Finished: 09 PM Sun 21 Feb 21 UTC
He was white as a sheet and he also made false tee
1 day, 12 hours /phase
Pot: 707 D - Autumn, 1911, Finished
Classic, Draw-Size Scoring
1 excused missed turn
Game won by GroverCleveland2.0 (2211 D)
30 Jan 21 UTC Spring, 1907: Sorry all, between work and 3 month old yesterday was a disaster, will get orders in
30 Jan 21 UTC Spring, 1907: No worries. Can pause too if you need.
30 Jan 21 UTC Spring, 1907: Re: growing the hobby, people in the f2f community who I respect claim Tanya Gill is a standard deviation better than everyone else. I'm not qualified to know if that's reasonable, but a twenty-something woman star is what poker dreams of, so maybe it'll help Dip.
31 Jan 21 UTC Spring, 1907: I've only ever played FtF twice. It was fun but with a group of people who I'm only tangentially friends with and who also only have a passing interest in Diplomacy. I haven't been able to muster 6 good friends to kill a day yelling at each other over a board nor have I had the chance to play with 6 serious people. I'd love to one day but I'm too lazy to travel and I haven't seen a game show up in my city.

Tanya (Durga) live relatively close by Canadian standards (only 450 km!) so maybe post plague I'll get a 'local' game going. She does seem to do very well in the FtF tournaments. I have a feeling that the it doesn't always translate in either direction.
31 Jan 21 UTC Spring, 1907: I believe she's also highly regarded in gunboat, so it's conceivable she's just a savant. Damn kids.
10 Feb 21 UTC Autumn, 1909: Alright, you've finally made it to the stalemate line!
10 Feb 21 UTC Autumn, 1909: Time to finish up that solo or hit draw?
14 Feb 21 UTC Autumn, 1910: I can understand using a feigned throw as a tactic to break up alliances, but if Turkey actually throws the game here I will be distinctly unimpressed. Purposefully sabotaging a game out of spite would be extremely poor sportsmanship, and certainly not something I expected to see in a higher tier game.
15 Feb 21 UTC Autumn, 1910: A 5WD where the Western Triple does nothing all game but sit on a stalemate line isn't what I expected to see in a high tier game either.
15 Feb 21 UTC Autumn, 1910: Maybe mods can come in and just annul everything - that way Italy and Russia don't have to be saddled with a loss when 3/7 players didn't even want to play. I would be OK with that.
15 Feb 21 UTC Autumn, 1910: In fact my cancel vote is up right now.
15 Feb 21 UTC Autumn, 1910: Mr. Grumpy needs a nap.
15 Feb 21 UTC Autumn, 1910: Point of information: The WT formed in F07.
15 Feb 21 UTC Autumn, 1910: *the second WT
15 Feb 21 UTC Autumn, 1910: I dunno what line of work you're in, Aristo, but in my former profession, if a low-performance was put in by a mere 3/7 team members and then for only 3/10ths of the time, that was a very good project.
15 Feb 21 UTC Autumn, 1910: That said, I was working for a federal agency. Expectations were never high tbh.
15 Feb 21 UTC Autumn, 1910: You may have been focusing more on your corner of the board but, if you go back and actually look through the moves, you will find that I was under virtually constant attack from Germany throughout the early game, then nearly eliminated by GE. There was no Western Triple, just an unresolved northern triangle.

Both I and Germany pushed past the stalemate line, met superior forces due to AT actually being allied and so able to resolve the south, and retreated or were forced back to it, followed by a change of side for me when GE tried to cut me out. When GE no longer had the ability to eliminate me without letting AT advance too far, and my misorder in 05 put a fleet in North Africa rather than North Atlantic, I decided that I was more likely to survive flipping back than continuing to attempt to grind forwards.

I’m baffled that your belief that a WT has sat on the stalemate line the entire game.
15 Feb 21 UTC Autumn, 1910: Having an EOG during the game is often tricky because nobody believes each other but this one has been really interesting and I’d love to get people’s two cents while there’s still interest. As a first shot at this, I’ll try explain (from my perspective) what happened in the west all game. I think there was only one year – 1903 – that the 3 of us worked in tandem. There really hasn’t been anything close to a WT this game. I’m not sure what press or moves convinced Turkey of that but I’d be down to hear their perspective.


France’s opening press to me is that he is taking Burgundy and wants to split Holland and Belgium between us. It’s a pretty aggressive request in my opinion. I can understand France wanted at least a bounce in Burgundy but he had no room to negotiate over it and, not only that, presumed that Belgium should be his. Germany and France both have two easy neutrals to get and then a contested one between them. Maybe even less for Germany because Holland can be contest by England F01 (thought it rarely is). There’s no reason to presume that Belgium should be French and I decided that, considering his aggressive negotiation style, I had to open to Holland rather than Denmark as I usually would as Germany.

Meanwhile, my press with England is going pretty well. I am confident that I want to work with him but the one sticking point is that England doesn’t wants to pursue the WT and I’m skeptical about France. I tell England that “[France] sends nice press but has quite aggressive plans for his opening they don't jive well with a WT. I could still see him being amenable to it but we'll have to see how he plays things out.”
In the fall of 1901, I ask England to build F-Liverpool and, in return, I’ll build two armies. We never come to a firm agreement and, England build F-London instead while I got ahead and build armies. Meanwhile, France builds F-Mar which surprises me a bit. I’ve kept my press friendly with France to this point but I imagine England had a lot to do with that build.

I was also hoping to see Italy move west in 1902 (as the French correctly sniffed out, perhaps Chesney leaked that himself?) but Italy failed to get a build in 1901 which through that for a loop…


I tell France that I’m down for the WT because it seems like he’s headed that way anyways. Meanwhile, we also agree to keep fighting over Belgium. Those two plans are completely at odds with each other because it forces me to spend far too many units on that front rather than moving east or south. The biggest strike against the WT at this point though is that England will have nowhere to go but through me quite soon. It’s not a great spot for Germany to put themselves into.

With England, I’m promising support against Russia but pointing out that there isn’t much further to go than StP. I’ve also promised him Brest and Iberia and pretty much whatever else he wants if he’s willing to attack France with me. Finally, I get the press I was hoping for. England says “Confirming if you still think attacking France is preferable to WT, I'll support Ruh-Bel, with either EC or NTH depending on what we decide there.” I’m over the moon and happy with the direction things are going…
But then England supports France into Belgium instead of me. Fuck.


At this point, I realize my only way out is to acquiesce to England’s demands for a WT. Talks between England and I get a little tense here. He’s concerned about me working with Russia and says he needs France to help counterbalance Turkey’s growth in the south. In the spring I move exactly how he wants. I don’t get a ton of press from France and am generally uncomfortable with the idea of an alliance with England and Germany (especially considering how quickly Russia has fallen).

Moving into the fall, we have a long discussion about the stalemate lines and whatnot. The conversation eventually steers towards end game scenarios. I’m pushing for an EGT 3WD. England agrees that it’s probably safer to eliminate France than to push for an EFGT 4WD. Forgive me for sharing this, but here’s an interesting message from England at the time:

“So to me the outstanding issue is whether Turkey will work with us. And if not, will Austria? As mentioned, that struck me as the better option, largely because Turkey has been very free in telling me what shitty strategic decisions I'm making. But I'm fine with that, I've been called far worse at a poker table.

I think a E/G/T could whittle this draw very effectively, but I find Turkey extremely hard to read, beyond them being a strong player IMO.”

At any rate, I’m stabbed by Austria but England builds F-Liverpool and it feels like we’re back in business.

1904 and 1905

Looks like we’re cruising towards a boring end game here. Austria has moved back out of Silesia. They won’t move away from Munich and Turkey supports Russia against me but we snag Belgium and Austria helps me into Warsaw.

I’ve kept out hope of maybe getting a 3WD with Austria or Turkey stabbing the other but England correctly predicts this won’t happen. Maybe I’m just getting bored about writing the EOG but there doesn’t seem to be much interesting going on here on the board. A little squabbling with Turkey but not much more.

1906 and 1907

Oh fuck. France helps Austria and Austria stabs me. I’m in real fucking trouble here. I’m not sure what the end game here is for Turkey and Austria but it’s a strong position and I really could get eliminated. I’ve got only a few paths forward: try get AT to fight each other, defend my centres as best I can, and flip France. We can discuss my press with AT another time but it takes until 1907 and France finally flips back. I suspect England had a lot to do with that because France and I have rarely been on the same page this game.

In retrospect, this was really really well played by France at the end. They were guaranteed to be eliminated and they found a way to make themselves essential to by supporting Austria into Burgundy. They would have surely been eliminated by AT eventually if they went down that route and found the right time to flip back and get a spot on the stalemate line.

1908 to present

There’s been very little press in the west as there’s been nothing interesting to do other than to defend.
15 Feb 21 UTC Autumn, 1910: Thanks to taking the trouble to do that. I can add a few observations and my perspective.

Having played with Aristocrat before (at least been in the same game; the AIR he arranged wiped me out almost immediately as Turkey), I added to the usual English goals of keeping the EC free and getting my army off the island, the priority of resolving the west. I didn't care how it happened, but I felt a strong eastern alliance was likely and that the west had no time to ditz around arguing over Belgium (sigh).

I tend to judge suitability of alliance partner by the volume of press when all else seems equal. Both F and G communicated well, but G topped that metric, adding that Italy may be inclined to open west. Russia meanwhile had assured me they were opening south.

S01 brings the unpleasant news of a northern from Russia and the Dutch Blitz from Germany. I regard the latter (apparently wrongly, although Florida Man is in my camp on this) as *very* anti-English. This looks to me like a G/R, the first goal of which is never good for England. Ironically given subsequent events, Turkey confirms their intel is G/R. It's possible I raised that probability higher, simply because Russia lying about their opening pre-game seemed so unnecessary unless extremely hostile. Meanwhile press with Italy gave no indication they were interested in anti-France plans.

Thus the E/F was solidified. The F Lon build was not what Germany wanted, but I figured I could still sell it as anti-French. It was made with France's approval for the plan of attacking Germany. With Russia in trouble, I figured the worst-case scenario was forcing Germany into a WT; an alliance I love as England, but not one I'd typically suggest to a strong player in Germany for obvious reasons. I had no intention of this WT being long-lived. As Germany astutely noted, my only path for growth was thro0ugh them. That was the plan.

The big inflection point for me came in F03. I was confused by France's F Brest build. IMO at best it is anti-tempo and at worst anti-English. I suspect this was just a failure of communication, for which I take responsibility. Strategically this set up a board where the E/F had very little counter-play against the east and I was potentially looking at a hostile F/G. (Misread there, apparently.) Anyway, that led to the mini-stab on France and the E/G getting the band back together.

Unfortunately this didn't really get anywhere because A/T had pushed so far up to the line. I'd also agree that in 07 France made a solid decision. I think they had already concluded that A/T weren't going to accept a large draw, and that consequently there was little reason to suppose that France would be cut into a thinner one. Flipping back to us was the percentage play IMO.

I'm disappointed in the way I played this game. It lacked ambition and a cohesive plan. Some lessons learned, however.
15 Feb 21 UTC Autumn, 1910: Thanks for those!

It’s really interesting to see those points of view, particularly to see how differently some events/messages were perceived so differently by the recipients compared to how they were expected - key among them being the way my suggestion of splitting Bel/Hol (which was intended in a tongue-in-cheek, “worth giving it a try” tone) was seen as an aggressive communication which really seemed to set Germany’s perception of me from that point, and my early withdrawal towards the stalemate line without considering how this would appear to England.

I genuinely viewed the move to Burgundy as a defensive one, wanting to try out a southern game, and was fighting in earnest for Belgium because I thought Germany was committed to attacking me - in talks with England at the time, I was discussing the chances of actually pulling off an StP to Syria convoy in a real game! Perhaps I could have just conceded Belgium and kept a couple of units supporting Burgundy until the border could be de-escalated - I did consider it at one point - but I do wonder if that would have just encouraged EG to form earlier.

I think I’ve been open to several players that I personally consider my play in this game to have been subpar. I’ve had ongoing health issues for the last four to five months (beginning shortly after taking on a temporary higher responsibility role in healthcare during a pandemic...) that at one point forced me off work for two weeks. As much as I’ve enjoyed the distraction of these games, I’ve also not been running on all cylinders, and I feel I squandered a good start against Italy due to hamfisted press and some poor orders.

I am glad to hear that EG think my 05-07 play was the right call, though, as I have been second-guessing the flip back. Perhaps you did intend to take things to an FAT draw, Aristocrat, but I just didn’t believe it would actually get there, particularly after failing to sail into an open NAO because of a misclick and having that shut down.

I am actually a bit gutted that my flip back to EFG appears to have upset you so much, particularly given our cooperation in previous games.
16 Feb 21 UTC Autumn, 1910: Sorry for lobbying against you, France.

I was honest when I said that I was willing to give you MAR to pursue a F/A/T draw campaign.

That said, if Turkey is going to throw this my way, I'm not going to say no to a solo.

If the three of you in the western triple are willing to cut this down to a 4WD, I will stick to my promise that I have repeatedly stated, I am happy to strike a 4WD.
16 Feb 21 UTC Autumn, 1910: I will be entering the same orders as last season until Austria solos or the draw vote goes through.
16 Feb 21 UTC Autumn, 1910: While it doesn't take much skill or effort to throw a game, coming back from this position would be quite impressive. I actually think it's still doable and would be fun to play out but that's up to Aristocrat, of course.
17 Feb 21 UTC Spring, 1911: I appreciate reading the messages re: coordination in the West and may have more to say later but in the interest of time will address one now - what happened in 1906-1907.

First, to correct something Germany said, France did not find a way to make themselves essential by supporting Austria into Burgundy. Based on their press were planning on spiting England/Germany and simply doing what they could to give Austria and I centers until I proposed going for a 3 way FAT draw. My old press with Austria has fallen into the void at this point but I am pretty sure 100% of the moves in S1906 were proposed by me and either suggested to France directly or transmitted through Austria to France. It would have been much easier for Austria and I to simply sit tight and aim for a 4WD rather than go through the effort of bringing someone back from the dead to aim for a draw.

In Spring 1907 France goes silent until right before moves, which is why WMD and NAF did not end up in MAO. That was the first warning sign. Nevertheless, there is a set of moves that gets France back in control of MAO and protect all centers in Autumn 1907 that I proposed (Mar and Lyon bounce SPA, Par sup GAS->Bre, POR, NAF, WMD sup BRE->MAO.).

In Autumn 1907 I get messages - and I won't copy/paste press here but I will state how it came across to me - from France that equate to "I'm bored with this game so I'm going for a 5WD, also fuck you there's nothing you can do to stop it."

Which is what led to my response, best paraphrased as "hold my beer."

There was never any intent on eliminating France from a 3 way and Austria had agreed to let his centers in the rear (Naples, Mar, etc.) be backfilled by me and France as he took more from Germany in the middle (since most gains initially would go to Austria given unit placement).

If I had been approached before stating that the game would take months to wrap up and that it would simply be better to draw now I probably would have been persuaded but I am not going to take being told, by someone who was dead before I saved them, that I have no recourse but to accept a result. There is always a recourse.
17 Feb 21 UTC Spring, 1911: Thanks for the response, Turkey. FWIW, if you want to find lost messages, you can click on "messages" right at the bottom of the page and it'll give you all of them in a very unhelpful and messy chronological order.

I definitely understand our frustration with France there but it's frustrating to me, and GameKat too I'm sure, to spend so much time and effort in playing this game only for you to give us all a loss because you're frustrated with France. If my understanding of the narrative is correct, you and Austria were planning on eliminating me with France's help. Right? So, following that it was quite fair for me to ask for reasonable assurances before stabbing France again. The only response I remembering getting to that was that you'd throw the game to Austria. There weren't negotiations where you considered my position or concerns - at least that's how it felt from my perspective. And now ruining the game because those negotiations never got anywhere is very frustrating.

In the end, I can't be that mad because it's only a hobby. But it's one that takes up a lot of time and goes on for months. I only play a game or two at a time so it's a real bummer when it devolves like this.
17 Feb 21 UTC Spring, 1911: Well done Austria, can only play the game in front of you, would be happy to play with any of you again, ideally for a little longer......
17 Feb 21 UTC Spring, 1911: Yes, definitely well played. BUT, even at this point, we can still stop the solo if Turkey wants to.
17 Feb 21 UTC Spring, 1911: I have said this before but I do not think assurances are or were particularly necessary and am OK restating it in public press.

England has consistently had the opportunity to walk into Portugal (and Brest) since 1908 - both turns in 1908 and Autumn 1909 and 1910, to be precise. Munich was voluntarily given up by you for no apparent reason in Fall 1908 and remained voluntarily in Austria's hands, as it could have been taken and held by you numerous turns thereafter. The current line (and resultant need for F Nor and F Bal) only exists because of the choice to give up both the build and positioning that holding Munich would afford you. If either F Nor or F Bal were free to reposition, (which would be the case with the extra Munich build), England could have walked into Portugal, Brest, and MAO while still keeping a fleet back to support MAO in one of NAO/Irish/Channel, making MAO impenetrable even with a fleet in NAF. As it was, there has been no fleet in NAF for four turns now (a unit I told both you and England I would delete years prior) and England could have walked into both Portugal and Brest, captured two builds, and not needed to worry about potentially losing MAO in the future even without an extra unit in reserve to support hold MAO (Portugal alone would have been enough until one of the builds could move to Irish or Channel).

I do not think the threat of a single French army, presumably in Paris, where England would have Portugal, MAO, and Brest, and two more builds on the way, is a legitimate reason to contend that you two had no choice in the present situation, particularly when the present situation exists solely because of the prolonged decision to not retake Munich. To view that as a threat requires conjuring up a scenario that is exceedingly unlikely if not impossible with two additional English units being ready to be deployed.

At this point my hunch is that the decision to give up Munich was deliberately made to force the issue sooner and make it seem like you and England had no free units to do anything (indeed the decision appears to have been made in Spring 1908 with England moving Picardy towards Belgium en route to Norway, knowing Prussia would be deleted in the fall and Livonia threatened thereafter, thereby imperiling STP - even though that outcome was 100% preventable from the E/G side simply by taking Munich in Fall 1908).
17 Feb 21 UTC Spring, 1911: I definitely felt quite threatened at the time because it seemed like your plan was to eliminate me. My experience told me that, if you really just wanted to eliminate France and not me, you'd take the fairly benign steps to make me feel safer so that's what I tried to negotiate for.

Did I give you indications that I was not going to thin the draw we came to some sort of agreement? I thought I was pretty clear that I was but my bad if I wasn't. Either way, I'm really disappointed that it resulted in you decided to end the game in a loss rather than continuing to discuss and find a path forward that worked for both of us.
17 Feb 21 UTC Spring, 1911: Just to address a couple of specific points:

- I was not just intending to spite EG by throwing centres. If I had, I wouldn’t have switched back. I was playing the only card left in my hand, which was “if you attack me, I will help your enemies”. Yes, I wanted to try to prevent (at least one of) them benefiting from my elimination, but I play pragmatically rather than emotionally and revenge is not as satisfying as a better score at the end of the game.
I agreed to AT’s suggestions as I wanted to know how I could best aid you, being both a much smaller power at risk of elimination and a less experienced player overall. My chance of survival rested in being more useful to AT alive than dead.

- The messages you refer to were not intended in that sense though, if that’s how you perceived them, I can understand your response. I apologise for it sounding that way, and the wording certainly isn’t the way I would phrase it now. I was struggling to keep up with the game, yes - I’m pretty sure that was during my time out of work from illness - but had been told by at least one other player in confidence that they would rather wrap up soon too due to outside circumstances. That was partially in mind when I approached you about a draw. The brevity of the messages I put down to physical and mental exhaustion. Germany probably got a sense for that in the turns before the stab. Note that the first message explicitly asked you whether you’d accept a 5wd - not presenting it as an inevitable result - before the subsequent ones were spent attempting to explain that I was not “sabotaging the game out of boredom”.

- Regarding no intent on AT’s part to eliminate me... well, we all work with imperfect information. You knew that, I did not. My belief at the time was that you were using my units across the stalemate line to help advance your position and that, once far enough past the line, I would probably get eliminated by your reinforcements coming from behind in favour of either an EAT draw or one of you attempting the solo. I was fairly frank about that in messages to England at the time. I found the idea that I would have been given back my southern centres unlikely, as this would have required my units moving in the wrong direction. I went along with the presented idea of an FAT draw with little expectation it would actually happen, because to contradict the idea would probably be a self-fulfilling prophecy. When EG put forward convincing messages that they no longer thought I was stabbable and showed that a fallback stalemate line was possible, I agreed as I thought this was now my best chance of actually surviving to the draw. I never thought someone would actually choose a loss over a draw.

Anyway, there you go. I think much of this has stemmed from perceptions of how things were intended, and many of those things have been my fault. This is an admission that my play this game - both tactically and diplomatically - has been below par, but an attempt to defend against what has, at times, begun to feel like an attack on my character.
17 Feb 21 UTC Spring, 1911: I'd hope we can all keep within the realm of mutual respect, criticizing the play of others without it descending into attacking character.
17 Feb 21 UTC Spring, 1911: Agreed. The trickiest thing about Diplomacy online and why I'd love to give it a go in person is that tone and intent is really hard to get across in text. Especially when you're just shooting a quick message off between doing other things. I'm not sure if it's been the case for everyone, but I've quite enjoyed all the press I've gotten this game. Even if it's been frustrating at time because Diplomacy always is frustrating.
20 Feb 21 UTC Well played everyone. I think we can add this to the bulging file of "Why so few people play Dip".
20 Feb 21 UTC Congrats on the solo, Austria.
20 Feb 21 UTC New game?
20 Feb 21 UTC Congratulations, GroverCleveland. Well done.
20 Feb 21 UTC @Chesney, I'd love to play another one. I'll make a new one some time this week I think.
20 Feb 21 UTC Good man - let me know when you put one together
21 Feb 21 UTC I am taking a break from all diplomacy for a while after one more game which is just about to wrap up ends. This may be the most trying game I have ever played. I am somewhat sorry to Germany for how it ended although (and I'm not sure I ever mentioned this) after the multiple support Rum->Sev orders while simultaneously supposedly being on my side to go against Austria there was little that would make me trust you in this game.

Perhaps it is hubris or whatever but I remain unconvinced that the conflict between the WT was not staged; France had two "misorders" within 3 turns that both favored England, followed immediately by a stab to realign with England and nonsensically ironclad alliance on England's part. In any other circumstance that is setting off so many bullshit alarms that you'd probably lose your hearing.
21 Feb 21 UTC This has been a bit of a perfect storm, hasn’t it?

In answer to the misorders, at least one will be the S05 move to North Africa instead of North Atlantic. This genuinely was a misorder, and it accomplished absolutely nothing useful, hence the attempt to reverse it next year. I was actually gutted at this, as it was the first point where I starting to think maybe I could be the third member of the draw instead of England, only to immediately have that shut down because my vision was too blurry to notice I’d made a mistake.

I’m not confident of what the second one is, something to do with England getting MAO in S07?

I think A07-S08 was the point where Yonni finally convinced me to flip back, so anything before that point probably wasn’t with the idea of helping EG.
21 Feb 21 UTC As we've discussed, the "first" WT was short-lived and basically something Germany was railroaded into. The subsequent stab on France was completely genuine. And on the bullshitometer it scored far lower than the way the game was finally "resolved".
21 Feb 21 UTC Gg everyone.
21 Feb 21 UTC Aristocrat, fwiw, I'm going to offer support against someone who is attacking me 10 out of 10 times. If you had accepted any sort of deal, I would have definitely stopped.

If we're being frank about things, I feel like what you did this game was akin to flipping the table or taking the ball and heading home. You didn't negotiate and turned an absolutely dominant position into a quick loss. I'm also suspect of the fact that your last 3 games have all been with GroverCleveland and you haven't attacked each other once in any of them. Best case scenario, you've simply built a rapport in other games which has unfairly bled over into this one and, worst case scenario, you're friends in real life or a multi-account. I really don't think it's the latter but this game was so baffling that I had to check how your other games went.
17 Mar 21 UTC I checked in for the first time on this game/website in a while and saw a message and thought I'd reply. As you know by now, Yonni, the mods investigated your complaint and found that I have no meta/multi relationship with GroverCleveland. I know you complained because I got a message in my gmail about the topic ;)

I invited them to look at each and every message I've sent and no hint of wrongdoing was found. At some point you have to accept the simple truth: I told you what was going to happen and then I did it. You could've avoided it all by just attacking France and you didn't.
17 Mar 21 UTC This game is broken. If certain groups of players decide to band together, then there are no losses, only draws. That is the western triple - it is impossible to defeat a coordinated western triple due to the stalemate lines on this map. Only fighting over Belgium or whatever supposed bullshit occurred during this game is not a legitimate play. Italy, Austria, and Turkey can combine in any single game to guarantee a draw and secure the southern stalemate line. The game breaks when people abuse the realities of the map. That is what I saw here, and whether I was right or wrong, that why I did what I did.
17 Mar 21 UTC Hey Aristocrat,

I'm really sorry about that. I had actually asked them not to harass you at all about it. I just wanted them to use their IP checks or whatever fancy behind the scene tools they might have. I've played this game for a long time and I can honestly say that I've never encountered play like this. You seem really strong at this game so I could not for the life of me understand what you were doing. You simultaneously made strong moves and were hopelessly confused about what was going on or how to do anything about it. No offense to Rod, but I would've buried him the second I had a chance if I were given one.

But that's the beauty of this game. You never know what you're going to get and the fact that we're revisiting this a month later shows that it was at least interesting. Hopefully we'll get another chance to play together at some point.
17 Mar 21 UTC “No offense to Rod, but I would've buried him the second I had a chance if I were given one.”

No offence taken, I was very aware of it! ;D

Apologies again for the poor play on my part that has partially led to this. My eyes have finally (finally!) improved after large doses of steroids, but hope that you can all forgive me, given I spent roughly four and a half months wanting to claw my eyes out and, at the worst, was not even able to sit facing a window as it was too bright. Four weeks of that time I was unable to work. In hindsight, maybe I should have asked to be removed from the game. I can only offer that I was not exactly in the best state of mind and thought I could keep up enough to see it through.

Should any of us meet in a future game, I hope you will find me more engaged and displaying better judgement!
17 Mar 21 UTC Shit, that sounds awful. What was wrong with them, if you don't mind me asking?
17 Mar 21 UTC As of Monday, they’ve diagnosed something called Severe Vernal Keratoconjunctivitis - always good when they include “Severe” in the name!

Apparently it’s an autoimmune thing that’s very rarely seen after puberty (the leaflet they gave me was addressed to someone caring for a child with the condition).

I’ve had flare ups every year or two for most of my life, but usually only to eye infection/bad hay fever level and resolving within 2-3 weeks.
17 Mar 21 UTC Shit. Sounds nasty. Hopefully treatment works.

Start Backward Open large map Forward End

Won. Bet: 101 D, won: 707 D
18 supply-centers, 17 units
Yonni (161 D (S))
Survived. Bet: 101 D
8 supply-centers, 5 units
GameKat (100 D)
Survived. Bet: 101 D
5 supply-centers, 5 units
rodtheworm (202 D)
Survived. Bet: 101 D
2 supply-centers, 3 units
Aristocrat (733 D)
Survived. Bet: 101 D
1 supply-centers, 3 units
Chesney (483 D)
Defeated. Bet: 101 D
Laszlo_L (229 D)
Defeated. Bet: 101 D
Archive: Orders - Maps - Messages