webdiplomacy.net

jmo1121109 wrote: ↑

Wed May 08, 2019 6:01 pm

Octavious wrote: ↑

Wed May 08, 2019 5:07 pm

Commenting on games you weren't involved in is never easy as so much happens that you aren't privy to. If I was Balki I'd have no regrets at all about sticking it to England and Germany. Where I would be critical of myself is in the failure to establish believability prior to informing EG of the consequences of their aggression. Sometimes you can walk away confident that you did everything you could and it's just one of those things, and other times you are left with little irritations over opportunities missed and conversations that were mishandled.

I'm curious if Balki would have done anything differently given the chance?

See I don't really agree with this entirely. You're right that the press changes many things but it does not change base tactics. And the moves by E and G tactically were unmistakable for people considering eliminating Russia from the match. That is universally responded too with throwing the game. Autumn, 1907 was the big mistake in my mind. Tactically alone, Russia *NEEDED* 4 armies including an army in Galicia to stop the Italian solo. Germany's move on Warsaw was going to prevent that setup from being possible timing wise even if Balki hadn't thrown. They compromised the solo stop with that attack. So it went from being a sound plan to a terrible one with that purely tactical mess up.

This tournament in particular seems to have a lot of people not believing that someone will be willing to throw when screwed over so to see people continuing to make that mistake is baffling.

And the moves by E and G tactically were unmistakable for people considering eliminating Russia from the match.

Sev was what was needed for Italy to win.

Brumark wrote: ↑

Sat May 11, 2019 5:02 pm

Only two players have currently exceeded the guaranteed (pre any results) minimum to progress of 127.6 points (3,700/29)

Brumark wrote: ↑

Sat May 11, 2019 7:12 pm

I thought about it but its a rather complex calculation and there are just better things to do in life. If anyone calculates it correctly I will be mightily impressed

Claesar wrote: ↑

Sat May 11, 2019 7:56 pm

Brumark wrote: ↑

Sat May 11, 2019 7:12 pm

I thought about it but its a rather complex calculation and there are just better things to do in life. If anyone calculates it correctly I will be mightily impressed

I could do it if I were sober.

Brumark wrote: ↑

Sat May 11, 2019 7:12 pm

I thought about it but its a rather complex calculation and there are just better things to do in life. If anyone calculates it correctly I will be mightily impressed

Looking at the game board in Autumn of 06 there was basically no chance of Italy solo'ing. Russia had unit positioning set up perfectly to allow Italy to slowly devour Turkish centers since there was no possible way of defending those long term, and the retreat into Smyrna slowed down Italy's growth. The Black Sea was inevitable for Italy and there was no tactical benefit to keeping it. In that position it absolutely made sense to keep a unit in Stp to ensure that nobody tried to cut him out of a draw when there was 0 solo risk increase in return. The key unit was Sev for 18, and with 4 armies in Galicia, Ukraine, Sev, and Moscow, Italy was not going to win that game. Russia's tactical handling of the solo prevention was sound. The ONLY reason that game ended in a solo is because the tournament structure encourages people to be greedy with supply centers to the point of poor play, which is exactly what happened to England. No top player is going to allow themselves to be eaten up and risk a drawback from Italy allowing them to be eliminated in any game, much less a tournament.

And the idea that England needed a build there was foolish. Once MAO was locked down there was no need for England to grow. Throw in Germany's poor play to attack Russia with England for points, and honestly I've never been happier to see someone throw a game. Because the play by England and Germany there didn't deserve any points.

SimonMH wrote: ↑

Thu May 16, 2019 12:53 am

Re: R1G1

I was England in this game. I have come late to the discussion but I do feel compelled to reply: that analysis of the tactical position is utter horseshit!

Tell you what, let's make a challenge of it. Set up a board with the Autumn '06 position. You play Italy, I will play the allies with the retreat to Black Sea, then we swap round with your retreat.

I guarantee that my allies will destroy you in short order, not just slow your advance.

On a further note it is utterly depressing to see people defend game throwing. I have enjoyed and am enjoying this tournament, but any scoring system that not only allows but encourages people to throw games instead of settling for a draw is just wrong. The fact that the thrower is clearly a well-known and respected member of this community does not change that.

diplomat554 wrote: ↑

Wed May 15, 2019 8:03 pm

I think we all did our fair share of yelling that game Ogion! I blame sum-of-squares for any annoying aspects of my play. Once my lines were secure, I didn't have anything to lose from continuing to irritate you as long as England was on board. (For what it's worth, I don't think I was ever dishonest with you about my draw vote.)

I think each of us was too big for the other to solo. We both had to dedicate too many units to holding the line against each other to finish off England or Turkey. I may have had an outside chance if I hadn't forgotten to let Italy survive in 1910 -- d'oh, sorry man. And then there was the Munich misorder lol. Would have been nice to be top of the board but you deserved it Ogion. Big shout out to DarthWader and Pjsticha for making it out of very tough positions early on!