although, to be honest, it didn’t need much encouragement. Russia bizarrely told me that Turkey was sharing his communications with him – not what I would do if I was denying a Juggernaut  The result was that by the time the turn neared the end, Russian-Austrian bounces were expected and with a little bit of help, this might turn into the 2 v 2 war we wanted to see in the east.

My main concern at this point was that I was hearing nothing back from E/F. However I couldn’t see how it would make sense for them not to go along with our alliance at the outset. Nor could I see how it made sense for them to be allied with anyone else at the moment so I will stay with the plan but being a little more cautious than normal if we do make some gains. Italy was also very quiet while the Austria-Russia spat took place.

Now the Swiss Observer has appeared (with printed in Moscow written all over) and Russia is making last minute attempts to re-instate Galicia as a DMZ. I don’t really want to se this happen so will try to prevent it – I don’t want Russia to have the opportunity to order Mos-StP.

All in all it has been a fascinating opening period. I have sent over 50 messages and still haven’t seen a move. I have faith in my alliance but would be happier with a little more communication. Unfortunately Russia and Austria have called off immediate conflict and that will have to be worked up again. I am still slightly uncomfortable with being in the middle of A/I too but if my uneasiness about E/F materialises into something more, I may need to fall back on it. I also have to try to keep relations with Russia open as I have no doubt that he will have a big influence on the outcome of this game – however I won’t be able to allow him into Sweden and I’m not sure that I can stay on good terms with him after that.

PLAYERS

My thoughts on the players at this stage (bearing in mind that I haven’t seen any moves yet)

England: Seems to be a competent player. He has signed up to our alliance so I am hoping that he is trustworthy but it is a slight concern that I haven’t heard very much from him since our alliance was agreed. This will keep me on the alert.

France: Similar thoughts in a way as on England although I understand from another player that he hasn’t been responding to a few players and he may not be around at the moment.

Russia: As of now, I would say that he is the strongest player at the table. I would have liked to have formed an early alliance with him and would have liked to have tried the R/G/E alliance but after making strong overtures at the start, he didn’t really follow through. He got himself into a little trouble with Austria but seems to have recovered the situation just before the deadline. It will be interesting to see if he uses that to send Mos to StP which wouldn’t be ideal from my point of view. I have to get him back in trouble with Austria!!

Austria: Again seems to be a good player but, I’m guessing, is quite young. He was almost certainly right to be worried about a juggernaut but in terms of messaging, he did seem to over-react. On the other hand, it may have been a deliberate over-reaction in order to forced Russia’s hand. It will be interesting to review this in hindsight (AAR?).

Turkey: No real communication from him. I was interested to see if he would enquire about my intentions towards Russia, but nothing. It strongly suggests he is allied with Russia from early but he should have done more in terms of communication – to sow confusion if nothing else.

Italy: Agreed to a G/A/I quite early but seemed to go quite after that so, while he is clearly a competent player, it is too early for me to say any more. I would have expected to hear a little more from him over Austria/Russia


SPRING 01

Moves in. Good news is that E/F are moving as agreed (although it would be too early to stab yet). Two surprises – Austria dishonoured his DMZ with Russia in Galicia and Italy ordered Ven-Tri and Rom-Ven.

First messages are from Austria who appears to be focussed on R/T. He makes no mention of Italy from which I assume that Italy is passing through to Albania – although that wouldn’t explain why he didn’t order Rom-Apu for convoy to Tunis. However when I hear from Italy, he makes it clear that he is going for Austrian centres.

That can only mean a R/T/I alliance which is the worst case scenario from my point of view. If this turns into 3v3, R/T/I have the advantage of being able to pick up Austria’s centres before we can make any progress. Clear signs of Russia’s manipulation and a possible three builds for Italy.

Russia keeps pressurising me over Sweden, which I assure him is all his. He also starts rumours of a western triple which is really only designed to keep more pressure on me. I would like to work with Russia, but if there is already a R/T/I, there is no room for Germany so it looks like the battle-lines are drawn and there won’t be much real diplomacy for quite a while.

I arrange for England to send me a threatening message over Sweden so that I can send it to Russia after I bounce him. I don’t expect him to believe it, but at least it gives me something to talk about.


FALL 01

Not good. I have bounced Russia as agreed and know that there will be a back-lash but the problem is that Russia has now moved Mos-War and Austria, more surprisingly, Gal-Sil. That move makes no sense unless he is back on terms with Russia. Italy has held in Tri and didn’t do any more damage to Austria. Russia and Turkey are still friendly. E/F moved as agreed.

Now I am worried – it looks as though there is a four-way alliance in the east which is something we can’t cope with. From what was a promising position, things now look difficult.

Took the week-end off!! Have a message from Austria saying that he was forced into this move as he has been told to ally against me or be eliminated. Russia I assume!! I also get another message from him saying that I will be hearing from a “mole” soon and not to be fooled – one of the other three is to play the role of traitor to elicit more information. I then receive a message from Turkey doing exactly that. My head is starting to hurt now.

Talk to E/F – clearly there is no point in even attempting to disguise what we are at anymore. Can’t really understand why Austria moved against me and then sent the message but neither can I understand how it could be part of another plot, particularly as Turkey acted as predicted.

Best chance is to work on Austria-Russia and try to exploit their earlier difficulties – if it wasn’t all a performance.


BUILDS

Nothing unexpected – Italy builds fleets in Rome and Naples to go with Tunis – a lot of naval power facing west. Still all pointing to a four-way.

I build army Berlin and fleet Kiel.

Planning with E/F means that I will support Eng into Swe as we have to collapse the Russian north as quickly as possible. I am potentially facing armies in Pru, Sil, Boh and Tyr putting Mun in dire shape so order to Pru and Sil. So long as Austria doesn’t order Sil-Ber this turn, Mun can hold in the Fall.


SPRING 02

More surprises. Eng gets Swe and I get Bal. Aus has ordered Sil-Gal and War held allowing me into Pru. If my head hurt before, it is spinning now.

Messages again – Aus considered further after my messages and decided that he couldn’t trust Russia and was now prepared to work against him, even offering to support me into War!! I think that Austria has never really reconciled with Russia and only needed a little encouragement as there is no other explanation. He has also taken Bul from Turkey (although he probably can’t hold it), as the juggernaut has always been his concern.

Talked further with him – he wanted to know when the western triple formed saying that he will find out eventually in the AAR’s. I tell him that I am writing this as I go and assure him that I was never working with E/F until after the Fall when it was apparent that there was a four-way against us (Sorry Austria!!).

Matters are breaking down in the east and again I have to assure one and all that I had no earlier deal with E/F but that I had asked for their help when the four-way was obvious. I don’t think I have ever had to repeat the same lie as often as I did on this occasion.

Turkey has now upped the stakes by demanding that R/I and I answer whether we will sign-up to a new four-way against Austria. I have to get out of this one carefully. I have copied the message to Austria and asked him not to tell anyone - I’m not sure if I can trust him to do that but it is worth the risk.

Remarkably I haven‘t heard anything from Eng or Fra since the last orders – I really don’t know what to make of them. I have gone out of my way to swamp them with copies of messages to assure them of my trustworthiness but there are very few replies. If this is their normal games, I think it is a weakness as it isn’t encouraging trust. The other alternative is that I am being set-up and now that the four-way looks off, they may be reviewing their positions. However, even though I am a little uncomfortable, it still seems to be my best way forward as the situation in the east is too confused. Russia still seems to be a good player and I would have been happy allied with him from the start but don’t think I could rely on him now. Italy is the biggest danger to us at the moment – he has established a strong position and seems to have a good read on my true intentions but allying with him would just leave us in the middle of two power-blocks. I am insisting that Italy retreats from my borders if I am to consider the R/T/I alliance. Italy denies any hostile intentions and even denies that there was a R/T/A/I against me in 01 – so I have to copy with a message from Russia which conceded that there was an alliance and that Italy was to have moved against me earlier. Italy is clearly the biggest non-believer! He agrees to move away from Tyrolia and relieve the pressure on Munich – I can’t believe the non-believer so I will have to cover Munich anyway 


100+ messages and it is Spring 02 Retreat Phase!!!

This is getting messy now. I have had to insist time after time that I’m not committed to a WT. I keep telling T/R/I that I can’t commit to their Quad until some more trust is established. The retreat phase has almost passed and no further word from Eng or Fra. This has me very concerned. R/T/I have all shown themselves to be good players and it is tempting to join with them by my tendency is to stay with my initial alliance – I also have concerns that as R/T/I had all joined (with A) to attack me in Fall 01, it would all happen again. However silence from my allies has me almost at tipping point.

At the end I stay with E/F. Aus had offered to support me into War as revenge on Russia but we agree that I will support him instead (as his support could be broken). It will isolate me from R/T/I but should also be the end of any possible reconciliation between Aus and R/T/I. I wish I was hearing back from my allies. I would prefer if I could put off this decision for another turn to really understand E/F but I have to go for it now. I may regret this big time.


FALL 02

I have supported Austria into Moscow so I guess that I have put an end to any pretence with the rest of the Eastern Bloc. I have also taken Belgium from England with his agreement as a build would be more valuable in Germany. In other moves, England is now positioned to take StP in the Spring and while Italy did move away from Tyrolia, he took two centres from Austria which weakens my last ally in the east and strengthens Italy even more. Russia is in big trouble as is Austria while Turkey is still tied up in the corner but Italy is getting stronger and is reading the position well.

Now I get a most odd message from France – he says that I have been too calculating and haven’t been helping him as I ordered to Munich instead of Tyrolia. This has been copied to England.

Now I wonder if I have made a huge miscalculation of my “allies”. I haven’t been receiving responses to my messages from E/F and now this. Did he not see that Italy was in Tyrolia so I had to cover Munich? From my point of view, I have been working whole-heartedly for the alliance and have stayed with it despite the lack of communication despite other opportunities.

I send a number of messages to France copying much of my correspondence with the east in a last effort to confirm my intentions. I also confirm that I am happy for him to take Belgium if he can get an army there as he will certainly need more fleets in the Med. I then get a reply from which I read a completely different attitude – he explains that English isn’t his first language so there may have been some misunderstanding on my side due to that and he commits to our alliance as does England. The only slight issue is that he doesn’t want any English fleets heading south although I think he needs them as Italy is clearly the biggest danger.


SPRING 03

A picture is starting to take shape – for the moment there is a stalemate in the Med between Italy and France, Italy and I are stalled in the Tyrolia/Bohemia region and England is in StP and will be able to move south. However I make a school-boy error and order a convoy from Swe to Liv when it should have been from Fin (Eng has armies in both). It will mean that we don’t take Mos in the Fall – hopefully England won’t read anything more into it other than a mistake. Turkey has moved into Gre, an Italian centre – not sure what to read into that although Austria suspects that it is a stab. That would be good news.

Austria has been very honourable – after we put him (rather than me) into War, he said that he would move out and let me move in behind me – however as he had just lost two centres to Italy, I didn’t know if this would still happen but it did. His attitude seems to be that he accepts that there is now a WT (although he has been telling me to be honest in the AARs as to when it came about), and he is going to keep helping me. It seems that he still wants to “punish” Russia and that works for me to. In the meantime, Russia has re-taken War but I can capture it in the Fall. I offer to support Austria into Vienna but he prefers to go for Rum – I would have preferred to see him in Vienna as it would have permanently split A/I and weakened Italy’s defences further. However Austria has no real reason to be helping me so I’m not trying to push him in any direction.

No communication to/from the east – communication still very slow from France but I am hearing back more from England. My issue now is what is to happen in the longer term – if France can push Italy back, I will be the vulnerable party with both Eng and Fra behind me.


FALL 03

I get the convoy right this time and put Finland into Liv. I am also in War. I assumed that Italy would bounce in Tyrolia rather than occupy it and used this opportunity to get armies into Mun and Boh.

France and Italy have swapped fleets – France is now in Tyrrhenian and Italy in GoL. As France can defend Mar and Spa, this should be good news. It also sets-up a test of our alliance – I suggest that France now needs an English fleet to come south – Italy may get into WMed and if he does, MAO must be covered. Although France had been reluctant before to allow England to come south, he now encourages it.

Turkey has retreated from Greece to Aegean and Austria has taken Rum which compensates for War. Austria seems to have got Italy to stay away from him so remains at three. It is also notable that Austria has never moved against Italy so I can’t really expect any support in that direction – however if we can finish Russia off, that is a result.


SPRING 04

I agree with England that I will send one of my fleets into Sweden so that he can dislodge it in the Fall and I can replace it with an army – nice to have this co-operation.

I had agreed to support Austria into Ukr from Gal– good move for me as I could then get into Gal which would be a big help in the Tyr/Vie region and I didn’t expect Austria to assist in that direction. However he messaged me overnight to say that he changed plans and ended up supporting Turkey into Sev – I’m not sure if he did this in aid of Italy but in any event, I can’t really expect much more assistance from him.

France does very well and takes Tun and it is safe for the Fall.

Austria now makes a proposal – he asks if I intend to go for the solo, offering to help if I do and suggesting that E/F/G propose a three-way draw if I don’t. A solo would be a great result in the tournament context but there would be a few problems. Our alliance is now quite strong and each of us has committed that if one breaks the alliance, the other two will turn on him. As I am in the centre, I would be an easy target particularly as England has spare units behind my lines. I have always suspected that England and France are closer to each other than to me and if anything, I am the one likely to be stabbed. Even if I wanted to try something, Italy is too much of a factor too. I pass on the offer.


FALL 04

Russia offers to use his last turn to punish his nemesis (Austria) – it would be nice to get into Galicia but the slight risk that I was being set-up meant that I don’t take him up on his offer – we don’t need to be taking risks now.

France moves well again and gets into Ion, which should be the big breakthrough. England is now in MAO so the west is secure. I/T/A share supply centres so there are clearly back on terms and Russia is gone.



SPRING 05

I take Gal from Austria which opens the door to Vie. We assume that Italy will support Pie-Tyr and allow him in so that we can get Pie and Gal and still have Mun/Boh. France retreats to Apu and Eng is in Ukr.

Now there is a message in the Shout-box from Turkey suggesting that a three-way is proposed. I am fairly relaxed at this point in relation to E/F intentions and don’t expect to be stabbed but it will be nice to be sure – so I propose it, not knowing where Italy stands, but it is accepted.


OVERALL

From my point of view, this was a hectic game in the early stages with the diplomacy in the east. While I intended to work with E/F, I also accepted an I/A alliance hoping to get that alliance to weaken R/T. I then found myself on the end of a R/T/A/I alliance by Fall 01 and only survived as Austria decided that he couldn’t trust Russia. With Austria then working against Russia and France and England free to advance, the orders themselves followed to their logical conclusion – Austria’s continued support against Russia was the key factor.

Slightly surprised that the game ended so quickly – was it because of the secondary scoring system?
camroc
 
Posts: 324
Joined: 12 May 2008, 11:54
Location: Dublin
Class: Diplomat
All-game rating: (1000)
Timezone: GMT

Re: Tournament Game - STELLA - AARs

Postby camroc » 26 Feb 2009, 15:17

PLAYERS

JEANPHI (England): I don’t think I have been allied you before but you proved to be a very loyal ally. I did have concerns for the first year or two mainly because I felt that there was a lack of communication. It certainly led me to believe that your true ally was France and I worried that it was only a matter of time before you turned on me (you can let me know in your AAR), but from about 1902 on, communication improved greatly and you made me feel very comfortable. You were happy to give me centres on a couple of occasions when builds in Germany were more beneficial, the sign of an excellent ally.

SUPERHIK (France): I had the same worries about you as about England – there was a serious lack of communication particularly at the early stages of the game and lack of communication leads to paranoia! However when we had a discussion at the end of 02, things improved and I had no major worries from then on. As with England, I don’t know if the earlier problems were because the two of you weren’t really committed to me as an ally from the start. As the game progressed, you also proved to be an excellent tactician and it was fun to work with you.

MDMUFF (Italy): While we were allied from the start, it appears that neither of us was committed to it! You were the biggest danger to our WT from the start and I thought you read my intentions very well and always kept yourself well protected. Obviously your opening moves went into Austria – I will be interested to hear what was discussed between you at the outset and after your opening. You obviously went with the R/T/I/A proposal in 01 and if Austria had stayed with you, that alliance would have rolled over Europe but you would have had to watch your back!!

DIPLOMAT (Austria): You were certainly the key player in the game!! While I know your reputation, I have never played against you but figured we would have to be in at least one game together in the Tournament. I never guessed your identity though. We did agree an A/I/G alliance at the start – not sure whether you were ever really behind that and you can see that I wasn’t. I am very interested in what happened between you and Italy before and after the opening orders – when you messaged me after the opening, you only mentioned Russia and not the fact that you had Italian visitors. I fully agree that R/T were allied from the start but my thoughts at the time were that you were over-reacting in your messages – at the time I thought you were a “younger” player, but did wonder was the hysteria a way of forcing Russia’s hand. I’m also not sure why you changed you position in 02, from moving against me as part of a R/T/A/I, to moving against Russia – this was the key point in the game. You proved to be very straight in all your dealing with me after that point and I enjoyed our co-operation although I couldn’t really see what was in it for you. I know you are in the final after the first round, so good luck there.

KIAN (Turkey): We probably didn’t have a lot of communication at the start. I was slightly surprised that you weren’t a bit more inquisitive at the start as to where I stood with Russia – it did suggest an early R/T alliance. You worked very hard to re-establish the eastern alliance after 01 and put me in a difficult position at the point in time. Given your position on the board, you never got involved in the action so it must have been a fairly quiet game for you. Was the draw proposal suggested so early because of the secondary scoring system?

AQ (Russia): You were the player that most impressed me most in the initial negotiations and your messaging would certainly have encouraged me to work with you and I would certainly have been interested in a R/G/E opening. However hearing from England that you were suggesting working with him against me suggested that you were being a bit too manipulative! You got on the wrong side of Austria early but if you were trying to deny an R/T alliance, I am surprised that you told me that Turkey was copying his messages to you. After Fall 01 when I thought that I was gone, I gave you the credit(?) for organising R/T/A/I, although I assume that Austria’s worries about being a victim in mid-game were probably well justified. Once Austria decided to move against you, you had no chance of survival.


Extremely high standard from all of the players and a most enjoyable game. Thank you all.
camroc
 
Posts: 324
Joined: 12 May 2008, 11:54
Location: Dublin
Class: Diplomat
All-game rating: (1000)
Timezone: GMT

Re: Tournament Game - STELLA - AARs

Postby bitwise » 26 Feb 2009, 15:57

You're wrong, camroc. This is certainly an interesting read, even for people who didn't play in the game. Great AAR. In particular writing down your initial view on the players is a good idea. Sounds like a nice piece of role-playing by Diplomat, even if it didn't help him much in this game.

Now for the big question: Who wrote the Swiss Observer?
User avatar
bitwise
Elite Sponsor
Elite Sponsor
 
Posts: 1070
Joined: 18 Feb 2008, 14:46
Location: Denmark
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: (1002)
All-game rating: (1299)
Timezone: GMT+1

Re: Tournament Game - STELLA - AARs

Postby mdmuff » 26 Feb 2009, 16:17

Game Discussion:

Not much for me to discuss really... Opening negotiations lead me to an alliance with Austria. As discussion kept going we agreed to a deal with Germany. After the Spring 1901 moves it was apparent there was a WT & a Jugger in play. We were caught in the middle and Austria offered centers to me in hopes of staging a decent defense against the Triple.

There were numerous deals in the works, but always one party would negate them. We could not get Russia or Turkey to commit to anything until it was too late. Finally when Russia lost Warsaw & St. Petersburg did Turkey fully commit, by then it was too late. I would have liked to stalemate it out and wait for one of the WT to turn, but the East fell too fast for one of them to turn, by the time they in Russia deep it was clear by the positioning on the board that a stab was not likely to come soon (if at all), so I agreed to the draw.




Players:

JEANPHI (England): No real communication with this player, so not much to discuss.

SUPERHIK (France): Same as England, a little more discussion was had than E, but not much to go on.

CAMROC (Germany): I got a sense from your messages about the Triple well before it was "out in the open", but you tried your best to hide. You were the most communicative of the three, but that is the role of Germany in the Triple. You were a great player in that role and did it great justice. I was really hoping to be working with you in our Central Alliance, but after 1901, it was clear we couldn't. I stopped communication as it was clear you were just collecting it for the other powers, otherwise it was pleasant talking with you. Hope to see you around in other games.

DIPLOMAT (Austria): Oh what a time we had, it would have been great working with you had the pieces fallen better for us. We had the makings of great power. I was not surprised to see who you were at the end, the insight you had throughout the game led me to know who it was, especially when the Swiss Observer made it's appearance. I always enjoy my games with you

KIAN (Turkey): Sorry you were the odd man out for a while. I wanted to work with someone between the two of Russia & you, but I was worried that I would be a stab from you guys. Austria was my closest ally in the game and you & him seemed to butt heads a lot, which made it difficult to get a read on things.

AQ (Russia): I liked your communication and negotiations, but I think you have to be clearer in your dealings as we could have avoided a lot of trouble in the long run if you would have just specified you wanted to keep Turkey as the ally when we tried for the ET to combat the WT. Sorry you got eliminated, wish we could have worked something out.



Summary:

Overall a boring game for me, the alliances were set early on and there was not much that could be done to stop them. I made some tactical errors against France in the Med and allowed him to gain too early of an advantage to be stopped. It helped that he was a good tactician and that he did not have to worry about Germany or England.

I tried to stay out of all the fighting (message wise) and allowed the game to come to me. Unfortunately there could be no middle ground to be found, I guess if I had turned on Austria I could have bargained a deal with Turkey & Russia, but they would have stabbed me at the first chance anyway, so what was the point. Austria was a great ally to me, even though I was taking his centers ;)
Don't argue with an idiot; people watching may not be able to tell the difference.

Ham & Eggs: A days work for a chicken; a lifetime commitment for a pig.
User avatar
mdmuff
 
Posts: 917
Joined: 28 Jan 2008, 11:30
Location: Wisconsin, USA
Class: Diplomat
All-game rating: (1000)
Timezone: GMT-6

Re: Tournament Game - STELLA - AARs

Postby mdmuff » 26 Feb 2009, 16:18

bitwise wrote:You're wrong, camroc. This is certainly an interesting read, even for people who didn't play in the game. Great AAR. In particular writing down your initial view on the players is a good idea. Sounds like a nice piece of role-playing by Diplomat, even if it didn't help him much in this game.

Now for the big question: Who wrote the Swiss Observer?


I agree, great AAR to read, gave some great insight into your perspective on the game. As for the SO writer, I have a gut feeling it was Diplomat ;)
Don't argue with an idiot; people watching may not be able to tell the difference.

Ham & Eggs: A days work for a chicken; a lifetime commitment for a pig.
User avatar
mdmuff
 
Posts: 917
Joined: 28 Jan 2008, 11:30
Location: Wisconsin, USA
Class: Diplomat
All-game rating: (1000)
Timezone: GMT-6

Re: Tournament Game - STELLA - AARs

Postby Kian » 26 Feb 2009, 16:47

It was my first tounament game - and I think it showed :oops:

Funnily enough I don't think Russia and I ever even discussed a Jugger - I was keen on a four way R,T,A,I -

Russia and I were keen to ally - but we both wanted a third - in my case because it would keep us honest :)

I found mduff very credible - and used him extensively to filter the wheat from the chaff on shared messages content.

I had an initial rant with diplomat as he asked (demanded ;) ) an immediate stab on Russia opening as a price (test) of my fidelity to a A,I,T

Since I wanted the sissy 4 way I refused - and unfortunately probably convinced all concerned that the non-existent Jugger was all too real.

All in all I played poorly.

The Swiss Observer was quite brilliant. I tgthink the true tribute is taht in game - it was very hard to guess who the author was.

Players
ENGLAND (jeanphi)
You are right - I failed to communicate enough with you... Noted, I'll learn
FRANCE (superhik)
Same issue as with England
GERMANY (camroc)
Very honourable commitment not to outright lie meant that we guessed your triple slighly earlier than we could have - but too late to commit to save ourselves from it...

To all winning countries - I admired your play and the efficiency, speed and effectiveness of the attack. Germany did an excellent job in sowing FUD out East - and this contributed highly to the effectiveness of the deserved win.

AUSTRIA (Diplomat)
I have learned a lot... diplomacy should never consist of putting my fingers in my ears and humming la, la, la, very loudly when you try to talk just because I did not like the first thing you said! :) I do now realise how hard it is to convince people as Russia nd Turkey that there is no Jugger maybe that pushes it towards inevitability?
ITALY (mdmuff)
I really wanted to work with you from the start. Sorry I messed around a little with the Greece excursion - it wasn't exactly the best way to engender trust in an already taut relationship
RUSSIA (AQ)
I feel I let you down big time - but as E and G got closer and closer and A continued to chomp away at you in the South - a fleet in Sev just was not practicable. Also - I failed to convince the others that you were legit regarding the need for a 4 way alliance. Sorry.
"Tell the truth, and so puzzle and confound your adversaries. ” Sir Henry Wotton

"I'm better pleas'd to make one more,
Than be the death o' twenty." Lines on War - Rabbie Burns
User avatar
Kian
 
Posts: 2710
Joined: 30 Dec 2008, 01:52
Location: UK
Class: Diplomat
All-game rating: (1000)
Timezone: GMT

Re: Tournament Game - STELLA - AARs

Postby lotr_freak » 27 Feb 2009, 00:26

Great AAR camroc. I really enjoyed reading it. ;-)
"I wish the ring had never come to me. I wish none of this had happened. So do all who live to see such times, but that is not for them to decide. All you have to decide is what to do with the time that is given to you."

Gold Member of Classicists
User avatar
lotr_freak
 
Posts: 3342
Joined: 18 Aug 2008, 06:25
Location: Fort Collins, CO
Class: Diplomat
All-game rating: (1000)
Timezone: GMT-7

Re: Tournament Game - STELLA - AARs

Postby Master Radishes » 27 Feb 2009, 00:47

Is anyone else strangely satisfied to see Diplomat fall to a WT?
Master Radishes
 
Posts: 5927
Joined: 28 Jan 2008, 11:30
Location: London
Class: Ambassador
Standard rating: (1000)
All-game rating: (1329)
Timezone: GMT-7

Re: Tournament Game - STELLA - AARs

Postby lotr_freak » 27 Feb 2009, 00:54

Yes, I certainly am. I'm actually kinda happy to just see him not win a game. Lol.
"I wish the ring had never come to me. I wish none of this had happened. So do all who live to see such times, but that is not for them to decide. All you have to decide is what to do with the time that is given to you."

Gold Member of Classicists
User avatar
lotr_freak
 
Posts: 3342
Joined: 18 Aug 2008, 06:25
Location: Fort Collins, CO
Class: Diplomat
All-game rating: (1000)
Timezone: GMT-7

Next

Return to PlayDip Grand Tournament FIN

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron