Finished: 24 Jun 17 UTC
yay-2
1 days /phase (normal)
Pot: 90 D - Autumn, 2020, Finished
Fall of the American Empire IV, Draw-Size Scoring
Game won by Kaiser013 (342 D)
17 Jun 17 UTC Autumn, 2018: Quebec, you have been a great ally, and I respect that, but at some point you've gotta go for the win.
17 Jun 17 UTC Autumn, 2018: I don't see how, considering how often I suggested a tie :P
17 Jun 17 UTC Autumn, 2018: The question New York must contemplate is whether or not it's possible for him to get 8 more supply centers. It is up to you and Mexico to stop him.
17 Jun 17 UTC Autumn, 2018: I see (8) more.
18 Jun 17 UTC Autumn, 2018: I see several more than that haha
18 Jun 17 UTC Autumn, 2018: More commentary from the dead than usual
Probably my most unusual game on American empire
18 Jun 17 UTC Autumn, 2018: Would have been a decent counter if I blocked Coahuila
18 Jun 17 UTC Autumn, 2018: It's gonna get weirder I imagine.
18 Jun 17 UTC Spring, 2019: Now it's just becoming a mess
20 Jun 17 UTC Autumn, 2019: The Mexico-Quebec alliance will be an interesting duo opponent. Quebec's already made some chinks in the armor.
21 Jun 17 UTC Autumn, 2019: South America is its most multi colored right now.
21 Jun 17 UTC Autumn, 2019: Bogota is in deep.
24 Jun 17 UTC Well played new york
24 Jun 17 UTC Quebec siding with you at first gave u the solo though

When you say that Quebec had an alliance with you I agree that that
Gives some cause but...

1.) in spring 2014 I was still asking for a 3 way draw even though the last few turns I had a sc advantage. Ny on the other hand was hesitating and was agressive with me when I mentioned it which I told Quebec

2.) with NY attacking me that meant he wanted more points and its hard to eliminated me and get a 2 way draw without risking a solo. That meant it was more likely for his intentions to be solo based.

3. In spring 2014 the Quebec ny sc ratio was 13-21 which further reinforced that he was going to solo.

Quebecs reason was that I would have soloed if he helped me

4.) in the "planned counter attack" he would have taken Kansas Milwaukee and Michigan while I wouldn't have gained any scs from NY.

Me and my both had an equal amount of scs so when you compare a person that has attacked someone while he has a massive advantage over me to a person who's been asking for a 3 way draw the whole time and has been friendly while proposing a plan that equals the playing field instead of potentially giving the other a massive lead (which it did). I would have chose the latter.

If the planned counterattack had gone through. NY And Quebec sc count would have been equaled and with NY gaining no centers while losing 3 would have been sufficiently defeated as Quebec would get his builds and it would have ended in a 3 or 4 way draw though I had a plan that would have defeated Cuba (which was foiled in New Yorks stab"

I still don't completely understand quebecs choice of alliance in that turn
24 Jun 17 UTC Good game all.
24 Jun 17 UTC Good game! Heartland and I suffered almost exactly the same fate - we had far-flung territories that were almost impossible to defend.
24 Jun 17 UTC gg
24 Jun 17 UTC GG all
25 Jun 17 UTC Yep I had a similar problem where my units was too stretched apart while NY had a narrow front
25 Jun 17 UTC Yep I had a similar problem where my units was too stretched apart while NY had a narrow front

Start Backward Open large map Forward End

New-York
Kaiser013 (342 D)
Won. Bet: 9 D, won: 90 D
35 supply-centers, 29 units
Quebec
tobyjoey (0 D X)
Survived. Bet: 9 D
14 supply-centers, 16 units
Mexico
Jacob63831 (160 D)
Survived. Bet: 9 D
8 supply-centers, 9 units
Cuba
moresunward (105 D)
Survived. Bet: 9 D
1 supply-centers, 1 units
California
Technostar (259 D)
Defeated. Bet: 9 D
Texas
Scrub (241 D)
Defeated. Bet: 9 D
Florida
irelandball (124 D)
Defeated. Bet: 0 D
Heartland
Defeated. Bet: 9 D
British-Columbia
nathan hale (100 D)
Defeated. Bet: 9 D
Peru
pnicklas613 (100 D)
Defeated. Bet: 9 D
Archive: Orders - Maps - Messages