Finished: 05 AM Sat 25 Apr 20 UTC
Coda-19 apocalypse
1 day /phase
Pot: 70 D - Spring, 1909, Finished
Classic, Anonymous players, Draw-Size Scoring
1 excused missed turn
Game drawn
02 Apr 20 UTC Autumn, 1903: Well I'm not pissed off & don't feel like this is a fight... he likes the game, you know, so I like that... and so I hope it's constructive criticism. Also, I use his criticism to try to pin down how I think about the game... So Germany helped me do that.
02 Apr 20 UTC Autumn, 1903: I think if Germany reads my notes it will affect how he approaches his next game... and he has done that for me too.
03 Apr 20 UTC Spring, 1904: France sure as heck will NOT verify that. Every communication France had with you was "We need this Alliance, figure out a way to make peace with Germany so we can stop the Juggernaut and all profit."
03 Apr 20 UTC Spring, 1904: LOLOLOL
03 Apr 20 UTC Spring, 1904: England you are a joke, and I don’t try to provoke, Russia. I just call out horrible gameplay when I see it. England is a toxic player who can’t work with a team, only to his own selfish gain via Wikipedia articles on how to play this game
03 Apr 20 UTC Spring, 1904: Germany you're venting. France: here are my commincations to you:
03 Apr 20 UTC Spring, 1904: Spring, 1902: Germany = no misunderstanding... he sounded agreeable and then went on a land grab. So that's it!
No interest in talking to Russia?

Autumn, 1902: He just blew off the plan and did a land grab, and since you seem OK with him getting three builds, I guess you're with him. "One army the wrong way" = "30% of his forces the opposite to the agreement."

Autumn, 1902: I'm down on the Krauts. Let's see what happens and stay in touch. I might be toast OR later I will try to convince you to help a worthier cause.
03 Apr 20 UTC Spring, 1904: So you can verify that you were OK with Germany, even after I made my intent clear. That's what I meant by "France was OK with your BS, even after a lot of discussion with him about it. France will verify that."
03 Apr 20 UTC Spring, 1904: I am wondering why both of you seem to be saying that if you were in my position, you would have been OK with Germany's action. Is that the case -- in which case, let me know -- or are we just quarelling?
04 Apr 20 UTC Spring, 1904: Interesting that you put words in my mouth and then your "proof" of it included nothing I ever said.
04 Apr 20 UTC Spring, 1904: No wonder I left diplomacy for 2+ years; people like England
04 Apr 20 UTC Spring, 1904: France: those are MY words. Read the thing. Man, you are an oily bugger!
04 Apr 20 UTC Autumn, 1904: I know those are your words. That's exactly what I said.

You made several claims about what my stance was, but then your proof of that being my stance had none of my words in it. We all know what you've been saying. Don't tell people I approve of something and then not offer me saying that I approve of it as evidence that I approve of it.
04 Apr 20 UTC Autumn, 1904: You: France said this-or-that.
Me: No I didn't.
You: Here's things I said. That's proof of what France said, right?
04 Apr 20 UTC Autumn, 1904: France: glad you are still interested in getting to the bottom of things.
04 Apr 20 UTC Autumn, 1904: I think you did not read my previous post carefully. "Here is my communications with you" means that what follows will be what I said -- not what you said.
04 Apr 20 UTC Autumn, 1904: So "France said this or that" is your invention, meant, I think, to obfuscate the issue.
04 Apr 20 UTC Autumn, 1904: Thus prompting me to label you a "oily bugger."
04 Apr 20 UTC Autumn, 1904: But the thing I said you will verify, you will indeed, eventually, verify! You were OK with Germany's actions.
04 Apr 20 UTC Autumn, 1904: So your response, which you will give because you're clearly interested in the issue, will be either, "Ah, I jumped to the wrong conclusion because I misread your post, and now I see that you want me to verify my approval of Germany's actions, which I indeed did approve of" OR you will have to say, "I never approved of Germany's actions, and you are lying, sir!"
04 Apr 20 UTC Autumn, 1904: "France said this or that" is not my invention, you liar. You spent the last three days telling everybody what I was apparently okay with. You were claiming a stance of mine. I'm not inventing this. You can scroll up and see it.
05 Apr 20 UTC Autumn, 1904: Yes, your invention. Yes, you were OK with Germany's actions (his taking three builds after agreeing to the Western Triple). If you were a professional wrestler, you'd be "The Obfuscator."
05 Apr 20 UTC Autumn, 1904: But anyway, taking something productive from this, I think I made a conceptual mistake. I asked Germany to do something he was not familiar with; something that not only was new to him, but something that requires a lot of trust.
05 Apr 20 UTC Autumn, 1904: I should have gathered initially that it would require a lot more conversation to get Germany to be OK with me being right there next to Holland. So even though he read "the script," and even though he agreed to it, and then promptly went against it, I should have realized that it was too much to ask him to accept.
05 Apr 20 UTC Autumn, 1904: So France, you still puzzle me, because I think you were down with "the script" from the beginning. You struck me as totally trustworthy. So I don't get why you took the position that you did, which was "It's OK that Germany is doing what he's doing" (which for some reason you are still refusing to verify..?).
05 Apr 20 UTC Autumn, 1904: I was down with a three-way alliance. I continued to be down with it and beg you to settle things with Germany so we could continue that vision.

Your bizarre obsession with the details of your script instead of the bigger picture was insane. Why does it matter if you have Belgium and Germany has Sweden or vice versa? Why would you their everything away over a meaningless detail like that?

So it's not like I "approved" of Germany's actions. More accurately I didn't care about them. Unlike you I am able to see the first for the trees.
05 Apr 20 UTC Autumn, 1904: Ok, so that is where we disagree. You're right about being obsessed -- the part I was obsessed about was that everybody gets two builds after the first turn. In retrospect I needed to have emphasized that more strongly. The equality of the builds after the first round is a make-or-break aspect of the western triple, but I allowed that point to be sort of buired in the text.
05 Apr 20 UTC Autumn, 1904: So next time I play England: "Hi ya'll -- I am down for the Western Triple this round if you are... If you haven't done it, I have to warn you that it takes a ton of trust, especially between England and Germany... The most important aspect is that we agree to keep the same number of builds..." etc.
05 Apr 20 UTC Autumn, 1904: Your actual takeaway should be to not burn bridges and throw away the game out of spite after the first misunderstanding.
05 Apr 20 UTC Autumn, 1904: But you do you.
05 Apr 20 UTC Autumn, 1904: I wasn't thinking of burning bridges, just shifting alliances, which is what I ended up doing. Meet my big purple friend (ha). But I only took that route because I couldn't get you to share in my outrage of Germany's opening land-rush.
05 Apr 20 UTC Autumn, 1904: So to be clear -- that is where we disagreed: you seem to think it would have been OK in the long run to have unequal builds after that first turn (which I don't say would have been impossible), and I felt that his disregard for the initial agreement and picking up three instead of two builds on the first round was a deal-breaker.
05 Apr 20 UTC Autumn, 1904: In the end I will fault myself for not talking in terms of "bottom line" when making alliances. So, that is my takeaway.
05 Apr 20 UTC Autumn, 1904: But meanwhile there is a lot of game left.
05 Apr 20 UTC Autumn, 1904: Your takeaway should be to not live on Wikipedia, and live in reality where people communicate and can work together
05 Apr 20 UTC Autumn, 1904: Good to see France in the Irish Sea ;)
05 Apr 20 UTC Autumn, 1904: But, yes, bottom line outcome is good
05 Apr 20 UTC Autumn, 1904: Yes, communication was the issue.
06 Apr 20 UTC Autumn, 1904: That was a good debate
06 Apr 20 UTC Autumn, 1904: 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.
06 Apr 20 UTC Autumn, 1904: Thanks Austria. It was a type of platonic dialogue, a "dialectic," in which all parties benefit. When logic, rather than emotion, is the basis for the search for truth, and ego is set aside, real truth is uncovered.
06 Apr 20 UTC Autumn, 1904: And thank you for your patience, France, and for your final note, Germany.
09 Apr 20 UTC Spring, 1905: Ooh the Turkish stab
10 Apr 20 UTC Autumn, 1905: 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.
11 Apr 20 UTC Autumn, 1905: Gotta love when people randomly accuse you of metagaming when your moves and chat clearly show otherwise
13 Apr 20 UTC Spring, 1906: 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.
24 Apr 20 UTC So, are we calling it now? Draw at the three of us?
24 Apr 20 UTC We both voted draw already. Waiting on you Russia
24 Apr 20 UTC Good game guys.
25 Apr 20 UTC Good game

Start Backward Open large map Forward End

Turkey
justinnhoo (2343 D)
Drawn. Bet: 10 D, won: 23 D
13 supply-centers, 13 units
Russia
HasAlaam (100 D)
Drawn. Bet: 10 D, won: 23 D
13 supply-centers, 13 units
France
rydiafan (100 D)
Drawn. Bet: 10 D, won: 23 D
8 supply-centers, 8 units
England
Defeated. Bet: 10 D
Italy
Defeated. Bet: 0 D
Germany
WolfpackCorey (1654 D)
Defeated. Bet: 10 D
Austria
GalahadIII (1939 D)
Defeated. Bet: 0 D
Civil Disorders
fedaykin42 (100 D)Italy (Autumn, 1905) with 4 centres.
fishikan (100 D)Austria (Spring, 1901) with 3 centres.
Archive: Orders - Maps - Messages