Post coming! I've been flat out at work.

bump?

I'm working on my EOG. Might take a while as I'm on holiday.

Aw, now i feel unsatisfied.

(′︿‵｡)

My EOG summary is going to read "possible Italian solo".

I'll do the post I had coming, too.

I don't think it was possible by the end there, especially when everyone but Ezio had their draw votes up. I'll work on an EoG for next week. The first few years were really fun here.

It's hard to make an argument for a 5WD being a good result or even a 4WD imho.

Perhaps the professors can expand upon what could have been done here to move the game from stalled mid-game mode to end-game mode? I would love to hear how some of these players would have angled for advancing the game from different powers perspectives and also any thoughts about what could have broken down much earlier in the game that would prevent X from working/trusting Y.

A 5WD is a great result for the players who were on the chopping block.

So for Austria? Everyone else had a nice position to work towards a better result with.

Eh. I was straight up told: draw the game or we're going to cut you out, so I'm pretty sure I was on the chopping block.

Right, so your board position was fine. Something broke down in earlier relations or current pitches to other powers that would not allow 2 parties not already working together to come together for mutual benefit of a better result or a possible solo shot. It's interesting.

The best players I have seen find a way to shake up those stale positions and work with someone else to change board dynamics and continue to maneuver themselves into a better position.

I personally hate cutting the draw, last time I did it with a game meme was in it was so fucking infuriating, and it didn't seem like it would be any different this game. Plus I'd rather a draw with Ogion in it than without him. And when Germany loses interest and desire to play it gets a lot harder. I suppose I could have tried more myself.

This is why I prefer HDV. When I see everyone's draw vote up I get discouraged and irritated.

There was TONNES of life left in this one. When all that's developed so far is that one player has just barely managed to scratch double digits in SC then a solo threat isn't really a card that should credibly be taken into consideration yet. Tonnes of alliance shifts that could have occured here, and while i appreciate there probably was the odd 'undying loyalty' between some players in the game i have my doubts one of the five players here wasn't open for a 'gun for hire' role who could have shift balance one way or the other so mob mentality needless bullied some of you into drawing. You're always going to hear cries of "hey it's going to end in a (insert prediction here), we may as well just draw now" from players who know the are on a downward slide and 99% of the time it's either bullshit or perspectives of players who aren't as much of a visionary as you are. Nothing has occured in this game other then one player was eliminated from each triangle on respective sides of the board due to a basic two-on-one attack. I'd personally feel like i wasted the two months of time to ultimately really prove all i can do is make one short-term friend and accomplish a minor easy victory.

From the sounds of things, this game ended due to apathy, which happens, but could have been used as leverage rather then caving in unless really everybody had the same attitude. Were i in that position i would have used that as an excuse for targetting the player holding looking to deflate the game or hold the game ransom as leverage for the 'bored' player to find his own way out of it.

There's a secret tool that a lot of very good players are aware of, and that's the importance of influncing the energy level of the game. Emotions and attitude play a HUGE role on the game. You'll find a lot of really good players putting a tonne of effort into being the "fun guy" in the room. Games can be won because you keep your minority partner motivated simply because he's having so much fun playing with you, whether its because your tactics are so high level or you're just a hoot to have rapport with. On the flip side you can demoralize an enemy by slowing down the games tempo,dropping off communications, tormenting them, or whatever makes it 'less fun' for them. Bored players start auto-piloting their orders and agitated players put more effort into their "come backs" and "moral counter-arguements" then tactics. I generally recommend boredom over tormenting, as sometimes hard feelings can have the reverse desired effect of making for a strong motivator depending on the player (and nobody really wants to be a dick if they can avoid it). There's always going to be some obstacle or other getting in the way of you and your win so you just need to find a way if climbing ratings is a goal for you.

But hey everybody is different and if you are the type who doesn't feel right in thinning out draws, then by all means. I like diversity in games and having less ambitious players in circulation only makes it easier for cold blooded sharks like me to thrive. ;)

What's the best way to handle people simply ignoring your press?

I think another factor is I should probably limit myself to one or two games versus playing 7 fp games.

@DO - Probably for the best

@Enzo - that's a tough one, but sometimes I'll antagonize them to see if it gets a reaction just to reopen the channel. Outlandish accusations that they feel compelled to defend sometimes does the trick (i.e. "A little birdie just told me you had bragged about wanting to stab my from the very first round so now I know when you said ___ that you clearly were lying to me the entire game."). People love defending their good name and thirst to root out gossipers so stuff like that can often get a response you can then build off of.

Good post VI.

It's not thinning the draw if you are positioning to try and solo. This idea that thinning the draw is reprehensible is foolish and lazy.

If it's based on ppl doing it to go from 5 to 4, or 4 to 3 with no ambition to solo. Then yes it's dumb, if it's based on playing the game out trying to unbalance the board and look for a shot to win it I'm all for it.

I'm just programmed differently for that. As I was groomed on PlayDip, it's rating system designed to incentivized best possible results so if a player finishes with a poorer result then statistically they should have then they lose rating points. Here you get more of the "a draw is a draw is a draw" type stuff. I appreciate the general notion of that, but i find the overreaching culture of that mentality breeds more unambitious stalemate experts who like to end games earlier then typical solo opportunity tends to materialize. Push each game as far as you can, regardless of how your odds look at any given moment. I've seen extremely dramatic comebacks on more then one occasion.

My phone still refuses to post lenghty posts in the forum, so I refer to the public chat.

I'll just give my PoV on this...

I absolutely agree there was play left in this game. R approached me about me backing off him so that he could work with A against I, I approached me about knocking A and R out of the game before the draw, and A approached me about stabbing G a little earlier.

A lot of the proposals weren't possible simply because of Italy fleet position. I really did not want to lose Iberia (both because it increases the Italian solo threat and it puts me at massive risk against Germany if Italy then decides to back off a bit, because suddenly I'm not important) and Italy refused to consider giving up Marseilles or backing fleets off, so the moves for ECh, MAO, Spa & Por were on lock, as was the fact that I needed to stick with Germany to prevent that line falling.

The one that was possible was Ezio's suggestion of R/A attacking I together, but I was still concerned about G/R cooperating against me (as G had moved against me for a phase a year or so earlier) so I wasn't really happy with that solution either. If Italy was weakened then my units in Iberia would've been freed up, but that definitely would not be in time to save Norway and Holland if G did make a move.

More than anything, though, most of the players were fatigued. I'm not sure why but I think it was the fact that the early game was so dull - G/E mowed down the west, A/I mowed down the east, both sides thought they could get across the stalemate line first so neither were open to any kind of real negotiation about betrayal. There'd been very little press over that time and everyone except Ezio (Russia) was sort of detached from the game as a result. He was trying to get things going again, but nobody was enthusiastic because nobody was really having fun.

I know that's a bad excuse, but it's what happened, so... yeah. Sometimes players lose enthusiasm and early 5-ways result.

Thanks ATC for the commentary! Sorry we couldn't put on a better show for you all.

Well done Demon Overlord. You took Italy to the top..ten sc's. I expect more success for England than what I saw in that game.