If the pandemic or any natural disaster is causing disruptions to your life that prevent you from keeping up with your games, please email webdipmod@gmail.com and we can arrange a pause or replacement. Stay safe and healthy!

Finished: 07 PM Sun 01 Mar 20 UTC
Featured World Diplomacy Destruction
2 days /phase
Pot: 1020 D - Autumn, 2022, Finished
World Diplomacy IX, Anonymous players, Draw-Size Scoring
0 excused missed turn
Game drawn
17 Jan 20 UTC Autumn, 2015: [USA]:Come on guys, ready your orders ! This game would be faster if we wouldn't wait 48 hours even for Retreat phases.
17 Jan 20 UTC Autumn, 2015: [Ghana]:DRAW and it will end very quickly. Anyway, i have readied mine.
22 Jan 20 UTC Spring, 2016: GameMaster: Game was extended due to at least 1 member failing to enter orders and having an excused missed turn available. This has un-readied all orders.
22 Jan 20 UTC Spring, 2016: [Oz]:New Lybia is coming... Again! :)
22 Jan 20 UTC Spring, 2016: [Libya]:so who are my friends...?
22 Jan 20 UTC Spring, 2016: [Libya]:New Libya here
22 Jan 20 UTC Spring, 2016: [Ghana]:Hello Libya.
22 Jan 20 UTC Spring, 2016: [Oz]:Ghana i think
22 Jan 20 UTC Spring, 2016: [India]:I'm your only friend here.
The rest is just a patetic bunch of lyers.
22 Jan 20 UTC Spring, 2016: [India]:I hate google translate...
I meant: The rest is just a pathetic bunch of liars.
22 Jan 20 UTC Spring, 2016: [Libya]:so...draw and call it a day? :D
22 Jan 20 UTC Spring, 2016: [India]:You just arrived...
You have to play at least two complete years to deserve the points...
22 Jan 20 UTC Spring, 2016: [Ghana]:Don't believe the Libya. I have been here since the start, and they always give the same line. The truth is, they are 'The Axis of Evil'. They persecute their peoples, suppress dissent, and manipulate the truth.
No, Africa is a much nicer place, we need to stick together. You would never get brutal dictators in Africa.
22 Jan 20 UTC Spring, 2016: [Libya]:Wakanda Forever!!
23 Jan 20 UTC Spring, 2016: [South-Africa]:@Quebec: I thought i am your friend...
23 Jan 20 UTC Spring, 2016: [Oz]:Funny :)
23 Jan 20 UTC Spring, 2016: [USA]:@Ghana you're the only one who has to enter orders this turn, so ready it quickly or stop to complain about the length of this game !
23 Jan 20 UTC Spring, 2016: [Oz]:I hope Ghana will not ready up. It is good to see USA is upset. :D
23 Jan 20 UTC Spring, 2016: [Oz]:The more important thing, we are discussing about his retreat strategy.
24 Jan 20 UTC Spring, 2016: [Ghana]:It is a big decision. Plus this game has gone on forever with tens of player changes, so i think i can be allowed the full phase! However, why don’t we draw and end it quickly?
24 Jan 20 UTC Spring, 2016: [Ghana]:It would be a good result for South Africa. After all the South Pole is a chilly place to live, may as well let him in on the draw.
24 Jan 20 UTC Autumn, 2016: [Ghana]:Go on then, have done my orders, on we move.
24 Jan 20 UTC Autumn, 2016: [Ghana]:We effectively have 4 players on 20 - if you consider Libya and myself as a joint entity.
30 Jan 20 UTC Spring, 2017: [Ghana]:La la la. It's like you are talking to yourself sometimes.
30 Jan 20 UTC Spring, 2017: [Libya]:oh hello there
31 Jan 20 UTC Spring, 2017: [Ghana]:Oz you have fought well my friend. Sorry we were never close enough to really help each other out.
31 Jan 20 UTC Spring, 2017: [Oz]:Maybe next time! ;-)
31 Jan 20 UTC Spring, 2017: [Oz]:Or we are already doing... :)
01 Feb 20 UTC Autumn, 2017: [USA]:Thank you India & OZ for having so quickly readied your retreat orders !
01 Feb 20 UTC Autumn, 2017: [Oz]:Your welcome! :)
02 Feb 20 UTC Autumn, 2017: [Ghana]:Libya do you think we should let Quebec USA and India in on the draw, or take them out?
03 Feb 20 UTC Autumn, 2017: [Ghana]:Draw draw draw draw
06 Feb 20 UTC Autumn, 2018: [Ghana]:Can i ask a technical question please. Has the unit in South Africa been destroyed? I cannot see it on my map, but did not know that can happen. Thank you for the technical advise.
06 Feb 20 UTC Autumn, 2018: [Oz]:It moved out to the see.
06 Feb 20 UTC Autumn, 2018: [Near-East]:That is a great convoy!
06 Feb 20 UTC Autumn, 2018: [Ghana]:Got me on the retreat, damn. Ah well guess is just a matter of time
12 Feb 20 UTC Autumn, 2019: [Ghana]:ok it’s over. we cannot hold any longer ... a bucket with lots of holes in. shame you will not let us in on draw though.
20 Feb 20 UTC Autumn, 2020: [Libya]:I shall remember you, Ghana.

WAKANDA FOREVER!
20 Feb 20 UTC Autumn, 2020: [Ghana]:Thank you Libya the 6th, or maybe 7th...
24 Feb 20 UTC Autumn, 2021: [Ghana]:ok my lovely fellow players, just us 4 now. can we draw?
25 Feb 20 UTC Autumn, 2021: [Ghana]:Please?
26 Feb 20 UTC Autumn, 2021: [Oz]:Pff west atlantic. 1 year+
28 Feb 20 UTC [Quebec]:Waiting for USA to vote draw now.

Good game, gentlemen! It was fun playing with you all. Many thanks especially to USA, both the original one and the replacement, for being good teammates.

Honestly I was setting myself up for a solo. I purposefully sabotaged a landing into Namibia from USA twice in order to give myself more time to prepare for a stab. I could have walked right into seven USA supply centers if I'd wanted to, which alone would have brought me only eight centers short of a solo. However, because India played cautiously I knew that I could not solo this game, and hence I did not stab.

I thought this was actually an interesting game, though I was way more active in the early stages of the game than in the latter. For example I remember having lengthy discussions with the first Libya long before we even bordered. In the latter stages of the game, this game wasn't really on my mind anymore and I barely even talked.

Still, I think this game deserves a proper EOG so I will write one shortly. :)
29 Feb 20 UTC [Pacific-Russia]:Congratulations to the winners. It was a great and interesting game. I was surprised how strong was the trust and cooperation between Quebec and USA (both of them). I tried a lot of things to brake it, there were a lot of stab opportunity fron each side, but nothing was working!
It was a long game, enjoy your win!
29 Feb 20 UTC [Quebec]:END OF GAME COMMENTS FROM QUEBEC

I got assigned Quebec. As Quebec, my strategy should be to ally with either of the other two North American nations against the other. If I were to ally with Western-Canada against USA, then after USA was defeated, I would mostly be wedged in between Western-Canada and South American, and I would be the only real neighbour that Western-Canada would have left. That would make it tempting for Western-Canada to stab me, as if he did so, no nation could help me easily. On the other hand, if I were to ally with USA against Western-Canada, then after Western-Canada was defeated, USA would still share a large border with South America that he would have to worry about, making a stab on me not an attractive option. For this strategic reason, my preferred alliance was an alliance with USA against Western-Canada. However, I did not want to decide on any alliance before having spoken to the players first.

I sent a message to both USA and Western-Canada that I would like to ally with them against the other. To USA I mentioned my strategic reason why he was my preferred ally, largely because I knew he could apply the same kind of reasoning to prefer me as an ally. Both USA and Western-Canada replied that they wanted to ally with me, and both suggested moves. USA suggested to temporarily DMZ Union so that he could send his fleet from Florida to Mexico and use his other two units to take Indian Territories. I agree with this idea. I think this is the moveset USA needs to make if he wants to commit to an alliance with Quebec against Western-Canada and I would have suggested the same moves to him. Western-Canada suggested to bounce in Man in the spring. I disagree with this idea; if Western-Canada wants to commit to an alliance with Quebec against USA, he needs to send his fleet in Northwest Territories to Beaufort Sea to pick up Alaska and needs to use both of his other units to take Indian Territories; his army should move to BCo and BCo should move to NPO or Indian Territories, wherever he thinks USA is not moving to. The moveset Western-Canada suggested was on paper as much pro-Quebec as it was pro-USA! It was now clear to me that I preferred USA as an ally. I decided to write both to them that I agreed with their suggested moves, but I lied to Western-Canada; I used my knowledge about his moves to set myself up to take Man. Stabbing Western-Canada had the additional benefit of not appearing as a stab to the rest of the board, as his moveset did not look pro-Quebecian, so it didn't make me look untrustworthy.

Meanwhile, my eyes were set upon South America. According to the statistics, Argentina is a stronger nation than Brazil. Usually, Argentina has the upper hand over Brazil in a 1v1 fight since Argentina can bounce Brazil out of Colombia. (Brazil can win, though. See gameID=180969 as an example of how I, being Brazil, dealt with an aggressive Argentina. This was my first game on this site!) I did not want Brazil to die to Argentina too quickly, as that would make southern expansion in the future difficult. But even less I liked the scenario in which Argentina and Brazil team up and decide to attack North America, which one sees occasionally happen in World games. I therefore wanted them to fight, but I wanted neither of them to get the upper hand. I messaged Brazil and told him that I was worried he might get attack by Argentina and said that USA and I may be able to help him if this were the case. Meanwhile, I talked to Argentina in a tone as if I saw him as a valuable long-term partner and exchanged information about what Brazil said to us. Unfortunately, I was unsuccessful in playing the two out against each other. Both told me they were friendly with the other and Brazil was vague in his response when I suggested that we keep Northwest Atlantic as a DMZ. When pressed, Brazil more or less admitted that he was thinking about attacking USA. I got the suspicion that Brazil and Argentina were allied and that they would move to Northwest Atlantic and Northeast Pacific to attack the north together, and I shared my thoughts with USA. Unfortunately, my suspicion turned out to be correct.

Brazil tried to get me on his side, arguing that he, Argentina and I should attack the USA together. I weighed my options. If I stayed loyal to the USA, the fight in the Americas would be 2v3: Brazil, Argentina and Western-Canada versus USA and me. Not exactly looking good for me. If I switched sides and allied the South Americans, I would surely have an easier time in the short term. However, there were two downsides. First, I would need to stab an ally. I would lose credibility to all other players on the board, and players would be more hesitant to ally me. Second, I did not know if I could trust Brazil and Argentina. They had not been totally honest with me about their plans. They were sharing far more with each other than with me. How could I know that they would not stab me immediately after USA went down? If they had included me from the beginning in their talks about the American conquest, I would feel far more comfortable helping them. In the end, I decided to stick with my alliance with USA. It was very risky to try to fight a 2v3 fight on the American continent, but I decided to trust on my tactical skills. The additional benefit of sticking to my USA ally was that USA would be far more damaged from the war than I would, so if we won, USA would know that he owed his survival to me. That would gain me a lot of respect and trust from him.

I tried to get South-Africa and Frozen-Antarctica to make peace so that Frozen could help me fight the South Americans. Though both nations were nice to me in their chat, the results of the first build phase showed that this did not work out. South Africa claimed he did not trust Frozen enough. This was a bummer, as it meant that USA and I would be on our own for at least a while.

At this point it should be noted that I also had quite extensive conversation with Russia since the start of the game. Russia approached me first and came across as a very strong player. In fact, he told me that he had solo'd twice as USA. I did some research and concluded that he must be Magnetic24. Russia was talking to me in a tone of someone that sees me as a long-term ally. Multiple times he suggested specific decisions that he thought I should make. They always happened to coincide with what I had already planned out! I never told him that, though; I acted as if I was just doing what he suggested in order to make me appear more influencable and thus more valuable as an ally than I actually was. I also talked to Russia as if I were his ally, but secretly I trusted him not all that much, since I reckoned he would be talking with multiple powers across the board in the same way. However, the fact that he suggested orders to me that were good made me think he at least wanted me to do well, which was good.

In the spring of the second year, Pacific-Russia became inactive and got replaced. The original Pacific-Russia had not been talkative for a while; I would have liked him to build a fleet in the north coast of Yakutsk and attack Western-Canada with it, but he did not respond during the later stages of the previous build phase. The new Pacific-Russia, though, was very talkative and appeared to be a competent player. In fact, I betted that Russia and the new Pacific-Russia were the strongest other two players on the board. I spoke with the new Pacific-Russia about Russia and Pacific-Russia warned me that Russia had spoken to him about a triple alliance between them and India without mentioning me. Russia had never mentioned India to me in his press. This was consistent with my view on Russia and confirmed my suspicions. Though Pacific-Russia probably told me about it to earn my trust and make me less trustful of Russia, I believed him and it made me appreciate Pacific-Russia considerably. The new Pacific-Russia seemed wary of Russia just as I was, and I tried to fuel his distrust of Russia as much as I could. I did not want these two to be allies for long.

In the year 2001, I coordinated most of the moves of USA and I. USA had his own ideas about moves, too, but I convinced him of my own plans, and it worked out well. I am very happy about me having outguessed Brazil and Argentina in Mexico in the autumn of 2001. If I had misguessed here, I would not be surprised USA and I would have collapsed. The guesses against Western-Canada were not so fortunate.

Remarkably, I had succeeded in gaining the alliance of Oz in the war against the South Americans. Oz was very unresponsive to me. However, a brief request in the autumn of 2001 to send his fleet from Pacific Islands to East Pacific Ocean under the promise of splitting South American supply centers turned out to be sufficient to get Oz on our side. This was fantastic. Additionally, Pacific-Russia was moving into Arctic Circle with the intention of attacking Western-Canada in Alaska. These developments meant that if I continued to guess well, USA and I could not only survive, but rather thrive.

The year 2002 was a very good year for me. In the spring, the new Pacific-Russia stabbed Russia, something I had wanted to happen for a while. I talked to Russia as if I was shocked about the stab and wanted to help him, though. This was not a lie; Pacific-Russia would grow so much from the stab that I, despite the fact that he was my ally against Western-Canada, wanted him to do poorly from that point onward. I tried to rally India against him. India indeed attacked Pacific-Russia, but probably this had more to do with Russia's persuasive abilities than with mine.

Notice the moves around Western-Canada in the autumn of 2002. I had theorized what Western-Canada was likely to do and concocted the perfect counter. The moveset I suggested was risky for USA, though; he would lose BCo if my guess about the moves of Western-Canada was incorrect. USA ultimately agreed to the moveset, I think partly because he trusted my expertise (following my suggested moves had worked out before) and he trusted me as a player; he had no choice but to trust me, actually, considering the pressure that he faced from other nations. As it turned out, my moveset worked out excellently. USA had gradually increased his level of trust in me, and after the results of this moveset, he would trust me and my judgement so much that he would enter all the orders I suggested without hesitation.

After the autumn moves of 2002 I was confident that I could obtain a good draw from the game. If I did not stab USA, I could probably obtain a 3-way draw with him and another power. However, my ambitions lie in obtaining a solo. Solo's are hard to achieve, as once someone gets close to it, the other players will take action against you. Achieving a solo is made considerably easier if one player places too much trust in you. I thought I had found this player: USA. USA was no slouch in tactics himself, but because I had build up such a good reputation with him so far, he was willing to do moves that left him vulnerable to a backstab from me. Should I therefore have backstabbed USA immediately? No. I believe in delayed gratification. Had I stabbed USA, I would have lost a good ally and would probably end the game drawing with two or more other powers who did not fully trust me and were as a result harder to stab. But if I left USA alive and well until the endgame, then I could suddenly execute a megastab and achieve a solo. In order for such a megastab to be effective, both USA and I need to be dominant powers on the board, and no players should be around that would be good enough to convince USA to defend against me. Possibly I would even be able to convince USA eventually to 2-way draw with me, which I would of course use as a ploy to solo.

Keeping this in mind, I was thinking which allies I wanted to keep. If I stayed allied with Pacific-Russia, I thought there was no way I could solo. He was already the biggest power on the board and if left unchecked, he would dominate all of Eurasia very soon. Additionally, he would be smart enough to recognize a stab set up by me and call me out. No, I did not want any power to exceed USA and I in size, especially not a power controlled by a player I deemed good ad the game. As such, Pacific-Russia had to go. I convinced USA that we should stab Pacific-Russia - he agreed; I don't know how necessary my convincing was, as we were thinking along the same lines often anyway. I also tried to rally as many players against Pacific-Russia as well, and I intensified my communication with India. I was afraid India would die to the hands of Pacific-Russia if no one helped him, and if he stayed alive thanks to me, he would hopefully be grateful and as such potentially be a valuable long-term ally.

The 2003 moves went well.

It is noteworthy that I had communicated with Ghana a bit. I had asked him several times for help against the South Americans, which he did not want to give. I had also tried to get peace between Ghana and Libya, as Libya was fighting Near-East, an ally of Pacific-Russia. Unfortunately, Ghana stabbed Libya. After the retreat phase of 2003 (which was planned by me), I bordered his supply center in Great Britain with two fleets. I did not want to attack Ghana; despite the lack of help against South America, and despite the fact he stabbed Libya against my will, he was fighting Europe, who was an ally of Pacific-Russia. As such, I suggested we should ally against Europe. In the spring of 2004, Ghana unfortunately did not trust me enough to move to North Sea. This little paragraph would actually be the pattern throughout the game: Ghana was willing to work with me, but I had the feeling he only was out of necessity, and never because he actually trusted me or wanted to help me.

In the spring of 2004, Argentina got replaced by a new player. This new player tried to turn things around and was gauging whether USA and I would accept him in our alliance. USA and I did not take his ideas very seriously... up until the next turn. I had treated Oz as a genuine ally and I had been thinking that if I would not solo, a 3-way draw with USA and Oz would be the most desirable other outcome to me. However, despite the fact that I had been screaming my lungs out for Oz to help India, he decided to stab him instead. This was unacceptable to me. If nothing changed, Pacific-Russia would be incredibly hard to defeat thanks to the actions of Oz, and Oz himself would also grow considerably. A draw including both Oz and Pacific-Russia would be a likely result, also because Oz seemed to listen to Pacific-Russia; that is at least where I presumed he got the idea from to stab India. USA and I decided - or rather, I decided and USA agreed, though I still don't know how much convincing of me was necessary - to ally with the new Argentina against Oz and Brazil.

By the way, please take this time to appreciate the beautiful convoy in the autumn of 2004. Note that this was the only moveset that guaranteed an army to land in Recife. It would seem intuitive to convoy with Northwest Atlantic and to use West Atlantic Ocean to issue a support move order, but that moveset would have failed, as the Brazilian fleet would have cut the support in WAO.

In 2005, we continued on the path we set out in the previous year. There is not much to say about it except that I was thinking that I should prevent USA from ever NMRing. I did definitely not want this USA to ever get replaced. Hence I suggested to USA to always enter orders - any orders - as soon as he could, even before speaking with me. Note that I used this same tactic myself in the later stages of the game. This is why my fleet in Kamchatka was consistently support holding the USA fleet in Northwest Pacific. As soon as I came online, I would order the fleet in Kamchatka to support hold - it would automatically fill in 'Northwest Pacific' as the only unit it could support - and save my orders. In 2006, by activity slipped a bit. Up until that point, I had always suggested specific moves to USA very early on. In the autumn of 2006, I did not do so. Apparently, USA had been waiting for me to suggest moves for him to enter them, for despite the fact that I had spoken with him in that turn, he NMRd and got promptly replaced. I got sad. I am still sad when I look at his profile, since his last activity was in January.

At the time the new USA took over, I could stab him for four centers while he could only stab me for one. I did not want to stab the new USA, though, because he seemed competent and trustworthy; since my own activity was on a decline, a competent ally would be beneficial. As a sidenote, my inactivity was due to my work on my master thesis in University. (And for your interest, yesterday I graduated in mathematics, and I am now applying to jobs! The start of this game seems so long ago.) I had chosen an interesting subject and I devoted a lot of time to it, but it meant Diplomacy wasn't really on my mind anymore. Funnily enough, my Message tab (https://webdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=243284&viewArchive=Messages&pagenum=1#results) is now 84 pages long, and on page 42 USA got replaced. This means that there are as many messages in my message archive during the time of the original USA as during the time of the replacement, despite the fact that USA got replaced in 2006 and this game ended in 2022.

In the upcoming years, I would let the new USA make a lot of decisions. I don't have a very strong memory of what happened. I remember USA and I eventually putting a knife to Argentina. I remember Oz being replaced a few times, which every time lead to some interesting diplomacy. I remember India getting replaced and his replacement, for some reason, decided to ATTACK USA, only to get replaced a while after by the final India, who admitted that the decisions of the former India had made no sense and who was willing to ally with us again. The moment of war with India made me actually consider to draw with Ghana. I also remember South-Africa staying alive for very long, and I was so amused by it that I sent him encouraging messages. He got upset when I eventually allowed him to get defeated on the hands of USA.

I had guessed USA to be competent enough so that I could not solo against him, but in the later stages of the game, I decided to test him out. In the autumn of 2016, I moved a fleet from Southeast Pacific to Chile without giving any explanation as to why. The reason was because my new position set me up to stab USA in a center later on (namely Peru). I also had been moving armies towards southern Europe, in the direction of Ghana. In the autumn of 2017, such an army was right next to a USA supply center (Bel)... and I stopped moving it. To my surprise, USA did not even question these movements. This made me optimistic. The loss of the original USA and my own drop in activity has lead me to believe I could not solo, but maybe there was a chance after all. If I would say I wanted to draw with both USA and India, but I could suddenly take a large number of centers from them, that could result in a solo. I had to get the solo in one go, though, as even if the stab would make me one center short of a solo, it would make me far more than one unit short, and USA and India would still be able to stop me.

In the last years, I was carefully positioning my units and preparing for a 'megastab'. I had a plan to take a solo. Unfortunately for me, the final India was not so easily stabbed. He defended his territories well. As such, I accepted the draw.

The above is just a summary of my experiences in this game. There are quite some details I left out. For example, I had long or significant conversations with Europe, Libya and Near-East, but did not mention them.

Again, good game and well played, everybody!

I would be interested to exchange message archives with other players for... research purposes. If anyone would be willing to do so, please let me know. :)
29 Feb 20 UTC [Oz]:I send it to you if you really want.
29 Feb 20 UTC [Pacific-Russia]:Quebec, thanks a lot for your thoughts, I've enjoyed to read it. Of course I can send the message archives.
29 Feb 20 UTC [Ghana]:Interesting, well my game went wrong when initial Libya dropped out. He wasn’t a great player & i was on course to quickly take him out & dominate Africa. However the replacement was very capable & caused me huge problems. But the time he dropped out, i was way behind & the best that could be done was to ally & try to protect Africa. My hope was someone would break for the solo & give us an opening.
But that did not happen.
29 Feb 20 UTC [USA]:Indeed, very interesting.

Personnaly, as I joined the game when main alliances where soon established, I didn't really play the pure diplomatic part. I was satisfied with the alliance with Quebec, so I never considered to break it. The tactical part was sufficient to make me really enjoy this game, though.
02 Mar 20 UTC [Quebec]:True Ghana. The old Russia also said that he was very unfortunate with the replacement of Pacific-Russia. Replacements have had a major impact on this game.

You almost managed to set up a stalemate line, by the way. I don't know if you knew how close you were. Africa is stalemated if you hold EAO and have a couple of fleets behind it to support it. All the armies can guard the rest of the shoreline.

@All I would be happy to receive any message archives. You could copy/paste your archive (with Country: All selected) (https://webdiplomacy.net/board.php?msgFilter=-1&gameID=243284&viewArchive=Messages&Submit=Refresh#results) and e.g. put it in a google docs and send me the link. If any of you want me to read my messages, I'll send them as well.

Start Backward Open large map Forward End

India
SpaceDip (773 D)
Drawn. Bet: 0 D, won: 340 D
29 supply-centers, 29 units
Quebec
Mercy (2085 D)
Drawn. Bet: 60 D, won: 340 D
29 supply-centers, 29 units
USA
KCelec (620 D)
Drawn. Bet: 0 D, won: 340 D
28 supply-centers, 27 units
Argentina
JimmyYee (109 D)
Defeated. Bet: 0 D
Brazil
ibuprofen (2133 D)
Defeated. Bet: 0 D
China
DeadHumerus (100 D)
Defeated. Bet: 60 D
Europe
Eric1984 (3629 D)
Defeated. Bet: 0 D
Frozen-Antarctica
Kaiser Kel (100 D)
Defeated. Bet: 60 D
Ghana
KingJohnII (1536 D (B))
Defeated. Bet: 60 D
Kenya
Macca573 (163 D)
Defeated. Bet: 0 D
Libya
bobbytang (1127 D)
Defeated. Bet: 0 D
Near-East
GalahadIII (1939 D)
Defeated. Bet: 0 D
Pacific-Russia
kissemo (3120 D)
Defeated. Bet: 0 D
Russia
apc1234567 (348 D)
Defeated. Bet: 0 D
South-Africa
nguyenmt (5006 D)
Defeated. Bet: 60 D
Western-Canada
allanxo (1179 D (G))
Defeated. Bet: 60 D
Oz
qrzy (4925 D)
Defeated. Bet: 0 D
Civil Disorders
TheGuns (0 D X)Near-East (Autumn, 2009) with 1 centres.
mfnstl (100 D)Near-East (Autumn, 2001) with 6 centres.
YanksFan47 (190 D)Argentina (Spring, 2004) with 5 centres.
Chanakya. (703 D)Libya (Spring, 2016) with 8 centres.
missingumlaut (371 D)Oz (Spring, 2011) with 10 centres.
arrakis (1240 D)India (Autumn, 2008) with 8 centres.
Dagesman (100 D)India (Spring, 2004) with 6 centres.
Cookiedude427 (100 D)Pacific-Russia (Spring, 2001) with 6 centres.
benlai (576 D)Oz (Spring, 2011) with 10 centres.
jonno0902 (100 D)India (Autumn, 2013) with 16 centres.
Magnetic24 (0 D X)Russia (Autumn, 2002) with 3 centres.
DaButterMan (576 D)Oz (Autumn, 2007) with 12 centres.
Kylo (478 D)Libya (Autumn, 2003) with 4 centres.
Skeno (93 D X)Kenya (Autumn, 2001) with 4 centres.
Mike213 (100 D)Libya (Autumn, 2014) with 8 centres.
BenSwole (100 D)Oz (Spring, 2000) with 3 centres.
Blesson (390 D)Near-East (Autumn, 2003) with 6 centres.
JerrydaBlueberry (103 D)USA (Autumn, 2006) with 10 centres.
felixos5 (100 D)Argentina (Autumn, 2012) with 1 centres.
bchoate (100 D)Libya (Spring, 2000) with 3 centres.
AraujoDaisuki (100 D)Europe (Spring, 2004) with 4 centres.
Innocent BRRD (100 D)Brazil (Spring, 2000) with 3 centres.
yuuki (1724 D)Libya (Spring, 2012) with 8 centres.
Safarello (359 D)India (Autumn, 2013) with 16 centres.
KLINGON (100 D)Europe (Spring, 2004) with 4 centres.
Figgy (291 D)Libya (Spring, 2013) with 8 centres.
Penn (0 D X)Argentina (Spring, 2013) with 1 centres.
Archive: Orders - Maps - Messages