Sign up for a PAID Tournament, yes you read that right, a paid tournament today, details here or get paid to provide feedback on the site here!

Check out our 12 days of giveaways here!

Finished: 08 AM Mon 26 May 08 UTC
Lionel Luthor
1 day /phase
Pot: 82 D - Autumn, 1915, Finished
Classic, Survivors-Win Scoring
1 excused missed turn
Game won by aum (602 D)
31 May 08 UTC Autumn, 1907: Germany's rear is very open to an attack by England. Now I know they have a strong alliance and whatever happens in this game is just this game. But what does everyone think? You too Germany, I'd love to hear from you also. In general, should England betray Germany when Germany has left his rear this open and is in lead?
31 May 08 UTC Autumn, 1907: I know a lot of players that would have betrayed germany in that case. I'm not one of these players. I don't like betraying someon's who's been an ally during the whole game. It might be unfair due to the purpose of the game itself, but it's who I am. I've been betrayed a lot of time in the very end, but I never betrayed. But to answer your question, Yes, I should betray him.
02 Jun 08 UTC Autumn, 1908: That's fascinatingly goodnatured of you to so openly promise not to backstab Germany, when:

1) The defining characteristic of this game is that it rewards backstabbing/deception

2) Germany herself expects you to betray her, how else to describe the fleet move from Holland to Belgium

I think it is wonderful of England not to betray Germany, but I submit that Germany is only worthy of such loyalty if she is willing to trust that she has it. Since she has to destroy a unit this round anyway (Because of Turkey's brilliant maneuvering in the far east) why not have it be the last vestige of her rear guard, Fleet Belgium? If she refuses, is she really worth the beautiful devotion of England?

As always, I'd love to hear from everyone on this, including England.
02 Jun 08 UTC Autumn, 1908: From my point of view it's simple. Germany is the one who helped me survived in the first place. And for that, he/she/it (:D) deserves my devotion.

Now, it's her/his/its problem if he doesn't fully trust me. She (sick of writting everyword) is weakeaning herself by protecting from me. But it's not my problem. I told her everything I could to make her trust me.

I Am not gonna betray her, that's for sure. Once i'm commited in an alliance, I don't abandone it. Even if it's causing my loss. I'm not here to win everygame, I played too many games to just 'want' to win. I just try to find some new ways to play, challenges... etc. Playing solo is boring.
03 Jun 08 UTC Spring, 1909: 1) I'm male.
2) F(Holland) > Bel because I eventually want my fleets in the Mediterranean to break the deadlock due to Turkey's "brilliant maneuvering". They're of no use in the north. Because I don't want to interfere with his movements, I'm crawling along the coast.

3) I trust England implicitly. I also have nothing to lose because I actually would not be upset if he betrayed me. He's done more than would be normally expected.

4) This game rewards loyalty and cooperation as much as it does treachery and backstabbing.
04 Jun 08 UTC Autumn, 1909: Are you saying your fleet in Picardy is soon to invade Brest?!?
04 Jun 08 UTC Autumn, 1909: Also, just so you know, I always refer to nations in the feminine, even though Germany is the Fatherland.
04 Jun 08 UTC Autumn, 1909: Even better, F (Pic) > ENG! Der Vaterland is indeed masculine and so am I.
04 Jun 08 UTC Autumn, 1909: I think countries are generally referred to in the feminine by convention. It follows the same pattern set by ships, for instance. Maybe if you were to look into a language that has masculine and feminine forms for word endings or for articles that could explain some of the origin.

I'm not particularly informed when it comes to Indo-European languages, though, so that's just me being speculative.
04 Jun 08 UTC Autumn, 1909: Hey uh, in rereading the last flurry of posts, I want to address something Germany posited. He argues the game rewards equally treachery and loyalty. I'm n ot sure the split is 50/50, but I think we can all agree that loyalty can be a good quality to display.

However, in this current situation Germany is in a much stronger position to win than England. Since this is only true b/c England remains loyal to Germany and also obvious to us all that England would probably win quickly if he (HE!) betrayed Germany, it therefore follows that while in the aggregate this game may reward both treachery and loyalty, in this specific situation the game only rewards England for treachery and punishes her for loyalty. Unless anyone thinks second place is better than first?
04 Jun 08 UTC Autumn, 1909: Just remember the playground in Kingergarten:

"First is the worst,
second is the best.
Third is the one with the hairy chest."
04 Jun 08 UTC Autumn, 1909: I don't know. You might be right. But i'm not here ONLY to be first. I'm here to win, and if my 'teamate' wins, then it's the same for me. He NEVER could have won without me, and that's my reward. I'm not here for points or first place, i'm here to find ways of fun and new ways of playing this game.

I understand your way to make me betray him, and it's fair, but we could say the same to you and turkey. You could have betrayed eachothers before, and the one who betrayed the other might have won this before...

Anyway, again, it's much more fun like that, I think. You're slowly gaining territories in the south, and it's quite even in the land. Aren't you excited about the situation ? I now I am, and I know that I have absolutly NO CLUE of who's gonna win this game.
04 Jun 08 UTC Autumn, 1909: I don't want to take the fun out of it for you, but if you remain loyal the answer is Germany. If you really disagree I'll happily have a $20 side wager with you that if You remain loyal and Germany doesn't suddenly forget game mechanics that he will win.

On another note, the situation between Turkey and myself is very different. Neither of us has a clear path to victory. In fact, if you add all our supply centers together we have as many as the clear leader in this game: Germany. If either of us were in Germany's position I'd expect the other to betray that country. I only expect that because this game was designed to be fun that way. I understand however your desire to find new fun ways to play, it is too bad though that the rest of us will not be able to have fun the old regular way while you experiment, but it is certainly within your right and even admirable that you are looking to find a way to enjoy playing this game besides winning.
04 Jun 08 UTC Autumn, 1909: Talk about the full court press...
04 Jun 08 UTC Autumn, 1909: Where is the fun for you guys if I betray Germany ? I win too easily, you don't stand a chance. By the way, If I were you, I'd betray the Turk, because it might be the best way for you to resist/win this game.
04 Jun 08 UTC Autumn, 1909: Out of curiosity cteno4 (France), what language family are you familiar with then? As for anthropomorphic representations of countries, that's an interesting topic on its own. Some nations have distinctly traditional feminine or masculine avatars: France with Marianne, Russia as the Motherland. Other nations have both: The U.K. has John Bull and Britannia, while the U.S. has Uncle Sam and Columbia. Germany is almost always referred to as the Vaterland (Fatherland). I think it would be of further interest to read into these gender portrayals of a nation, its people, and its language but that may just be my personal interests...
04 Jun 08 UTC Autumn, 1909: I'm a native speaker of English, and when I was in high school I studied Mandarin Chinese. That language doesn't have any masculine/feminine forms, and it doesn't have any conjugations, either... so as you might expect, I'm not terribly versed on that.

To say I'm very familiar with a language FAMILY is pushing it. I'm no linguist, although I do know quite a good many of them.
09 Jun 08 UTC Spring, 1912: Well, I guess Turkey has dropped out. Up until this point it has been 22 SCs versus 12 since the alliance btwn Germany and England is so strong. Now it is 22 vs 8. It is clear that 22 scs will beat 8. However, if we all acted in our own self interest to the best of our ability, it is unclear what would happen.

I feel I have to beg you England. I don't see how this is for the best. Right now I know you are having fun, because you've said you are and I'm sure Germany is too. I am not and I think Turkey's absence speaks volumes. Were you, England to act in your self interest and try to win the game as is the express purpose of all players in this game, then it would be fun for everyone.

I understand why you are hesitant to betray your ally. You've been together this entire time and never broke. But I haven't betrayed anyone either. The only difference between my position and Germany's is that he started next to you. How is that fair? The game now becomes one of luck, not skill. We all had a one in six chance of forming an alliance with the one player who would never betray his ally, even to his own detriment.

Again, I respect your experimental spirit, but is there really any compelling reason for you not to play the game the way it was intended? And ask yourself, how is this different than a multi? This is the very reason that they are not allowed. It skews the game drains it of its fun for most players involved.

Again I know in this instance there are two players enjoying themselves. Why not let there be 4? What's wrong with honest competition. None of us would have signed up to play this game if we didn't like it. Germany included.
09 Jun 08 UTC Spring, 1912: Well it's not me that you wanna beg right now to be honnest. I'm not in position of betraying him anymore, it's even HIM who can kill me off easily.

And again, I don't fully honor my alliance if my ally isn't either. If my ally misses a turn, or if he plays stupidly, I betray him. It's not the case her. What can I say ?

Maybe I should stop playing this game, if this is not allowed. But it's more fun to plan the moves with someone, arguing about it...etc. But if it's not allowed...
10 Jun 08 UTC Spring, 1912: I think it's certainly allowed. I'm sorry if you thought that my attempts at addressing you were attempts to tell you to stop playing. I was only trying to use diplomacy to my advantage in this game of diplomacy.
17 Jun 08 UTC Hey guys, I wanted to congratulate you both. Great game.
17 Jun 08 UTC Well thanks. You did a very good job defending, and if turkey would have played every round from the begining, you might have resisted longer, I think.

And your diplomacy is perfect, I think everyone else but me would have betrayed Germany after what you said ;)

Start Backward Open large map Forward End

aum (602 D)
Won. Bet: 10 D, won: 369 D
18 supply-centers, 15 units
bigboss711 (230 D)
Survived. Bet: 10 D, won: 267 D
13 supply-centers, 11 units
lukes924 (1518 D)
Survived. Bet: 10 D, won: 41 D
2 supply-centers, 3 units
Crazen Markay (113 D)
Survived. Bet: 10 D, won: 21 D
1 supply-centers, 3 units
Puddle (438 D)
Defeated. Bet: 10 D
Defeated. Bet: 10 D
cteno4 (100 D)
Defeated. Bet: 2 D
Archive: Orders - Maps - Messages