Finished: 12 PM Mon 01 Jan 18 UTC
New America
1 day /phase
Pot: 100 D - Spring, 2006, Finished
Fall of the American Empire IV, Public messaging only, Anonymous players, Sum-of-Squares Scoring
1 excused missed turn
Game drawn
19 Dec 17 UTC Autumn, 2002: Both good ideas.
19 Dec 17 UTC Autumn, 2002: Also, Cuba.
19 Dec 17 UTC Autumn, 2002: What is the nature of your relationship with Peru?
19 Dec 17 UTC Autumn, 2002: sexual?
19 Dec 17 UTC Autumn, 2002: Ik hope out non agression treaty is still in place but I am open to a alliance
19 Dec 17 UTC Spring, 2003: Peru and I have a nonaggression pact.
19 Dec 17 UTC Spring, 2003: Texas, I'd like to move on Cuba. You cool with that?
19 Dec 17 UTC Spring, 2003: Go ahead, I have no intention of interfering.
19 Dec 17 UTC Spring, 2003: Thank you.
19 Dec 17 UTC Spring, 2003: would you like to work together on that?
19 Dec 17 UTC Spring, 2003: That would be a good idea.
22 Dec 17 UTC Autumn, 2003: Quebec, I would like to avoid conflict over the heartlands territory. What would you see as a suitable division?
23 Dec 17 UTC Spring, 2004: Mexico, our partnership has allowed both of us to prosper for most of this game. Given that you and Peru are about to overrun the rest of Cuba and California is almost gone, where will you be moving next in order that we might not come into conflict?
23 Dec 17 UTC Spring, 2004: Mexico, our partnership has allowed both of us to prosper for most of this game. Given that you and Peru are about to overrun the rest of Cuba and California is almost gone, where will you be moving next in order that we might not come into conflict?
23 Dec 17 UTC Spring, 2004: I prefer not to say just yet. I am still fighting two wars and if we make plans so openly, we may incite a third. But I assure you, there are many targets besides you and Peru.
23 Dec 17 UTC Spring, 2004: Fair point. Simply checking to make sure I shouldn't be worried.
23 Dec 17 UTC Spring, 2004: Quebec, I would prefer not to fight you. Would you be amenable to a division of the remaining heartlands territories and a non-aggression pact?
24 Dec 17 UTC Spring, 2004: Yes I could agree with that
24 Dec 17 UTC Spring, 2004: Perhaps you keep chicago, I keep tennessee, and neither of us moves into Kentucky or Iowa. Agreed?
25 Dec 17 UTC Spring, 2004: Sounds fair, agree
26 Dec 17 UTC Autumn, 2004: noble king of Texas,

I would like to stay out of conflict with you how about a non-aggression pact? all sea territories that are connected to a supply center held by me will become DMZ and vice versa. would that be acceptable to you?

yours truly, Peru
26 Dec 17 UTC Autumn, 2004: The Kingdom of Texas is very much interested in reaching such an arrangement with the Peruvian nation. However, the wording of such terms as were suggested would seem to prevent the use of the oceans by each power generally. Perhaps the wording could be changed so that neither side may enter a sea territory which borders a supply center controlled by the other. Perhaps that would be amenable to Peru? A nonaggression pact is most certainly in the interests of both our nations.
Sincerely,
His Majesty the King of Texas
26 Dec 17 UTC Autumn, 2004: Peru, I think not that I have a fleet presence we should reconsider our terms as well.

As of yet, we agreed that I not pass go passed or into the Galapagos, and you not go passed or into the Coast of Mexico. But what of in the Caribbean? Should you an I adopt the same plan that Texas proposes?
26 Dec 17 UTC Autumn, 2004: yes, I think that would be a good Idea, We could also form a defensive alliance if you are interested? if one of us is attacked the other comes to their aid?
26 Dec 17 UTC Autumn, 2004: That would be agreeable.
26 Dec 17 UTC Autumn, 2004: Would you be interested in including the other southern power in this defensive alliance?
26 Dec 17 UTC Autumn, 2004: I would, though our agreement needs to be a bit more lenient as wee will have SCs closer together.
26 Dec 17 UTC Autumn, 2004: I just meant the defensive alliance. The DMZ part doesn't make a whole lot of sense for us.
27 Dec 17 UTC Autumn, 2004: Oh. Then yes.
27 Dec 17 UTC Autumn, 2004: i tried good luck folks..
27 Dec 17 UTC Autumn, 2004: I would agree to that
28 Dec 17 UTC Autumn, 2005: Quebec, you have violated our agreement and entered both Iowa and Kentucky. Does this mean that you are looking for war?
28 Dec 17 UTC Autumn, 2005: It looks like they are mobilizing their fleets as well.
28 Dec 17 UTC Autumn, 2005: you have my support at sea
30 Dec 17 UTC Hi, well played everyone. Personally I would be happy with a draw between the surviving players. Any thoughts?
30 Dec 17 UTC I would be inclined to agree as well.
30 Dec 17 UTC I'm willing, but I wouldn't mind getting a few more points.
30 Dec 17 UTC I guess if you guys want to gang up on British Columia.
31 Dec 17 UTC I am fine with a draw
31 Dec 17 UTC Now don't get hasty. A draw is a draw and I think we should be peaceful in this last day of the year.
31 Dec 17 UTC I agree on a draw.
31 Dec 17 UTC My vote is in
31 Dec 17 UTC I agree with BC, lets end this year with a happy note!
31 Dec 17 UTC Mexico? Will you draw?
01 Jan 18 UTC cheers all.
01 Jan 18 UTC Cheers!
01 Jan 18 UTC Cheers!
01 Jan 18 UTC Cheers!
01 Jan 18 UTC cheers
01 Jan 18 UTC Cheers!

Start Backward Open large map Forward End

Quebec
folsso (130 D)
Drawn. Bet: 10 D, won: 39 D
17 supply-centers, 17 units
Texas
Drawn. Bet: 10 D, won: 30 D
15 supply-centers, 15 units
Mexico
Tanteno (126 D)
Drawn. Bet: 10 D, won: 16 D
11 supply-centers, 11 units
Peru
cyberdino (184 D)
Drawn. Bet: 10 D, won: 14 D
10 supply-centers, 10 units
British-Columbia
Drawn. Bet: 10 D, won: 4 D
5 supply-centers, 5 units
California
Defeated. Bet: 10 D
Florida
Dcoderre317 (100 D)
Defeated. Bet: 10 D
Heartland
Arumer97 (0 D X)
Defeated. Bet: 10 D
New-York
Yentle (10 D X)
Defeated. Bet: 10 D
Cuba
Smokey Gem (154 D)
Defeated. Bet: 0 D
Civil Disorders
Emmatje (0 D X)Cuba (Autumn, 2000) with 4 centres.
Archive: Orders - Maps - Messages