Messages - webDiplomacy

Chat archive

17 Mar 24 UTC	Spring, 1960: Good luck!
17 Mar 24 UTC	Spring, 1960: To you too!!
17 Mar 24 UTC	Autumn, 1960: I see you are taking Japan this time, but repeated the Norwegian Sea gambit. I made the right read in Leningrad once before. Can I guess right again …..? Stay tuned.
17 Mar 24 UTC	Autumn, 1960: We'll see :) I'm just hoping you guess wrong. Good luck
17 Mar 24 UTC	Autumn, 1960: I think I agree with your preference for the Norwegian opening. It immediately creates a hard choice for USSR. It seems there are three main outcomes, and two of them are bad for USSR and only one is bad for NATO. The odds seem to favor NATO even though a good guess by USSR will leave NATO behind.
17 Mar 24 UTC	Autumn, 1960: And you did it again! Lucky :) What do you mean with 3 outcomes? I have more: If NATO goes to Leningrad: 1. NATO gets Leningrad 2. East Germany bounces. USSR is up a centre and can build a fleet there. 3. Sweden bounces. Centres equal, but USSR can likely take Sweden next year If NATO doesn't go to Leningrad: 4. Vacant, USSR is up a centre with Sweden 5. Sweden moves there, NATO has better positioning. 6. East Germany moves there, NATO takes East Germany. NATO has much better positioning. So, in 2 scenarios USSR is up a centre. In one scenario the US is up one and the USSR down one. So a difference of 2. Pretty equal. And in two scenarios the USSR has better positioning (building a fleet there or taking Sweden next year), and in THREE NATO has better positioning (USSR can't build there, taking East Germany, taking Leningrad. That's my reasoning behind this opening. It has a very slight positioning advantage for NATO if I reasoned correctly. It's barely anything and often goes wrong, but hey, 4 vs 5 builds is no disaster. I can recover
17 Mar 24 UTC	Autumn, 1960: Generally speaking the three scenarios I envision are: 1. NATO takes Leningrad creating a center advantage for NATO, which is bad for USSR. 2. USSR successfully moves the Baltic fleet to Leningrad to cover it. The SC count is probably equal, but USSR cannot build in Leningrad, which is bad for USSR. 3. Leningrad remains vacant and USSR gets Sweden. USSR has an SC advantage. This is the one entirely positive outcome for USSR, but it takes some nerve to leave Leningrad vulnerable. I discount any option that involves moving East Germany to Leningrad (either to bounce or cover), because that creates all of the worst outcomes for USSR. If East Germany successfully moves to Leningrad, then NATO gets an SC advantage (by taking East Germany) and USSR cannot build in Leningrad. It's the worst possible outcome. It seems to me USSR should either cover Leningrad with the Baltic fleet or leave it empty.
17 Mar 24 UTC	Autumn, 1960: Obviously if NATO takes Leningrad, USSR cannot build there. But at least that version does not end with a NATO army next to Moscow.
18 Mar 24 UTC	Spring, 1961: Regarding the East Germany cover option, NATO does not get an SC advantage because the USSR still gets Sweden. Both get one. However, it's going to be more difficult catching up whilst NATO picks up West Germany. Expelling them with Moscow and Leningrad whilst also keeping Leningrad safe from the Norwegian fleet is not easy
18 Mar 24 UTC	Spring, 1961: Yeah, the Norwegian opening is fascinating. So much to think about! Other common variations aren't as complicated in my opinion
18 Mar 24 UTC	Autumn, 1961: I'm pleased by how things look in Asia. You have a lot of difficult guesses to make! Europe, not so much. But it's fine. It's a small difference. See, I'm trying to bind your units in Russia to try and defend against my army there. Your job is to not let that happen and still make the right moves to prevent it from taking centres. Not going to be easy. We'll see
18 Mar 24 UTC	Autumn, 1961: Does USSR sometimes build an army in Vladivostok just to prevent the convoy you just made?
18 Mar 24 UTC	Autumn, 1961: Seems like a limited build, but it would have been useful to block your army.
18 Mar 24 UTC	Autumn, 1961: I don't know if that's common. This is an unusual situation
18 Mar 24 UTC	Autumn, 1961: I just felt like another army in Asia was unlikely to be useful long term, but it would have been great in the short term.
18 Mar 24 UTC	Autumn, 1961: Yeah I agree. Long term it isn't a good idea... but now you need it See how bad it is to have an enemy unit in Siberia or Ural? It's very important to execute that convoy, even at the expense of falling behind in europe. Well that's how I see it. You know by now that I like to play risky.
19 Mar 24 UTC	Spring, 1962: This feels like the decisive year. There are lots of interesting choices to be made.
19 Mar 24 UTC	Spring, 1962: Yes, it's really chaotic.
19 Mar 24 UTC	Spring, 1962: So, let's see! You succeeded in Germany and France. In Asia I did better, I can take Japan and Force you to choose between taking Shanghai and blocking me from Indonesia. In America, I can threaten Panama and Havana, you are forced to build to prevent me from taking Havana the year after. In the mediterranean you had the upper hand and that's still the case, no major changes. I need some luck to make up for the losses in Europe.
20 Mar 24 UTC	Autumn, 1962: The map is a mess for sure.