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: 03 AM Sun 10 Feb 13 UTC
Its a Small Small World...
5 days /phase
Pot: 219 D - Autumn, 2014, Finished
World Diplomacy IX, Survivors-Win Scoring
1 excused missed turn
Game won by mattsh (775 D)
15 Jan 13 UTC Spring, 2013: [Libya]:Plus I never claimed to be a great player. I got quite lucky this game that Kenya didn't attack me early on and Ghana NMRed. I am just here to have fun and keep my wits sharp, but it ruins it when someone is an obnoxious loser and a game drags on forever.
27 Jan 13 UTC Autumn, 2013: [India]:Guys, I'm a sore loser. I admit it. I don't like losing, and I don't often lose in Diplomacy. I have delayed this game in the hope that some of you would somehow come to your senses. You may still come to your senses, but now it's too late for me.
27 Jan 13 UTC Autumn, 2013: [India]:So, while I still have your attention, I'll reward you all for your patience. I'll try to impart a bit of wisdom.
27 Jan 13 UTC Autumn, 2013: [India]:Firstly, my erstwhile partner, "The Truth" from Oz. I am pleased that you were my ally in the early and middle stages of the game, and you were a good ally. There was a high level of trust between us. Thank you for that.

We all have flaws in our play. I learn a lot from my allies, and often from my enemies too, along the way. "The Truth", I will mention an aspect of your play which can improve. You are in the habit, in a typical negotiation phase, to think about your orders, send messages of discussion and suggestion to your ally, choose some plausible orders, and then click "Ready". You have received some praise in this game for being quick to click Ready, but this praise should be ignored. When your ally logs in and sees your messages, and sees your Ready status, he thinks, "Oh, this guy has sent suggestions and he appears to want my opinion, but he has made up his mind already, and nothing I say can change his mind, so why should I bother with discussion? What kind of ally is he really?"

It is prudent to enter some sensible orders at the earliest possible opportunity, to avoid the situation where time slips by and no orders have been entered. But whilst in discussion with your ally, you should NEVER click Ready. When your ally logs in and reads your messages, and sees the black tick, he sees you have entered orders, and is comforted by that - "My ally is paying attention, has given this round some thought, and has entered some sensible orders. And he plans to come back after he has reviewed my messages."
27 Jan 13 UTC Autumn, 2013: [India]:If your ally is slow to respond and time is running out, you still don't click Ready. You then send a message to your ally saying, "I have not heard from you and time is running out. These are the orders I have submitted provisionally. (List the orders). I am prepared to change my orders if I hear from you before the end of the phase."
27 Jan 13 UTC Autumn, 2013: [India]:The only time you click Ready is when you and your ally have agreed on strategy, and there is no need for further discussion.
27 Jan 13 UTC Autumn, 2013: [India]:Success in Diplomacy will come only if you are good at managing alliances.
27 Jan 13 UTC Autumn, 2013: [India]:In this game, you were rather quick to dump me as your ally when Quebec joined our enemies, and you were naive (as must now be obvious to you) if you ever believed that our enemies would include you in their victory.
27 Jan 13 UTC Autumn, 2013: [India]:In my next episode, I'll discuss the play of the BumChinRaptor from Brazil.
27 Jan 13 UTC Autumn, 2013: [Brazil]:I'm sure I will get slated but actually looking forward to it! Also well done for admitting you're a bad loser. I am myself except I would go the route of calling everyone stuff (to myself) rather than prolong the agony. Although I can understand your approach.
27 Jan 13 UTC Autumn, 2013: [Libya]:Gonna say this once: you're a horrible player India. I don't mean you're dumb, or that you don't enter good moves, but only that you are someone I would not want to play with again. It is the same thing as a kid who flips over the board when he loses a game. Nobody blamed him personally for losing, but when he flipped the board he looked like an ass.

Now, there are serious flaws in your argument. First of all, I enter "ready" moves with the assumption that our ally won't enter ready if they have a request and I have already entered "ready." That completely leaves things open to further negotiation, while not slowing down the game. Secondly, Oz made a smart choice joining us. Had he not, the game would have lasted many more months and he probably would have been wiped out completely along with you since the two of you together were weaker than our alliance without Oz. Thirdly, Oz will not be eliminated in this game unlike you. He will end up with about the same number of SCs as he had when the alliance started minus one more for me to single, and whatever Brazil tries to grab this turn. When a game ends, and I am only 3 SC from winning, of course I am going to take them from the newest member of my alliance rather than the ones that A) stuck with me when we weren't sure if we would win B) stuck with me through the whole game. Had Oz joined our alliance a few moves earlier, before my alliance with Brazil and I already had half the board and Quebec had joined our alliance, I would allow him at least have a bit more comfort and this might have even ended in a draw (since I would be further from a single and Oz would have more of your territory). I think this ending is quite good for my allies — F-A has retained survival despite his weakness, Oz will maintain most of his SCs, Brazil has not only survived but thrived, Quebec expanded into Asia and has a few more SCs than he did before (and way more than he would have if you and Oz inevitably stabbed him), and I have managed to single (which I am happy about). Most importantly, India will be 100% eliminated with no reward for his meta-gaming and making this an unpleasant experience rather than a fun game ending in a win/loss/draw.
27 Jan 13 UTC Autumn, 2013: [Quebec]:look india... without the alliance with Brazil and Libya I would be gone for a long time.
when I picked up the quebec was doomed (autumn 2003), I managed with nails to conquer the north and I did it.
but without this alliance I'm sure I would have been annihilated by Brazil and Libya.

I was sad when I had to conquer the Yakutsk to oz, but it was necessary to end your existence
you speak of wisdom, but annoy potential allies delaying the game as a child who wants to take away the ball by saying "I do not play with you more" is not wisdom.
if you had played normally maybe me and Brazil at some point, and I repeat maybe, we decided to attack Libya to rebalance the map
how you played you led us to want to eliminate you as soon as possible to finish a game otherwise endless

come on guy! 3 months real of game for only 13 years???
the libya win this game because he deserves it. this game is called DIPLOMACY not delaying... and he was a great diplomat and well managed alliances

really dude, you are a very bad gamer unlike all the other players of this game

and sorry for my english
27 Jan 13 UTC Autumn, 2013: [Quebec]:pardon, 9 years (13 are from the beginning, I've played three months but i'm joined after)
27 Jan 13 UTC Autumn, 2013: [Brazil]:I went on holiday in June and this game had been going a while when I went away haha. I also joined late. It's been a long long, and enjoyable game.
28 Jan 13 UTC Autumn, 2013: [Libya]:I actually had fun despite playing with India. Brazil and F-A were awesome allies, and Quebec and Oz fun to play with even if I wish we had joined up earlier (although if that had happened I wouldn't have gotten this close to a single). It was also enjoyable that this game was very centered on diplomacy rather than tactics.

Early on, I knew it was in my best interest to make a friendship with Brazil and Quebec. However, I didn't know if Brazil and Quebec were interested in peace. I also wasn't convinced that Quebec was actually my ally until a few moves into our alliance. I had to carefully pressure Brazil and Quebec to make peace, when neither one seemed to trust the other, while at the same time keeping my own friendships with each.

Also, I would have lost the war against India had F-A not joined forces with me. At first, he had been hesitant because of his struggles in the south against Oz, but he stood by me. That loyalty is why I continue to support him in his defense (but not offense since I am friends with his allies).

Also, Oz is an interesting story. There was a point at which I had hoped Oz would turn on India and make a full alliance. When he refused, I agreed with Brazil to take him out no matter what. However, with India's delays we wanted the game to end quickly so I convinced Brazil to allow Oz in to our alliance conditional on the fact that A) our alliance was considered to be higher level, and B) I would support him in taking a few SCs at the end. Since I don't like breaking deals once I've formed them, and by the time Oz had joined us my offer of a complete alliance was old, I left Brazil with only a short time to take Oz's SCs so that Oz would be left with most of his and better off than he had if he had stuck with India all the way. Normally, if Oz had stuck with India I would have just gone for the win. However, with India delaying, I would have made sure any of his allies were fully eliminated as well.

Lastly, there's Russia. Russia was probably one of my favorite allies in this game. He was funny, clear and regular in his communication, and very wise about what was happening on the board. I was sad when he decided he couldn't play the game any longer.
29 Jan 13 UTC Autumn, 2013: [India]:I have not yet read all of Libya's ranting, but I find it amazing that he now openly admits that he's going for a solo victory, and the rest of you seem to be happy with that outcome! Do you guys know that you're meant to try and win in this game? I delayed the game, and tried to make it look as if Libya was going for a solo, in the hope that you guys would rise up, keep me alive, and destroy the dictator. But it seems my hopes were to no avail. Even when you know he's going to take the solo victory, you cower like wimps. Well, what more can I say?
29 Jan 13 UTC Autumn, 2013: [India]:To the BumChinRaptor of Brazil I will offer only constructive criticism, and some praise. No "slating".
29 Jan 13 UTC Autumn, 2013: [India]:Brazil and I had no communication in the early part of the game. This is bad. One should establish a friendly rapport with each player early on, even if it is just chit-chat. We are equally to blame for this lack of communication. Granted, it is hard to keep in contact with every player on the World IX board, but one should establish at least a greeting long before tactical issues come into play.

Anyway, this is how communication started between India and Brazil :-

Spring, 2005: [India to Brazil] : "Any chance that Chile can move to Southeast Pacific with support from East Pacific? Or maybe East Pacific can move to Southeast Pacific with support from Chile?"

Spring, 2005: [Brazil to India]: "Why do you ask this of me my friend?"

Spring, 2005: [India to Brazil]: "I ask you, because I wish for the swift demise of Frozen Antarctica, and both of my suggestions will contribute towards my objective."

Spring, 2005: [Brazil to India]:Well then, consider it considered"
29 Jan 13 UTC Autumn, 2013: [India]:BumChinRaptor, this is shocking. Your last message is like saying, "I don't want to speak to you anymore." And that is exactly what happened -- we didn't speak again after that, and we became enemies. You should at least have tried to keep communication lines open and to gain something from the interaction with me. A good game of Diplomacy is fluid, with alliances changing and reshaping. A good player can't afford to cut off any potential ally.
29 Jan 13 UTC Autumn, 2013: [India]:BumChinRaptor, your tactical play in this game was good, and your strategic play has also been excellent except for the endgame. In the third facet of the game, diplomacy, you must have been more skillful with other players than you were with me.
29 Jan 13 UTC Autumn, 2013: [India]:Your endgame strategy is flawed. You are right to eliminate Oz. He stabbed you. You may not know this, but I recommended to him that he should stab you, and under the circumstances at that time, the stab was correct play. But the outcome of this game hinged on Quebec, who has shown himself to have sadly poor judgement. Be that as it may, Oz lost against you, and you should eliminate him. You set about eliminating Oz correctly - first get him to turn against his (stronger) ally, then once his big brother is weak, turn on him. But I disagree with your apparent current strategy.
29 Jan 13 UTC Autumn, 2013: [India]:If you are planning, with Libya, to eliminate Oz and Quebec, and then to draw with Libya, this is a good outcome and acceptable strategy. But if you allow Libya a solo victory, it means you lost this game. You did the hard work - Libya could not have survived without your help - then he takes the victory. Weak strategy.
29 Jan 13 UTC Autumn, 2013: [India]:No matter what happens, I'm defeated in this game, so I'm writing this stuff purely for the benefit of the other players.
29 Jan 13 UTC Autumn, 2013: [India]:It is hard to offer constructive criticism to Indiana Monts of Quebec. Here is a player who is about to lose the game, and he thinks he has done well. Moreover, he set up his loss by making a fundamental error in strategy, which he does not recognise as an error.
29 Jan 13 UTC Autumn, 2013: [India]:Indiana Monts, you may be inexperienced in Diplomacy, and maybe one day you'll become a strong player. If that happens, you'll realise that I'm giving you sound advice. In the meantime, please just read what I'm going to write, and think about it.
29 Jan 13 UTC Autumn, 2013: [India]:To understand the fundamental principles of strategy, think about a game in which there are 3 players left, and you, Player3, are the weakest. Both of the other players want you as their ally - obviously. You can choose either. If you ally with the stronger player (Player1), the two of you crush Player2, and then Player1 has already won the game. So you ally yourself with Player2 and try to get your strength equal to his.

In this game, at the critical point where I appealed to you to join India and Oz against Brazil and Libya, there were effectively 3 groups left in the game. The strongest group (Player1) was Libya+Brazil. Player2 was India+Oz. You were Player3. You joined the stronger group. Wrong, wrong, always wrong.
29 Jan 13 UTC Autumn, 2013: [India]:See what happened? You + Brazil + Libya easily defeated India + Oz, and now you are the weakest member of the remaining trio. At the critical point, you already had a battle going against Brazil, and it would have been easy for you, in terms of your diplomatic integrity, to join India + Oz. The outcome would have been certain - victory for Quebec + India + Oz, and you would have had a much better cut that is exactly hance of coming out strong in the winning trio. Now clearly, the fight for you against Libya and Brazil would have been harder than against India and Oz, but that is exactly the point. The harder fight produces the better outcome for you.
29 Jan 13 UTC Autumn, 2013: [India]:In this game, apart from the fundamental rule I have explained, there was one more factor making it more attractive for you to join the Oz/India alliance than the Brazil/Libya alliance. Brazil/Libya had a passenger (FA) which would have (or at least want) to share in the spoils. So you were looking towards a 4-way draw with that group. With the Oz/India alliance, you could have hoped for a 3-way draw. How's your arithmetic?
29 Jan 13 UTC Autumn, 2013: [India]:Sorry, there was some text inserted in a paragraph above. I'll correct it.

At the critical point, you already had a battle going against Brazil, and it would have been easy for you, in terms of your diplomatic integrity, to join India + Oz. The outcome would have been certain - victory for Quebec + India + Oz, and you would have had a much better chance of coming out strong in the winning trio. Now clearly, the fight for you against Libya and Brazil would have been harder than against India and Oz, but that is exactly the point. The harder fight produces the better outcome for you.
29 Jan 13 UTC Autumn, 2013: [Brazil]:Whilst I disagree with your observations you yourself have made an error in judgement. I know diplomacy is fluid, however I try to stick with loyal allies. Your error in judgement was thus: the reason I am so happy for Libya to win is because of the sheer time this game has taken. You seem to think your delaying strategy was built around a solid basis of 'they may come to their senses". All it did for me was to tire of the game. You then mentioned how diplomacy is fluid. It can not be fluid with someone delaying. I know it is your prerogative to save, but surely you should have saw it was annoying people? I even offered some sort of reprieve when I offered a small token of help if you would ready up and turn on Oz (game being fluid and all that). Oz will probably go onto survive, he's played his end game excellently. I am frothing at the mouth to see him destroyed but because he's been helpful, caused no fuss and taken his demise like a man I am in someways happy he will get a survive instead of a defeat. I'm not going to insult you India as you seem a semi intelligent bloke. You just need to hold your hands up and admit your strategy was wrong.

For the record when Libya openly declared he was going to solo in any other game I would have tried to rally all the other troops against him. But as I said the life and even some of the enjoyment has gone from this game.

Thanks for your criticism I will take it on board for my next game.
29 Jan 13 UTC Autumn, 2013: [Brazil]:Sorry that was meant to read whilst I don't disagree with most of your observations.
29 Jan 13 UTC Autumn, 2013: [Oz]:Kind words for me there Brazil, thanks.
29 Jan 13 UTC Autumn, 2013: [India]:Thank you, Brazil. I think you're right about my error in judgement. I play hard, though, and I'll try anything legal if it may give me a chance to win. I was thinking that maybe someone would lose patience and give up. The real error was to join such a slow game. Whose game was it? I won't easily join such a slow game again in the future.
29 Jan 13 UTC Autumn, 2013: [Brazil]:Oz, you deserve them, you have done very well. India, I agree I now will only join 2-3 day phases at the longest. Overall its been an enjoyable game.
29 Jan 13 UTC Autumn, 2013: [Libya]:Brazil hit the nail on the head, while India seemingly rewrote history and mis-judged others' intentions. When I teamed up with Brazil, F-A, and (later) Quebec, I didn't expect to be this close to a single when India (and possibly Oz if he didn't join us) we're eliminated. My expectation is that I'd be the biggest, but not by much, with let's say 30 SCs. Had that been the case, I was fully expecting to have a four-way draw with F-A, Brazil, and Quebec (F-A included because of an earlier promise and my debt to him).

However, two things changed. 1) India started being an arse. At this point, my primary concern was to end the game without anyone that continued to aid him getting any points. 2) Oz joined us late in the game. A 5-way draw would have been too much, and my allies were not hurt by my singling.

This brings me to my final point: this game is not solely about who wins. I have two strategies in mind in any game: 1) what will be the most fun for everyone, and 2) how can I get the best "expected value" of points. The former basically means not playing with losers like you. The latter is very complicated.

If I were in Brazil's position, I probably would have teamed up with me anyway. He ended up pretty well ahead because of our alliance, and will probably finish up with around 16 SCs and around 40 points. That is pretty good.

If I were Quebec, it would have been a tougher decision. All things being equal, India/Oz were in a stronger position than Brazil/Libya, and India/Oz showed more promise of a three-way draw. In both cases, Quebec was joining a pair that had already been allies for a while (therefore loyalties might be questioned). However, India had shown himself to be a reckless stabber, and Quebec would have been smart to assume that India and Oz would attack him before allowing a three-way draw. I promised that I would keep Quebec in the game with at least as many SCs as he had at the time. There is no way to prove how things would have turned out had he joining the two of you (besides India's hearsay which is full of lies), but the facts bear out: he joined us and my promise will be fulfilled. Quebec is also ending this game in a good state.

That brings us to the final ally: Oz. In a normal game, Oz would have been well advised to either A) convince Quebec to join him and India, B) brutally turn on India and join Libya (me), or C) join Brazil and try to create a two-way finish. All of these would be great for Oz, and Oz was in a great negotiating position given his strength and central position in the mid-game. If I were Oz and India had entered moves on time, I probably would have gone for option A at all costs. India and Oz were in a strong position. However, with India playing unfairly the way he did I would have stabbed India regardless of how smart the alliance was.

Of course, it might be worth analyzing my own position. This game ended up well for me, but mostly because India's turn-holding made everyone want to finish the game quickly and my singling was the quickest way to do that (since India wouldn't draw early, I wouldn't draw once India had started playing unfairly, and Brazil was reluctant to include Oz in a draw). Thank you, India!

Had this been a normal game, I think I made two strategic mistakes. The first was leaving myself open to India early in the game when I had little reason to really trust him. This occurred when I allowed him to move to Turkey and didn't take it as an attack immediately. The second error was that I should have reached out to Quebec earlier for friendship. He was clearly a strategic partner, and help power over the final victor between the two world alliances. However, I was concerned on multiple occasions that he would stab Brazil and I because he entered moves that were different than those we agreed upon.

I had a great time playing with all of you.
29 Jan 13 UTC Autumn, 2013: [Libya]:(except India, haha)
29 Jan 13 UTC Autumn, 2013: [Libya]:In my opinion, every player deserves the share they are getting (besides maybe me who should be on-par with Brazil). Brazil played wonderfully, and was a loyal ally. Quebec was a good ally, but has a lot to learn about move tactics. Oz was a fantastic player to play with, always fair and honest, and deserves some stake of the pie for his play and for helping us end this. F-A gets a small bit as a consolation prize, which is kind of cool because he got bad luck in the early game. Lastly, India gets nothing, which I think most players would agree is quite fair.
29 Jan 13 UTC Autumn, 2013: [Libya]:The reality is that Brazil probably would have been the winner had I not been the one closest to India, and thus most in position to take his SCs quickly when we all decided to gang up on him.
29 Jan 13 UTC Autumn, 2013: [Quebec]:"And how is not this the most reprehensible ignorance, to think that one knows what one does not know? But I, O Athenians! in this, perhaps, differ from most men; and if I should say that I am in any thing wiser than another, it would be in this, that not having a competent knowledge of the things in Hades, I also think that I have not such knowledge." - Platone

dude... honestly, you really are a boring gamer. you think you know all the speeches I did with brazil? we thought we'd do something but your constant and annoying delay of the game led us to prefer the victory of Libya. you think you can judge my play from this game? I find you exactly in the description that plato writes in his apology to Socrates.

my play is to relax being that I work almost 16 hours a day and thanks to you, this game was not at all relaxing. and I do not ever abandon matches because a child has decided to take the ball away as you with your delay.

I think you made ​​us lose enough time. first with your game, now with your words.
and my time is money. because every minute of the game (to relax) is a minute taken away from my work.

I have not tried it for a second to win this game and I did not bother even for a moment to be eliminated by the betrayal of my allies (I would have put units in defense of british columbia and Midwest). the goal was to eliminate you from the game. reached.

in doing so I tried not to bother oz. I had to do it in Yakutsk because it was necessary. but later I helped him regain japan.

the game would be over this turn if I had not forgotten (due to too much work) to give an order agreed with Libya now too many days before (forgotten because of your delay the game at all).

and spared your lessons with private messages. you remember some magic pro player who think they know all the rules, take the piss the other and then they always bad figures against those who teased

the game now ending this year.

bye, good game and I hope I never meet you ever in future game of webdiplomacy (or in tournaments of diplomacy by table)
30 Jan 13 UTC Spring, 2014: [Libya]:Goodbye India!
01 Feb 13 UTC Spring, 2014: [Libya]:Haha now F-A isn't entering moves. I guess everyone is entitled to a delay once in a while.
01 Feb 13 UTC Spring, 2014: [Quebec]:pleeeease frozen ;_; I want to go on with my life
01 Feb 13 UTC Spring, 2014: [Libya]:He's been pretty responsive overall so it's probably just a brief thing. He hasn't logged in for 3 days, so it isn't like he's holding us up the way India was.
01 Feb 13 UTC Spring, 2014: [Quebec]:yes I know :)
03 Feb 13 UTC Spring, 2014: [Frozen-Antarctica]:Sorry folks.... been really busy, but back home & free now. An interesting game, exposing just how much I have to learn, but after dragging on so long it's almost a shame it's over. Thanks one & all.
03 Feb 13 UTC Spring, 2014: [Libya]:Heads up to all: I am going to be moving my army out of South Africa, thereby capturing only Mozambique and Japan this turn. These captures are both under previous agreements with Oz and F-A. I won't be going for any other territories, in the hope that all of the other remaining players get the maximum points when I solo. Anything else the rest of you do to each other is entirely up to you. Thank you all for a great game!
05 Feb 13 UTC [Quebec]:gg to all
05 Feb 13 UTC [Libya]:Good game everyone!
06 Feb 13 UTC [India]:"mattsh", you talk rubbish, and you are lucky I said nothing about you in my post-game analysis.
06 Feb 13 UTC [Libya]:India, you re-write history and are a sore loser. I think just about everything that happened since you stabbed me, lied to others, and screwed over your ally Oz by playing unfairly has been analyzed to death.

Start Backward Open large map Forward End

Libya
mattsh (775 D)
Won. Bet: 10 D, won: 115 D
46 supply-centers, 40 units
Brazil
BumChinRaptor (827 D)
Survived. Bet: 11 D, won: 58 D
22 supply-centers, 16 units
Quebec
Indiana Monts (279 D)
Survived. Bet: 10 D, won: 37 D
14 supply-centers, 14 units
Frozen-Antarctica
Survived. Bet: 10 D, won: 8 D
3 supply-centers, 3 units
Oz
The_Truth (0 D X)
Survived. Bet: 10 D, won: 3 D
1 supply-centers, 7 units
Europe
Macchiavelli (2359 D)
Defeated. Bet: 10 D
India
ChrisVis (1044 D)
Defeated. Bet: 10 D
Near-East
discordia (870 D)
Defeated. Bet: 10 D
USA
Vaelant (385 D)
Defeated. Bet: 10 D
Western-Canada
Magus (117 D)
Defeated. Bet: 10 D
China
QuizmoManiac (107 D)
Defeated. Bet: 10 D
Ghana
Cohughes (104 D)
Defeated. Bet: 10 D
Argentina
NSM (100 D)
Defeated. Bet: 10 D
Pacific-Russia
Nabber (100 D)
Defeated. Bet: 10 D
Kenya
gatsbygood (100 D)
Defeated. Bet: 18 D
Russia
chris-d-9 (0 D X)
Defeated. Bet: 10 D
South-Africa
crashbang (0 D X)
Defeated. Bet: 10 D
Civil Disorders
discordia (870 D)Near-East (Autumn, 2005) with 1 centres.
Kyle_Kilroy (0 D X)Quebec (Spring, 2003) with 4 centres.
greenman621`` (100 D)Kenya (Spring, 2004) with 7 centres.
Vaelant (385 D)USA (Autumn, 2006) with 1 centres.
NSM (100 D)Argentina (Autumn, 2002) with 0 centres.
Magus (117 D)Western-Canada (Autumn, 2007) with 1 centres.
QuizmoManiac (107 D)China (Autumn, 2003) with 0 centres.
TomsTacos (100 D)Europe (Spring, 2001) with 4 centres.
Cohughes (104 D)Ghana (Autumn, 2002) with 0 centres.
crashbang (0 D X)South-Africa (Autumn, 2002) with 2 centres.
gatsbygood (100 D)Kenya (Autumn, 2004) with 4 centres.
Archive: Orders - Maps - Messages