Messages - webDiplomacy

Chat archive

29 Mar 17 UTC	GG guys :)
29 Mar 17 UTC	GG
29 Mar 17 UTC	I'm a little skeptical of the California-Texas relationship. Did you guys communicate outside of this game? How did you guys coordinate so well in a non-communicative game? Look back at Spring 2000 - Somehow Cali fleet in Chihuahua predicted a Texas army move to Durango. How did you know he would move there California? I'm also shocked that Texas showed no concern in protecting himself from California...no wasted moves moving back for the potential stab....as if he knew it wouldn't happen. Just really strange play in this type of game. Anyway, good game. I really thought California could have won the game after taking out BC but I guess you couldn't take down your buddy Texas.
29 Mar 17 UTC	I feel the same way as Peru, of course. I really don't understand why people cheat in these games. What is the point of that? Just a testament to bad human nature, I guess. I see so many players banned for cheating, it's just fundamentally disappointing.
29 Mar 17 UTC	Well I do not care if California stab me - then I'll just disband troops in the Peruvian front and feed Peru, California would only gain 2 SC (Colorado/Durango) and then face a 20-SC Peru, I don't think he would do this if he's wise.
29 Mar 17 UTC	Mexico-We can't confirm that they cheated...just a suspicion. Texas-While that would have been nice for me...you still haven't answered my question. Why did you move to Durango Spring 2000? I would have supported a move to Potosi from Nuevo Leon. A move to Durango would just bounce...unless of course you got a miracle support move in from a different player. How lucky you are!
29 Mar 17 UTC	I know there's no proof at all. Just frustrated by the slew of "banned players" I see in other games, & extrapolating that to cheating in general. Fair enough.
29 Mar 17 UTC	You got the worst of it Mexico and I don't blame you for the frustration. I also would not have support held Durango because I would think no way two different players in a non-communicative game would sync like that. Let's see what they have to say about that move.... Doesn't anyone else think that move was fishy? How about Texas and not flinching whatsoever when Cali was circling his open centers?
29 Mar 17 UTC	Yep, it was certainly an intriguing match on many counts. I've played many games with Cap (and never noticed anything out of the ordinary before), so I'll give him the benefit of the doubt for now. Definitely some curious play from Texas, though... and I'm not familiar with him as a player.
29 Mar 17 UTC	Good game everyone. Ok, so I see now there is some conspiracy. let me explain. I have been playing gunboats exclusively, and you would be surprised how easy it is to signal alliance intentions in a gunboat game, especially to someone who checks the orders lists. About the move in Spring 2000. as you see, my fleet was stationary in Chihuahua for the season, so there was nothing useful I could do with it, except using it to signal intentions to TX.
29 Mar 17 UTC	I am now trying to remember what I was thinking then. As you see, previous season I was seeking alliance with Mexico. I then decided to switch and in 2000 to propose alliance to Texas. I could either support hold Coahuilia or support move to Durango. It would make no sense for TX to keep an army in Coahuilia idle, so I did this support just to signal my intentions if TX would care to check the orders.
29 Mar 17 UTC	Surprisingly for me, the move worked, which meant that we now had a functioning alliance with Mexico. The premium for an alliance in a gunboat game is much higher than in a regular game.
29 Mar 17 UTC	So after that I did everything to keep it. As TX say, it would make no sense for me to grab one SC, and lose an ally. Yet, it had a long internal struggle about capturing Colorado anyway - but rationality won over greed.
29 Mar 17 UTC	So a shot in the dark that happened to work. What are the odds! I actually think that you could have won this game Cap. Even though I had been in the lead, it takes Peru a lot of time to mobilize/convoy into the American Heartland. I think you could have take 3 centers from Texas and taken advantage of the 3 way battle from Heartland-Quebec-New York. Oh well.
29 Mar 17 UTC	10:53 I meant with Texas of course. I have made this mistake later, actually. I should not have taken Greenland, but should have tried to get allied with Quebec instead
29 Mar 17 UTC	Otherwise I just pushed Quebec to support heartland.
29 Mar 17 UTC	Well the early NMR of Cuba meant we have to face a strong Peru (the main enemy I considered in the game), after the signal of peace with Heartland(Colorado s Kansas mutual), I need to decide to ally whom in the west - obviously Cal's better, since I did not have west coast Navy and he did not have the east. At 2000s it's a 2-2 Cal vs. Mex stalemated on the line, I guess I thought Mex would do Durango s GoC-Chihuahua, or GoC s Durango-Chihuahua. I might get a SC or cut support with Coa-Dur move(It's an Autumn, go Potosi with 2 power was meaningless!) If I decided to ally Mexico that's Col-Ari and Coa s GoC-Chi, support by guessing is the main component of GB games IMO. I had a good chance to stab Cali in 2003s: Col-Ari/Dur-Chi, however I remembered that Florida NMRed and the new Florida was pushing against me, Heartland was swinging around (Kansas-Missouri, and me Oklahoma-Colorado also). I don't think a power like Texas can survive without an ally, so that's all.
29 Mar 17 UTC	Funny you should say that. When Cuba went AWOL, I knew I had to step up and go there. I headed out to Hawaii and headed south. I thought FOR SURE that USA & Texas would see the situation... And so it surprised me to see Texas come after ME 100%. And then it surprised me even further that USA joined in to attack the one power in best position to deter Peruvian growth. And having USA able to tiptoe right around Texas' underguarded centers without Texas blinking made this whole scenario fishy to say the least. But whatever.
29 Mar 17 UTC	I think the best guy to contain Peru is Florida, not you, Mexico. Also western lines are closer to me and easier to attack.
29 Mar 17 UTC	I wasn't comparing myself to Florida, and yet you created that false comparison, I suppose to excuse yourself for attacking me. These types of strawman arguments gall me into continuing to communicate here when I really don't want to. Any glance at the map tells you that Mexico (and Florida, sure) are the key lynchpins against an uncontested Peru. But again, whatever. I'll try to refrain from making any more communications now. ;-)