Welcome to webDiplomacy.net's new server; providing better performance and stability, more expansion room, the ability to host related projects and dev servers, and managed backups. Please let us know of any problems in the Forum.

Finished: 08 PM Mon 26 Nov 18 UTC
Private 2018 World Cup Finals - PP
1 day, 12 hours /phase
Pot: 35 D - Autumn, 1910, Finished
Classic, Public messaging only, Anonymous players, Unranked, Wait for orders
1 excused missed turn
Game won by jmo1121109 (3812 D Mod)
03 Nov 18 UTC Autumn, 1908: And apologies for the lack of press, it has been a busy week, it was not my intent to neglect the game.
03 Nov 18 UTC Autumn, 1908: France appears to be on the way to a solo here. Italy and Russia got greedy with Turkey, playing friendly, they could have stopped it without Turkey troubling them.
03 Nov 18 UTC Autumn, 1908: Moderator: (goldfinger0303): Paused for two days
05 Nov 18 UTC Autumn, 1908: Moderator: (goldfinger0303): Unpaused
05 Nov 18 UTC Autumn, 1908: Folks,

It's looking grim. But I'm not the giving up type. I'll try my best.

@Russia, Berlin is lost. I suggest you try to form a line without Berlin. I'm moving to Vienna. I have no idea why you are in Bulgaria. But...no biggie. Have fun.

@Turkey, I'd like you to move Con to Aegean and then out to Ionian. I don't really know what Russia's moves were about around Turkey. So, you may have another agenda. But, if anyone cares about giving it a last, best shot, I suggest you send a fleet to the front line.

@France, I agree that Germany has played a wonderful game. I do hope you grant him the survive, though of course linking his survive with me keeping my home center and trying to blame the whole thing on me is hilarious. Good for you.

And just...for my edification -- is a "survive" something that people care about around here? I've never heard of that. I've always viewed giving up a solo as the ultimate embarrassment; one we will likely all suffer here. Are there people out there who care if they "survive" when someone else gets to 18. Must just be a site culture thing. News to me.
06 Nov 18 UTC Autumn, 1908: A survive is seen as a better result than an elimination, though only marginally so. These stats are recorded in webdip which does draw a distinction between them.

In essence, the argument goes "if you get eliminated, you've lost. Therefore, whatever the end result of the game (draw or solo) is irrelevant to you after you are out. Both cases are a loss, but surviving means you usually played a better game than being eliminated (generalisation). Thus you could say we view ultimate embarrassment as personal defeat (which seems more aligned with diplomacys theme of personal interests leading to conflict) rather than strictly being someone else's victory (the goal of preventing which tends to have a more "team" aspect to it)

I wouldn't say its a site culture thing. There have been advocates for this interpretation even on the diplomacy vines in the 90s,and while it is a prevailing view on this site, is hardly universally accepted.
06 Nov 18 UTC Autumn, 1908: Ah, I understand. Thank you for the excellent explanation.
06 Nov 18 UTC Autumn, 1908: Ah, I didn't realize that wasn't a universally held view of the game's goals. Thanks for clarifying that Germany.
06 Nov 18 UTC Autumn, 1908: @ Italy - I am/was in BUL to prevent Turkey from retreating into one of your territories this turn... I had planned to return it to your control, but you are welcome to move to Vienna.
06 Nov 18 UTC Autumn, 1908: @ Germany - live on brother
08 Nov 18 UTC Autumn, 1908: Moderator: (goldfinger0303): Paused for a day
09 Nov 18 UTC Autumn, 1908: Moderator: (goldfinger0303): Unpaused. Please ready if you wish to progress quickly
09 Nov 18 UTC Autumn, 1908: My orders have been readied for a long time. There is no reason to delay here, unless our soloist is trying to keep his identity secret as long as possible. (disgusted glare)
09 Nov 18 UTC Autumn, 1908: You just can't help yourself but to be negative to everyone can you? Germany, Russia, me. A little kindness goes a long way.

And that doesn't even make sense, why would keeping my identity a secret matter...unless your team has already broken anon in the other games and is trying to use this one to convince people to metagame against my teammates as soon as this finishes. Which implies that your own team is in a good position in other games in the tournament for that strategy to even matter.

But no...Italy hates metagaming and shady moves, so he and his team would never stoop to that level.
09 Nov 18 UTC Autumn, 1908: Oh my God. Fuck you.
10 Nov 18 UTC Autumn, 1908: Hoo boy - identity always becomes a thing in late end-games in these tourneys.
10 Nov 18 UTC Autumn, 1908: New France, I look forward to sharing my thoughts about your conduct in my “Goodbye Webdip” forum post at the end of the game. I’ll wait until the end of the game to be very clear about my sincerity. For now, let me just say that YOUR accusations about ME breaking anonymity and metagaming are...

about what we should expect from you.

Have a pleasant weekend.
10 Nov 18 UTC Autumn, 1908: Yeah honestly I expect a little more creativity from you in denying it, but I suppose there's really no way to take back your team's intent to meta-game or their strong position in the tournament after that little slip up.

You shouldn't post...or enter orders while angry, you seem to make mistakes when you do.

Thank you! Have a pleasant weekend as well.
12 Nov 18 UTC Autumn, 1908: Moderator: (goldfinger0303): Paused
15 Nov 18 UTC Autumn, 1908: Moderator: (goldfinger0303): At the latest this will be unpaused Friday at noon
16 Nov 18 UTC Autumn, 1908: Moderator: (goldfinger0303): Unpaused. If you'd like to have the phase move quicker, please ready.
18 Nov 18 UTC Spring, 1909: I am sending Venice to Piedmont, Vienna to Bohemia, and Adriatic to Ionian.
19 Nov 18 UTC Spring, 1909: Yo Russia, what Ukraine up to
19 Nov 18 UTC Spring, 1909: coming to your aid
21 Nov 18 UTC Spring, 1910: Gg. Well played France
21 Nov 18 UTC Spring, 1910: GG France. Guess Russia will be scrambling to take Italy territory to maximize his points now.
21 Nov 18 UTC Spring, 1910: You can see from my destroys how much I care about that.
24 Nov 18 UTC lol, Italy I have no interest in your territories. Do as you please.
24 Nov 18 UTC Gg all. Nice job hanging on for the survive Turkey.
24 Nov 18 UTC You are the webdip developer? The one who told the entire community last Spring that you fixed all of the anonymous game issues and offered people points to tell you in secret any further anonymity glitches?

So did you already know about your glitch website before you told everyone that anonymous games were fixed, or did somebody send you that website when you offered points for people to tell you if any known glitches?

What a fraud.
24 Nov 18 UTC Here is a link to a forum post that you authored six months ago: http://webdiplomacy.net/contrib/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=603&hilit=Anonymous

Here is what you said:

“I made the following changes . . . to make anonymous games actually anonymous.”

“If you still have ways of breaking anon and are the first to report them to the mods at webdipmod@gmail.com and they are valid, I'll pay out 250-500 points depending on the severity of the bug.”

I guess, you just fixed all of the bugs except for one, so that the games would be anonymous for everyone except you?

Or, did you learn of your glitch website by offering points to someone else so that they would message it to you privately?

Either way, what an extraordinary abuse of power.
24 Nov 18 UTC Oh hey Balki, well first off lets not pretend you didn't know who I was since your team submitted a cheating investigation into me by name during the game which both owners reviewed and cleared me on.

But to clear up your misunderstanding and out of context quotes. Anonymous games were fixed for gunboat games. The work was done to ensure that ghug's gunboat tournament would actually be anonymous. It was even stated in the forum that non gunboat games still had methods available that could break anonymity. Gunboat games are now truly anon, press games still can be broken for obvious reasons.

I learned about that link over 5 years ago before I became a moderator, taught it by prominent players who used it in tournaments to this day. When I worked on the anonymous changes I worked to remove that link, which your own teammate can confirm, because I asked ghug if he had any ideas and he independently reviewed it. I also worked with Oli on vDip to see if he could think of a way to remove it and again, we came up empty for a way that would leave in place other key functionality. There's proof of all of this, which was supplied to Zultar and Kestas who both reviewed it and found it valid.

This link has also been used by non developers for years, both before and after the anonymous changes. But there's also a variety of other ways to break anonymity such as using the online status on the forum, using discord or facebook online statuses, etc to match against time stamps. Which is why it has never once on the site been said that press anonymous games are actually fully anonymous. Nor has it ever been against the rules to break anon because it's not something that's enforceable on any site that has press timestamps.

Now what I find a little hypocritical is that your team has been using my identity in the other tournament games to break anon and metagaming against my team before this game ended. So I know you've been breaking anon. And you have an admin who also worked on the anon changes on your team. I went out of my way to confirm breaking anon was acceptable with the tournament director, and with the site moderation team. goldfinger0303 asked me a variety of questions to ensure I hadn't abused my power before granting me permission to do this (he's been an admin before so he's quite qualified to make that determination) and he approved it. Did you and your team ask for approval before doing the same thing given you also had someone on your team who'd worked on the anon changes? I hope so!

Now I will apologize for the rather unsportsmanlike press style I used. It was very chainsaw's and rather unpleasant to engage in. Despite being a perfectly valid strategy in person and online, it still felt unpleasant to do so I am sorry to have subjected you to that type of press.

I'm not entirely sure who submitted the cheating complaint against me from your team, but if it wasn't you I'd highly encourage you to ask them for the details because I do know for a fact that the site owners both looked into the concerns in the complaint, made me provide evidence proving I hadn't learned anything I used in this tournament via my position as a developer, and that other non moderator members were aware of these vulnerabilities (do note that Russia stated in this press that he was aware anon could still be broken and even took countermeasures against this). The owners were both satisfied that my conduct fell within acceptable standards from a rule perspective. Though they did let me know they felt engaging in chainsaw style press and baiting you represented the site badly, so I do again apologize for that.

If you have further questions to help clear up your misunderstanding of the situation please do ask, I'm happy to answer.
24 Nov 18 UTC Thank you for the invitation to ask questions. Here is my first question.

You say that I took your quote out of context and that your post about making anonymous games actually anonymous was only for gunboat games. I don't want to take you out of context. Here is the full paragraph from which I quoted:

"As you may have noticed, anonymous games are now looking a little different. I made the following changes (thanks to A_Tin_Can for doing the code review!) to make anonymous games actually anonymous."

That is the first paragraph of the post.

The heading of the post is "Anonymous Changes and Online Indicators"

If you meant to suggest that anonymous games are only actually anonymous for gunboat games, but that you would be using a secret glitch for press games, you did not communicate that very well in your communication to the Webdip community.

So, how have I taken you out of context?
24 Nov 18 UTC My second question is: why do you keep throwing accusations at me and my team? If you know of any misconduct by me or my team, you should report it to...well, to you.

My accusation against you is that you, Web Developer of Webdip, used your position to (1) tell everyone on the site that you fixed all the glitches and anonymous games are actually anonymous, and (2) offer an incentive to everyone to report to you any further glitches they were aware of. Then you joined a tournament final game that we all had been playing within the rules, and respecting anonymity for months, and you used some glitch website to (a) break anonymity, and (b) prove my identity to everyone. You could have closed that glitch website when you told us all that anoymous games were now truly anonymous. You could have posted a link to the glitch website in your fake "anonymous games are now truly anonymous" post. Or you could have just avoided the temptation to reveal my identity to everyone and post a link to your proof -- the glitch website -- so that the six of you were playing an anonymous game, while I wasn't.

You are the web developer of a gaming site. Sportsmanship, fairness, and honesty are pretty fundamental values for such a role. And your failure to own up to your misconduct here, and to continually point the finger back at me is further bad form. If you think somebody else is doing something wrong, you have plenty of remedies at your disposal. But the accusations you are slinging are not anything like the conduct that you have engaged in here.

Can you have a discussion about what you've done without pointing the finger at a bunch of other people? Did I make a post in the forum about how I had fixed all of the anonymous games glitches and then posted a glitch a few months later to break anonymity in a tournament final? If I did that, you should disqualify me from the tournament, because that reeks.
25 Nov 18 UTC Answer 1: By ignoring the later part of the post clearly stating that only gunboats are 100% secure.

"While there is still 1 vulnerability that makes breaking anon in non-gunboat games theoretically possible, gunboats games should now be 100% secure."

Again do note nowhere did anyone state that non gunboats are also 100% anon.

Answer 2: I find the conduct and mock outrage of you and your team to be amazingly hypocritical. Your team also, without a shadow of a doubt, broke anonymity in this tournament and are using it to your advantage. You are then ignoring the facts of the case to make accusations of abuse of power ignoring the owner investigation and the tournament director who are telling you those claims are false. In the same thread that you are pointing to your own team member and the tournament director both admit that your team broke anon AND that it was the main reason you won the tournament last year. And the reason I bring this up is because it is perfectly allowed under the site and tournament rules. This tournament in fact has a long standing tradition of breaking anon and metagaming which you successful used last year AND ARE STILL USING NOW CURRENTLY IN THIS TOURNAMENT. To say that I should not be allowed to use those same methods utilizing the available ways to break anon is beyond hypocritical. Your team's current use of these methods also makes me seriously question your authenticity in your claims and makes me wonder if you're just using this a platform to influence the remaining games.

"(1) tell everyone on the site that you fixed all the glitches" we've already addressed that this is false and it was never stated all vulnerability's were closed.

"(2) offer an incentive to everyone to report to you any further glitches they were aware of." All glitches that could break a gunboat's anonymity were patched via this method.

" and you used some glitch website to (a) break anonymity, " Again, with the tournament director and moderator team's permission. As has been done in each and every iteration of this tournament. Via that same site used by non mods.

"(b) prove my identity to everyone." Yes, this could also have been done by adding you on facebook or discord and watching when you were online there or using the forum online indicators. Again, I don't know which of these methods your team is currently engaging in, but it is allowed or you and your entire team would also be in trouble.

"You could have closed that glitch website when you told us all that anoymous games were now truly anonymous." Since you ignored my earlier point I'll readdress it, this was tried, and myself, ghug, Oli, and everyone else engaged were unable to accomplish this. Kestas recently stated he may be able to remove it, but he has not been able to yet.

"You could have posted a link to the glitch website in your fake "anonymous games are now truly anonymous" post." I don't get your point here.

" Or you could have just avoided the temptation to reveal my identity to everyone and post a link to your proof -- the glitch website -- so that the six of you were playing an anonymous game, while I wasn't." Again, why would you expect someone to do this in a tournament where doing just this is encouraged? VillageIdiot is currently engaging in this exact tactic in Full Press 1. Which is perfectly fine and allowed.

"And your failure to own up to your misconduct here, and to continually point the finger back at me is further bad form. " To be perfectly clear, are you stating you believe that both site owners, and the other moderators who ran independent investigations into my conduct here and cleared me from abuse of misconduct are lying? If so there's nothing further to discuss here, you'll need to go speak to them. I am pointing the finger back at you not to accuse you of anything, because the conduct described is allowed and encouraged in this tournament. If I thought you were breaking the rules (aside from accusing me of cheating in public which is a rules violation but I don't care) I'd be on the moderators to address it.

And to your final point, no I cannot have a conversation about "how I fixed all of the anonymous game glitches" when I quite clearly went out of my way in that post to explain that only gunboats were 100% secure.

Now if your argument was to focus around the tournament rules not being clear on allowing meta-gaming or not being clear on allowing anonymity to be broken, I'd have to agree with you. If you were to argue that there should be a rule forbidding discussing anonymity in a game even if you manage to break it, I would agree with you. After having played in the tournament I find the level of metagaming that's allowed to be absurd, and have already had conversations with the moderator team about ways that could be made more clear or fixed for future tournaments.

You're also right that sportsmanship is a vital role for a developer on the site, but the choice I was faced with was is handicapping myself by not engaging in the metagaming and anon breaking of this tournament fair to my team when it was clear that same non sportsmanlike activity was happening in the tournament? I decided on no. I could ask that all the members of the moderator team and the admin team never played in a tournament and never played in any games because winning games can often require unsportsmanlike strategies, but at that point why would the people who volunteer their time to this community even bother anymore? Most of the people here, myself included, enjoy playing the game and the odd formatted tournaments offered here. Banning those people from playing in those tournaments just seems a great way to get people to stop volunteering their time.

I really am sorry that you feel that my actions were an abuse of power. That was never my intent, but I can and have proven the following to the owners in the course of the investigation that was held.

1. I knew about that link years ago, as did multiple other members. Before and after the anon thread.
2. This tournament has always had metagaming and your team not only engaged in it but expected other teams to engage in it during last years iteration, and between the years there were not rule changes made to prevent such actions
3. Members in this tournament this year were aware anon could be broken still, including people on your team.
4. I and the other developers made every attempt to remove that link and to devise a solution to make press games fully anon, we failed. Does that make us less skilled developers then we'd like, yes, cheaters, no.
5. I got the TD's explicit approval to break anon, explained how I intended to do it, and why. I received approval to do so.
6. I ran this by members of the moderator team and got the same approval.

Those facts were investigated, deemed true, and additional investigation was done (the full extent I don't know since it involved me as the 1 being investigated) and I was cleared by both owners and an independent moderator review.

Now as said before, the non sportsmanlike conduct around engaging in the allowed metagaming, anon breaking, and chainsaw like press was distasteful and I do apologize. I am working on solutions to remove the metagaming and anon breaking aspects of future tournaments via rule changes with the moderator team and TD's since coding changes cannot address them.

But I simply find the claim that I should not have been allowed to break anon because I am a developer when you have no issue with non developers breaking anon in this tournament to not make sense.

Again I highly encourage you to go talk to your teammate who submitted the investigation request against me since it doesn't seem to have been you who did and see the results of that investigation. It was an unbiased owner investigation and if you can't believe them of the results I really don't know what else to tell you.
25 Nov 18 UTC I don't think it makes sense to confine this discussion to the shoutbox of an old game. I plan to present my thoughts in a forum post when I have time. But, in brief:

(1) Your initial defense was that your "anonymous games are now actually anonymous" post was all about gunboat games. Now you seem to concede that this was a lie. Am I right? And so your new defense is: "well, I included a line in my "anonymous games are now actually anonymous" post to suggest that it was still "theoretically possible" to break anonymity, so...nothing to see here?

I haven't taken you out of context. You told the webdiplomacy community that you fixed the glitches so that "anonymous games are now actually anonymous" and offered points to people to inform you of more glitches just a few months ago. You even responded to a few people who told you of more glitches by giving them points and saying that you solved those glitches too. The fact that you said breaking anonymity is still theoretically possible does not change your post. I mean, this is what you said on May 14, 2018 as Web Developer:

"I made the following changes (thanks to A_Tin_Can for doing the code review!) to make anonymous games actually anonymous."

And this is what you said a few months later as an anonymous player to break anonymity for me:

"All currently online users show up in this file http://webdiplomacy.net/cache/stats/onlineUsers.json which was posted on the forum by mods a while back. If you check this file each time you see Italy post a new message you can pretty quickly confirm which player he is."

If you don't understand how dishonest that is, and why it means that nobody should trust that you are using your power as web developer to help the website, rather than to help yourself win tournament games, then you seem to lack a basic understanding of fairness and sportsmanship. That's too bad.

(2) Again, you repeat over and over that somebody else "broke anonymity." More pointing the finger at other people.

I've said it several times, but you continue to ignore it. I am accusing you of something that goes far beyond breaking anonymity. So all of these "Cascadia figured out who other people are in some games at some time" is completely beside the point. And, frankly, you should stop, as Web Developer, continually accusing other people of stuff if you don't understand there to be anything wrong.

I am accusing you of using your web developer rule to tell the entire community that anonymous games were now, finally, actually anonymous. Then offering points to the community if they would tell you more glitches to break anonymity. Then saying that you had closed those glitches. And then jumping into a months-old tournament final to post a glitch website and unequivocally break anonymity for one player (me). Saying that other people figured out who is who, is just a distraction.

(3) This investigation of your conduct that has fully exonerated you is news to me. I told Goldfinger that I believed France had cheated in my game, and he said it was already under investigation.

You now say that you have been thoroughly investigated and fully exonerated. Well, I guess I have to question an investigation that relies on your word, and doesn't even ask for my perspective. I don't know for sure, but I have a sneaking suspicion that you might have told these investigators some untruths, considering how you've conducted your defense here. Perhaps you said something like:

"The dev team fixed gunboat anonymity so that gunboats are impossible to break. Limited and non limited press games anon can still be broken the same ways as before."

"I never said that anonymous press games were actually anonymous."

"It's a valid tactic that's been used in basically every tournament ever run anonymously on this site."

And perhaps they did not review your actual forum post, which quite clearly relates to all games.

In any event, I think I have a good understanding of your sense of fairness and sportsmanship. Thanks for the discussion.

I found this game extremely compelling right up until the time you joined it. I would LOVE to talk with the original players about that original game. That was Diplomacy. But I feel like you joined the game and abused your power to destroy it. That's a shame.
25 Nov 18 UTC Well since you want to ignore every point I made to disprove your accusations and accuse me of more lying and accuse the owners of incompetence I'm just going to leave you to your delusions.

Maybe just accept you lost cause you played poorly and get over it.
25 Nov 18 UTC I think a fair investigation should consider what I have to say on the matter, and not accept your statements at face value. And yes, I think you've lied, and warped the truth.

I love online diplomacy. I want this community to thrive. It brings me no joy to express my frustrations with your conduct here. I wish you would accept my complaints for what they are and make better choices next time, rather than calling me delusional and telling me to get over it.
25 Nov 18 UTC You should just reach out to the owners then and stop making yourself sound foolish. The facts I provided are old conversations in the moderator email and conversations with other developers that show beyond a shadow of a doubt that I knew about that file before becoming a dev on the site, and show that it was not possible to remove that file. As well as showing that other members found that file after the changes and were not forbidden by other mods from using it in cases I had 0 involvement in. As well as various other provable items that was enough to satisfy their concerns about abuse of power.

Please though, go speak to them and express your concern about their possible incompetence in investigating and once you've had those concerns alleviated I'd be happy to have a more civil discussion with you.

I do though, still find your intent questionable. That you choose to open a conversation with accusations you have no means of proving instead of going to the TD, going to the mods, or going to the owners seems like an odd choice not designed for any improvement to online diplomacy. I do not really understand what you're seeking to accomplish.
25 Nov 18 UTC I haven’t called the owners of the site incompetent.

It sounds like you’ve submitted proof to dispute an accusation I haven’t made.

You don’t have a response for the accusation I have made.

I’ll consider my next action carefully, thank you. I have continued to engage you here because you have continued to misrepresent the facts, misrepresent my position, and call me names. I should probably ignore you, but the more you misrepresent me, the more I feel the need to assert my side of the story.
25 Nov 18 UTC You started this conversation after the game ended. I'll reply to your incorrect accusations as long as you wish. You began the conversation calling me fraud and a variety of other names. Lets not lie about that.
25 Nov 18 UTC Jfc guys. Game is over. Can you take this to PMs if you want to continue this shit show.
25 Nov 18 UTC GG all

Not to continue the argument... but I think it a poor reflection on the tournament's legitimacy when the argument for using a glitch is that it is well known by moderators and used by past teams..

Furthermore, the fact that you knew about the file before becoming a developer doesn't make it feel less unfair. If there are glitches known to mods and developers that can't be fixed and are going to be allowed then they should at least be made obvious and public so that teams can decide if they care enough to exploit them. As is, the tournament clearly allows some players additional knowledge. To this extent, I appreciate you posting the link in the game... I am trying very hard to accept that I shouldn't hate the player, but instead hate the game... that said I am disappointed with webdip.
25 Nov 18 UTC I'd encourage you to go take a look at http://www.webdiplomacy.net/contrib/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?p=46171#p46171 since as Germany said, the game is over and this probably isn't the right place for this.

But I do view your concerns around the fairness of breaking anon to be valid. Even if it was posted on the forum how to break anon the forum is used by under 10% of members. So at that point we still haven't solved the problem you mentioned since 90% of people and all new members who join are then lacking that knowledge. I do think that it needs to be looked into on whether a new rule should be added banning discussing anonymity in tournament games. All of the anon vulnerabilities are much harder/near impossible to take advantage of when they aren't semi-anon games (the list of possible players is available).

I also think it'd be prudent to highlight in the tournament rules that breaking anon and metagaming are expected and consistently used tools in the tournament.

If you have other ideas on how to make the tournament more fair in your eyes for future iterations I'd recommend talking to the td and/or emailing the site mods.
26 Nov 18 UTC Good playing DrCJG - I figured out who you were after a few years, along with Qacper and Arun2642, and had strong suspicions about Balki. No cheat in doing so, though - I studied the press from the Public Press first round games and was able to identify the same style of language/press in this games - and that's how I cracked the identities, not that it helped me. Balki didn't fit any of the players from an earlier public press game, so I figured he switch game roles into this one, and based on his press and style, I figured it was him based on his reputation.

Balki - you played well, in a very frustrating style for me where I knew exactly what you were doing. Austria does best early in cooperation with Italy, but you would only give me that cooperation in a way where you would be well positioned to stab me later. I wasn't keen on playing along, and in the end, I probably should have just turned on you and taken you down with me since there was little else I could do. The key turning point for me was that turn where I thought you, Russia, and I were all going at Turkey, and then you, Russia, and Turkey made new plans in the final hour to attack me instead - I thought that was a bit of poor form, taking advantage of a time when I was not around to negotiate some late turn public diplomacy, as it would have turned out differently if I had been able to participate in that negotiation.
But c'est la vie.
26 Nov 18 UTC From an actual game standpoint, this was the first pp game I've played in ages and it was very interesting from a tactical standpoint. I found it highly favors the aggressor in a solo bid and the global press aspect of the game severely impeded everyone's ability to stop my advance in the end game. There were turns where people stating their intentions like Balki's advice to Germany in Sping 07 allowed me to devise counter moves that were highly effective. Or being able to read between the lines in 08 let me figure out that Venice was probably a trap designed to get Piedmont's army in a position where it could be more effectively force disbanded. But springing that trap with a fleet shift would lend me chance at Tunis since a move to Aegean or Adr seemed possible by Italy. But at the same time the press between Italy and Russia hinted that they'd be bouncing Vienna and from there I was able to safely try for Berlin. Those kind of things wouldn't have been possible in a full press game, and from a defensive standpoint, I don't know how to work around that issue had I been in any of your roles.
26 Nov 18 UTC There isn't one. The side that requires less communication has a huge advantage over the side that doesn't, which I pointed out early on why first France And I could easily sweep Eastern Europe before he stabbed me
26 Nov 18 UTC I do think that the original France would be interested in an EoG thread to discuss the game from his standpoint. I just want to check with the TD and see if that is allowed before having him make one.
26 Nov 18 UTC Moderator: (goldfinger0303): Yeah that's fine by me
27 Nov 18 UTC Thanks gold, here's the link for everyone else if you're interested in talking to the initial French player. http://webdiplomacy.net/contrib/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=1107

Start Backward Open large map Forward End

jmo1121109 (3812 D Mod)
Won. Bet: 0 D, won: D
18 supply-centers, 17 units
DrCJG (1228 D)
Survived. Bet: 5 D
9 supply-centers, 9 units
Survived. Bet: 5 D
6 supply-centers, 6 units
Arun2642 (613 D)
Survived. Bet: 5 D
1 supply-centers, 1 units
Qacper (1122 D)
Defeated. Bet: 5 D
Halt (295 D)
Defeated. Bet: 5 D
slypups (1889 D)
Defeated. Bet: 5 D
Civil Disorders
Yigg (2446 D)France (Autumn, 1906) with 11 centres.
Archive: Orders - Maps - Messages