Tounament Game - Amstel AARs

[Diplomat]

AQ brings up a valid point, not that I think MR did anything wrong, because I don't. He was faced with no good options and only my offer to keep him around long enough to score tiebreaker points. Why not go with what you can salvage? I will say that, if it were not MR or another player I thought I could trust, I probably would not have allowed Russia to live at all. Thats on me though, not on him, so make of it what you will.

Honestly I have trouble being bloodthirsty enough to go for a win much less a solo against some of the folks around here once I have started working with them as allies. Bats, MR , DK, Grumpy, Spit, 22, plus a few others. As long as I don't start the game with them as allies I don't have issues trying to whoopem but, if it comes to betrayal, yeah I can have trouble with the idea of totally stabbing my 'online friends' just for a few extra points on a leader board. I don't see MR as having that 'weakness' though, so again that one is on me as well. Finally there is certainly something to be said for the 'human nature' factor, remembering who was a good buddy and who totally lied to you for a tiny advantage tends to carry over from game to game and it can be telling when you are thinking about which way to jump in a truly 50-50 situation.

The flip side for me in this specific game was I knew going into this round that I probably did not need more points and only really needed to make sure no one solo'd over me that could knock me out of the final table. I was much more intense in the 1st 2 games than I have been in the last 2.

[Master Radishes]

AQ - No, it didn't matter to me that it was Dip. France and England weren't talking to me, Austria and Turkey were lying to me, and Italy was too far away to get my centres. Germany (who just happened to be Dip) was communicative, honest, and was playing the game well. In that situation, I would've done it no matter who it was, or even if I didn't know who it was; it just so happened that it was Dip.

Of course, it did help knowing it was Dip in that I knew I could trust him to keep his word about allowing me to live to 1905. I would've taken the agreement anyway - at that point, what choice did I have? - but it just left me much more secure in the knowledge that he'd honour the agreement. And in turn, since I knew he would, I didn't try to be a pain and take advantage of his kindness by trying to stay alive and going after another one of his centres once my time was up.

[Flatley]

As Austria, I can tell you flat out that, from my end, I didn't tell you a single lie (and I've gone over the logs to be sure of it). At the beginning of the game, Turkey, Germany and I had agreed to carve you up, as you were incommunicado with the lot of us. You started pushing the WT angle, and while you didn't convince me, I was willing to hold back a couple units to cover a German attack. Yes, I admit it, in Spring 1902, I thought to cover my bases. After all, it doesn't matter what SCs you hold in the spring, so long as it's open in the fall. I told you as much. And, after seeing that it was indeed a WT, I was ready to change course - and I did.

So, come Fall 1902, you decided to throw the game to your buddy and his two allies, despite all the pissing and moaning you did about how you hated Western Triples. Turkey and I admitted that we messed up, but it was hardly too late to change the flow of the game. Little did we know that you were going to throw a tantrum, and the game along with it. If I may, I'd like to quote something MR said in an earlier thread:

Let me back up what others have said - Yabada has never lied to me either, so that's a baseless accusation.

Also, connect4 said what I would've said - when you're down to 1 or 2 centres, that's one thing. When it's early in the game yet and you still have as good a chance as anyone, that's different, and generally unethical. Not strictly cheating, though.

This was from the thread "Cheating, scummy, or acceptable?"

Why am I making such a stink out of this? Because this was a tourney game. I'd expect it from a public game, or from certain players on the forum, but you? No, we deserved better from you. You threw a tournament game. It really took a lot of fun out of the experience.

[Master Radishes]

At that point I WAS down to 1 or 2 centres. Even though you eventually left Rumania (which, by taking it from me despite agreeing that we had to stop the WT, may not exactly have been lying to me, but certainly wasn't showing any sign of honesty to me) that would have only left me with 3 centres at most. It's not like I was at a comfortable size - I was dying, bleeding from every side thanks to you and Turkey. So while it was early in the game, what chance did I have? Clearly you and Turkey weren't going to help me, and I had England and Germany already invading my country. I'm not going to sit pretty and wait to see which one takes me out first. It's a legit tactic for dying powers to throw the game to their preferred side, and that's what I did.

I may have been a little over-dramatic in my message (it's fun to do) but I wouldn't say I was "throwing a tantrum." You guys weren't helping me out, so I wasn't going to help you out. Was it too late to stop the WT, had I stuck with you guys? Maybe not, maybe we could have. But what assurance did I have of that happening? I couldn't trust either of you. Rather than sit at one or two centres as part of a stalemate (which was not even guaranteed; I've been in a lot of stalemates against the West (especially vs Dip!) and they're difficult to completely set up if the western powers know what they're doing...and especially if my own partners aren't particularly cooperative, as they were showing they weren't going to be), I helped give the game to the side I thought deserved to win.

Some say Diplomacy is a game of lying an deception. It's really more of a game of trust and honesty.

[Flatley]

One might wonder how honest it is to agree to vacate all your SCs, thereby securing victory for someone else. From where I'm sitting, attacking Russia before a WT is revealed is much more honest than moving out of of your SCs so that Diplomat could take it. Sorry, man, that's shady, no matter how you slice it.

[Master Radishes]

It's called "throwing the game." It happens all the time in Diplomacy; I'm not the first to do it.

[Flatley]

I didn't say you were the first person to do it. I'm saying it's shady, and expected better of you.

[Diplomat]

I hesitate to weigh in, since I am the one that helped MR out, but I'll try to be objective.

By 'shady' you imply his decisions where somehow questionable in terms of their integrity. While I've fought MR more than I've allied with him, and I've always found him to be a crafty opponent, I've never found him to be dishonest.

We brokered a deal in exchange for his trying to continue his attacks on you guys. I'm the one that came to him with an offer of help. He was not going to recover from being down to 2 centers, so he little choice. I prefered him to attack you guys. You would have preferred he attack me. Alright, but those are only preferences. The best he could hope for was to be a pain to someone, and I gave him a reason to make it someone other than me. When it became clear he was going to potentially lose his units I made sure he had a refuge until 1905 since that was our arrangement and I always try to live up to those kinds of deals.

Before you moan about his choices, and what he did, explain to everyone... What did you offer him? A chance to be the first to die v the WT? With the chaotic situation in the east thats all it would have been.

[Flatley]

What did I offer him? After Spring 1902, when the WT was made apparent to me, I told MR that I would pull out of Rumania, and that I was ready to work against you three. Had I known all I needed to offer him was the promise of holding one SC in 1905, I certainly would have pitched it, but I thought he would be more amicable to holding his three SCs (I'm counting Berlin in this), and, with the backing of Turkey and myself, roll you back. After all, with Russia not conceding the game, everything changes. Would you have gotten Moscow? Doubtful. Would you have mounted your assualt on Vienna, knowing Russia was not friendly? Also doubtful, though still possible. You may have gained one build that turn instead of two; you might have gained none. Being down 1-2 builds, the whole tempo of the game would have changed. No, he could have recovered, and the rest of us could have recovered, too. It would have been an entirely different game.

And as for my shady comment, it is questionable in terms of integrity. There was a whole thread devoted to the question, in which MR was aligned with the view. I'm not making the claim of metagaming, mind, just that throwing a tournament game, in my eyes, is shady, and very disappointing.

[bitwise]

In my opinion it has always been an important skill in anonymous tournaments to figure out, what kind of players you're dealing with and use that to your advantage. If you're able to figure out exactly who the player is, then that's even better. But I think a line is crossed, if confirmation of identity is given within an anonymous tournament game, but that doesn't really seem to be the case here.

I definately find it within the limits of tournament rules to take strategic action based on identity assumptions. That includes stabbing a player if you believe he's has more points than you, allying with someone if you think they're behind you in points and throwing the game to someone who you expect to have already qualified. It's strategy over tactics in tournaments.

However, if your assumptions are wrong this could severely backfire on you. In Newcastle I went with Russia for a Juggernaut, since I didn't expect the Russian to be ahead of me in points, but it turned out to be AQ, who was indeed ahead of me, and that has put me under pressure in my other game.

In this particular game, MR failed miserably on a strategic level, since his assistance to the WT resulted in jeanphi gaining a 4 point lead on him, which puts pressure on MR in the last game. At the same time, we can now see, that if he could have helped A/I/T to victory, then he would still have been ahead of all 3 + jeanphi. Just goes to show that you never can tell.