New GB2 - webDiplomacy

2ndWhiteLine, Zmaj, Matticus13, JamesYanik, CAPT Brad, Valis2501, A_Tin_Can

29 Apr 17 UTC	Gg
29 Apr 17 UTC	gg
29 Apr 17 UTC	At least I was the LAST to go
29 Apr 17 UTC	I was busy with Turkey, so you were off the menu for awhile. I should have moved on France earlier to try and snag my SC across the stalemate line. Hindsight 20/20...
29 Apr 17 UTC	I was the one that made turkey and Russia weak so you can thank me now
29 Apr 17 UTC	Partially. It was also me twittling my thumbs for a couple years, allowing you to break them down a bit.
29 Apr 17 UTC	I should have stabbed you in the beginning
29 Apr 17 UTC	It was obvious you could choose to try to cross the line OR stab me. I figured you'd realize that, and I was having fun doing IT. I was sad you chose the points instead, I'll be even more sad if you didn't also realize the obvious consequences.
29 Apr 17 UTC	I didn't see where you could realistically expect to expand after you captured Moscow. I was very worried about my own safety.
29 Apr 17 UTC	*without coming my direction
29 Apr 17 UTC	Ah well. Good playing with you all. Should be the last GB I play for quite some time.
29 Apr 17 UTC	I forgot what a strong lineup we had here. But I actually find it easier to play against good players. How many people playing Germany would decide to let me take England to concentrate on Italy? Well done, James.
29 Apr 17 UTC	James, why did you keep bouncing Sweden? It seemed objectively bad for you- I think letting the southern powers take me apart is what ensured you didn't cross the line.
29 Apr 17 UTC	your initial move to Livonia was an aggressive gesture, and you never let up, so don't put all this on me.
29 Apr 17 UTC	Livonia isn't aggressive! Livonia says "it makes sense for you to give me Sweden", with the additional advantage that it's peaceful to England. Generally the Livonia move is a convoy to Sweden- if it doesn't get in, then there's two armies (Liv and a new one in Warsaw) that can come for Germany. If it does get in then there's no problem. My general thinking is bouncing Russia in Sweden isn't strong, and it's definitely not strong if Russia has moved to Livonia. You got "lucky" here in that I was attacked from the south, so couldn't meaningfully captialise on your mistake, but it also meant that you'd never see Moscow or Warsaw, which are surely the goals if you're Germany and you attack Russia. Why on earth would you see it as aggressive? What are the follow up moves?
29 Apr 17 UTC	The follow up moves are an attack on Baltic Sea, to obtain leverage over Denmark. It's strategy i have used myself successfully in the past the essential rationale behind the move is to push units to the north, and it's nearly as aggressive against Germany as a move to St. P would be against England. if you had simply moved only your fleet to GoB, and Moscow had headed south, then there'd be considerably less of a threat. by having two units stationed up there, both of which are near my territories, was not something i was comfortable against. furthermore, Britain and France had clearly been quarreling and so my fight son the western front were considerably less than the archetypal fighting.
29 Apr 17 UTC	Livonia is most definitely not aggressive toward Germany. If he wanted it to be aggressive, he could easily move Mos-Liv and War-Sil. As it was, there was no reason to think that he had any intention of attacking you, especially given that I had opened to ENG. The best move in that spot would have been to team up on a fighting E/F, kick me out of Norway, and go your separate ways.
29 Apr 17 UTC	it wasn't as aggressive as it could have been, but 2 units in the north irks me. I've had opening moves EXACTLY the same as Russia's that ended up in an assault on Germany. furthermore, BECAUSE England wasn't going after me, i saw no reason to attack him. this attacking Russia seemed more reasonable
29 Apr 17 UTC	That didn't stop you from building a third fleet in 1903 though. Your attacks changed direction so many times I lost count by 1904. By my count, each year you attacked/were aggressive against a different country: 1902: Russia 1903: France 1904: England 1905: Back to Russia I don't see anything reasonable in that strategy.
29 Apr 17 UTC	That wasn't my strategy. It was anti Russia & France, until France was looking desperate and you looked to have an opening in the MAO (1903) in which case i withdrew my forces and moved against you. Furthermore, my withdrawal from France was entirely justified since Russia was about to surround Berlin.
29 Apr 17 UTC	you're mad that you lost, i was jut trying to prevent one country from running over the other, while i got nothing. i did my job, and as soon as i saw France truly progress against England, i moved fleets to guard against him, but Italy was strong enough and i couldn't risk exposing the south
29 Apr 17 UTC	If Russia was about to surround Berlin, why not just build in Berlin? Why antagonize a third country? With me about to take MAO and you in Burgundy, France was doomed. Russia was never going to take Berlin, and if you built there you could have easily held him off indefinitely. Instead, you build the third fleet, executed a clumsy staband over the course of the next ten years only managing to take Norway ELEVEN turns later and only one additional center after that. At the end of 1903, Italy was only at 4 centers, France was broken, and you had no threats to your power in the middle of the board. If we had continued our current course, you would have ended up with 2 of the 5 French centers and I would have been in the Med long before Italy became a relevant power. Russia was never gettin beyond his three remaining centers, so he would have been an easy target for you, meaning you cross the stalemate line before anyone in the east gets a chance to establish a defensive position. I played a shitty game from the beginning (I was 50/50 on convoying to Pic or Bre in F1901) but you could have ended the game as the dominant power. Instead, you chose to react to negligible threats instead of remaining on the offensive.
29 Apr 17 UTC	that's kind of my point, if France is doomed, then i have you with nowhere else to go then against me, and Russia already coming for you. spheres of influence dictates French survival
29 Apr 17 UTC	Russia wasn't "coming for me". He had three centers lol
29 Apr 17 UTC	and ALL 3 units were coming for me... and if YOU have control of most of France, ANY distraction to my flank could prove deadly
30 Apr 17 UTC	You took one center from me and one center from Russia. By any measure, it was a poor attack.
30 Apr 17 UTC	but not a reckless one. that's why i'm here, and you're not
30 Apr 17 UTC	James, you survived the game, but not because you played well. You attacked me all game and only have St P to show for it. You made bad calls in this game- but if your measure is survival to the draw then it didn't matter. If your measure is chance at centres over the stalemate line, then it did.
30 Apr 17 UTC	A strength of your game is you played it very safe. But I don't think you'll consistently get good results with that style of play, nor do I think you'll get many solos against strong players.
30 Apr 17 UTC	well your early indecision and weakness in the south was clearly a much worse move than mine. i'll admit i could have done my stab in 1903-04 MUCH better, but all in all, don't pretend like your Spring 1904 moves actually made sense. you were almost begging Austria to take Moscow. if Austria had done that (as i was hoping) you'd have been out MUCH sooner, and i'd have a lot more freedom to move west. i'll admit this wasn't my best game, but YOU have to admit, your full on assault at me (after i had moved off of you) was what killed you. not me taking ONLY sweden off of you.
30 Apr 17 UTC	https://goo.gl/images/GY2W9V
30 Apr 17 UTC	James you talk too much
30 Apr 17 UTC	true
30 Apr 17 UTC	It made no sense for Austria to take Moscow at that point- I was far more useful defending the east from you. Austria correctly read that, and only took it later when he wanted to go for a survive on the stalemate line (I think it was a little premature, but you can't fault him for trying). I'm dead because I was attacked by three players. You're alive because nobody seriously attacked you.
30 Apr 17 UTC	and the reason nobody seriously attack me, is because i never allowed any one force near me to gain too much power, thus limiting their ability to fight me.
30 Apr 17 UTC	i hate it when losers are trying to prove they played great. just shut up, you're dead
30 Apr 17 UTC	Let's be clear, I don't think I played great. This discussion came from me helpfully explaining to JY that he's a fool if he thinks War->Lvn is aggressive to Germany.
30 Apr 17 UTC	let's be clear, you're a loser. i don't think that, it's a fact. you teaching others is ridiculous
01 May 17 UTC	Step 1, move to Livonia and GoB so what's step 2? convoy to Sweden. now you have half of your troops right next to me. is it to move back to warsaw like YOU did? given Austria was attacking you, but at the same time, if your attack were always intended to fight in the South, then your moves are inefficient and inadequately deploy troops to the part of the board where'd you fight. I've seen convoys to Sweden from livonia in the past that have been done as a 2 part war in the south and against germany, and some that have purely gone against Germany.
01 May 17 UTC	Those are some poor Russian players.
01 May 17 UTC	and you'd know