webdiplomacy.net

Congrats to woland for his solo!! Repping that f2f community properly!

Durga wrote: ↑

Sat May 04, 2019 1:06 pm

Congrats to woland for his solo!! Repping that f2f community properly!

What an absolute shitshow of a game. Whoever "Scarabus" is he should never play Diplomacy again. He deliberately threw the game and was an asshole from start to finish. I don't know where he came from but he can crawl back there.

Well done Woland, you did play well, but Scarabus's game-throwing ruined it for everyone else.

A horrible game to have to participate in.

Durga wrote: ↑

Sat May 04, 2019 1:06 pm

Congrats to woland for his solo!! Repping that f2f community properly!

So that explains the press I thought he was from Conspiracy and sandbagging or something.

Well done, Woland.

I have to agree with Jamiet here. And not just about England. The game wasn’t the best . . .

Jamiet99uk wrote: ↑

Sat May 04, 2019 2:44 pm

Durga wrote: ↑

Sat May 04, 2019 1:06 pm

Congrats to woland for his solo!! Repping that f2f community properly!

What an absolute shitshow of a game. Whoever "Scarabus" is he should never play Diplomacy again. He deliberately threw the game and was an asshole from start to finish. I don't know where he came from but he can crawl back there.

Well done Woland, you did play well, but Scarabus's game-throwing ruined it for everyone else.

A horrible game to have to participate in.

I've not had issues with this user.

But that was disgusting. I think we can all agree in G29 that Scarabus made terrible plays. (Although everyone else played really well, aside from the old Russia.)

Where should they discuss it then? I mean, discussions like this are pretty standard for tournament threads.

I split that thread, you can have the commentary here.

On that note, what a shit show of a game.

goldfinger0303 wrote: ↑

Sun May 05, 2019 3:14 am

Where should they discuss it then? I mean, discussions like this are pretty standard for tournament threads.

I don't care, just not here

Durga wrote: ↑

Sun May 05, 2019 3:24 am

goldfinger0303 wrote: ↑

Sun May 05, 2019 3:14 am

Where should they discuss it then? I mean, discussions like this are pretty standard for tournament threads.

I don't care, just not here

Here is fine, just not in the tournament thread.

Would love to see some EoG discussion take off here. Swordsman's record of his game was some of the most interesting diplomacy writing I've ever seen, by the way. Anyone in G12 interested?

I subbed into that game and as soon as I showed up a whole crew of people sent me messages letting me know their willingness to throw the game. I managed to calm down everyone but England who appeared hell bent on throwing the game. This was very disheartening because it was totally a savable game.

Yeah, I've seen a lot of less experienced games working to through games in fits of pique. In one game we just barely manage to eliminate one rampager in time, which can be very gratfiying.

diplomat554 wrote: ↑

Sun May 05, 2019 9:10 pm

Would love to see some EoG discussion take off here. Swordsman's record of his game was some of the most interesting diplomacy writing I've ever seen, by the way. Anyone in G12 interested?

The exploits of Game 1 are captured in a series of epic poems in public press for all to see. Admittedly, when historians look back, it may not prove to be quite as helpful a resource as Swordsman’s excellent tome, but it is more concise and perhaps more amusing. I’ll post a sample here for your edification and schadenfreude.

Well looky here, hold my beer, I see a shot cross my bow,
A key stroke from the pink bloke, tryina raise an eyebrow.
This smitten kitten from Britain, sad, mad, snakebitten,
Just sitten and spitten, like he can’t find his mitten.

Listen.

I suggest that you best go back to sipping high tea.
You nyet wanna get in a rap battle with me.

Coming out here all salty, with a fucking four-liner,
Like yer some kinda poet; not a habitual whiner.
A sublime little rhyme, about a cock-sucking criminal.
Okay, so you’re just as crude as you are unoriginal.

You aint, like a Saint, bro, you more like the damned,
But let’s be clear, why we here, and your Chunnel is jammed,
It’s not cause we fought, or your lack of gentility,
It’s not the pungent odor of your contemptibility.

It’s not for your stabs, or the insults you threw,
Although, we both know, that all happened too.
No, you’re taking this loss, like a turkey takes stuffing,
Cause you tried to call my bluff when I wasn’t bluffing.

That is awesome, and I found an interesting post in that global that I wanted to dissect from a tactic's standpoint.

Ah, but that is exactly the point, Russia. You did not work hard enough against Italy! Look back again at that retreat to Smyrna: it was a terrible move, isolating your fleet and allowing Italy into the Black Sea.

I wrote and wrote to you telling you why you had to retreat to the Black Sea but you wouldn't have it: keeping the fleet in St.P was more important to you than defeating Italy. That fleet had only one use: to cause mischief for me later. Why would I accept an alliance where only you grow, I get no builds, and you still have a lever against me?

Looking at the game board in Autumn of 06 there was basically no chance of Italy solo'ing. Russia had unit positioning set up perfectly to allow Italy to slowly devour Turkish centers since there was no possible way of defending those long term, and the retreat into Smyrna slowed down Italy's growth. The Black Sea was inevitable for Italy and there was no tactical benefit to keeping it. In that position it absolutely made sense to keep a unit in Stp to ensure that nobody tried to cut him out of a draw when there was 0 solo risk increase in return. The key unit was Sev for 18, and with 4 armies in Galicia, Ukraine, Sev, and Moscow, Italy was not going to win that game. Russia's tactical handling of the solo prevention was sound. The ONLY reason that game ended in a solo is because the tournament structure encourages people to be greedy with supply centers to the point of poor play, which is exactly what happened to England. No top player is going to allow themselves to be eaten up and risk a drawback from Italy allowing them to be eliminated in any game, much less a tournament.

And the idea that England needed a build there was foolish. Once MAO was locked down there was no need for England to grow. Throw in Germany's poor play to attack Russia with England for points, and honestly I've never been happier to see someone throw a game. Because the play by England and Germany there didn't deserve any points.

What?! JMO agreeing with me about something? Huzzah!

I am just, really excited about this. You get me, JMO. You get me.

jmo1121109 wrote: ↑

Tue May 07, 2019 9:51 pm

That is awesome, and I found an interesting post in that global that I wanted to dissect from a tactic's standpoint.

Ah, but that is exactly the point, Russia. You did not work hard enough against Italy! Look back again at that retreat to Smyrna: it was a terrible move, isolating your fleet and allowing Italy into the Black Sea.

I wrote and wrote to you telling you why you had to retreat to the Black Sea but you wouldn't have it: keeping the fleet in St.P was more important to you than defeating Italy. That fleet had only one use: to cause mischief for me later. Why would I accept an alliance where only you grow, I get no builds, and you still have a lever against me?

Looking at the game board in Autumn of 06 there was basically no chance of Italy solo'ing. Russia had unit positioning set up perfectly to allow Italy to slowly devour Turkish centers since there was no possible way of defending those long term, and the retreat into Smyrna slowed down Italy's growth. The Black Sea was inevitable for Italy and there was no tactical benefit to keeping it. In that position it absolutely made sense to keep a unit in Stp to ensure that nobody tried to cut him out of a draw when there was 0 solo risk increase in return. The key unit was Sev for 18, and with 4 armies in Galicia, Ukraine, Sev, and Moscow, Italy was not going to win that game. Russia's tactical handling of the solo prevention was sound. The ONLY reason that game ended in a solo is because the tournament structure encourages people to be greedy with supply centers to the point of poor play, which is exactly what happened to England. No top player is going to allow themselves to be eaten up and risk a drawback from Italy allowing them to be eliminated in any game, much less a tournament.

And the idea that England needed a build there was foolish. Once MAO was locked down there was no need for England to grow. Throw in Germany's poor play to attack Russia with England for points, and honestly I've never been happier to see someone throw a game. Because the play by England and Germany there didn't deserve any points.

I agree with your sentiment, but England & Germany's backstab for more points was a brilliant move that was brilliantly executed. It even blindsided me. The backstab only failed because they got cursed with someone who was not only vindictive, but someone who could throw the game away with no consequences (it's hard to believe threats that appear empty - since Russia wouldn't logically throw the game away would he? Especially since he proved to be such a brilliant player earlier in the game) - that was unfortunate, but shit like that happens, and I don't think that's their fault.

England played pretty good, Germany less so (at least in the later stages for sure). England really shouldn't of gotten involved with Russia in Scandanavia - Russia wasn't going to bother him (at least not at that time), and instead of buttfumbling around over Belgium, he and Germany should of teamed up immediately once they England became aware that France wasn't going to cede Belgium over (which I can assure you, he knew about in Autumn 1901). By the time they did team up, they'd started something they couldn't finish over Scandanavia with Russia and Russia & I essentially stopped their alliance in its tracks by supporting Austria into Munich (of course we wanted to slow the growth of our Northern neighbors who posed the greatest threat to our alliance) - which was the beginning of the end for their alliance's rise in the North.

Anyways, that Wintergreen alliance was fun Balki (while it lasted), and I hope you don't hold any hard feelings over my backstab (we both knew it was inevitable when we started to grow to that size - and when I started growing faster than you).

No hard feelings at all, Chipperock. The opening set of moves in this game worked about as well as possible from my perspective, and our alliance zoomed out to a fast start. When France decided to hand you his centers, it was the beginning of the end for me. I tried to negotiate my way around it, but it gave you an opening you couldn’t refuse. I don’t blame you for that.

Commenting on games you weren't involved in is never easy as so much happens that you aren't privy to. If I was Balki I'd have no regrets at all about sticking it to England and Germany. Where I would be critical of myself is in the failure to establish believability prior to informing EG of the consequences of their aggression. Sometimes you can walk away confident that you did everything you could and it's just one of those things, and other times you are left with little irritations over opportunities missed and conversations that were mishandled.

I'm curious if Balki would have done anything differently given the chance?

Octavious wrote: ↑

Wed May 08, 2019 5:07 pm

Commenting on games you weren't involved in is never easy as so much happens that you aren't privy to. If I was Balki I'd have no regrets at all about sticking it to England and Germany. Where I would be critical of myself is in the failure to establish believability prior to informing EG of the consequences of their aggression. Sometimes you can walk away confident that you did everything you could and it's just one of those things, and other times you are left with little irritations over opportunities missed and conversations that were mishandled.

I'm curious if Balki would have done anything differently given the chance?

It's a great question, Octavious. I always like to say (obnoxiously, from my high horse) that, after a game doesn't go my way, I think about my own mistakes -- the things that were under my control -- rather than making excuses and blaming others. Of course, I say that -- but I hardly ever do it. It's just so gratifying to make excuses.

I worked really hard to convince England and Germany that they should not attack me while I was "Hodor, holding back the undead army." I probably sent 20 messages to England along those lines. I tried to do it before the Spring move, hoping for a bounce in Norway, and then even after the Spring stab, I made clear that I would throw the game if they took my centers and they still had time to continue the game as a non-loss. To publicly commit myself further, I took my threat to public press.

So, I definitely put a lot of effort into making absolutely clear what I would do if they decided to take my centers. But, I obviously was not effective. So, if I had another chance at it, how would I do it differently? Hard to say. England and I had a poor relationship all game, which came from some earlier jabs at each other. I think my errors came during that phase, and by the time we had to work together in the end, it may have been beyond repair, no matter how much effort I put in.

The best lesson for me, I think, which is a lesson I could take from many games -- if I had any talent for self-reflection -- is that it is just so absolutely important to keep a good rapport even with your worst enemies. Especially in sum of squares, almost nobody is eliminated, and almost everyone will make decisions in the end that have a huge impact on your score. To burn a bridge with anyone, with actions or words, will very often come back to bite you. It did in this game for me.

Octavious wrote: ↑

Wed May 08, 2019 5:07 pm

Commenting on games you weren't involved in is never easy as so much happens that you aren't privy to. If I was Balki I'd have no regrets at all about sticking it to England and Germany. Where I would be critical of myself is in the failure to establish believability prior to informing EG of the consequences of their aggression. Sometimes you can walk away confident that you did everything you could and it's just one of those things, and other times you are left with little irritations over opportunities missed and conversations that were mishandled.

I'm curious if Balki would have done anything differently given the chance?

See I don't really agree with this entirely. You're right that the press changes many things but it does not change base tactics. And the moves by E and G tactically were unmistakable for people considering eliminating Russia from the match. That is universally responded too with throwing the game. Autumn, 1907 was the big mistake in my mind. Tactically alone, Russia *NEEDED* 4 armies including an army in Galicia to stop the Italian solo. Germany's move on Warsaw was going to prevent that setup from being possible timing wise even if Balki hadn't thrown. They compromised the solo stop with that attack. So it went from being a sound plan to a terrible one with that purely tactical mess up.

This tournament in particular seems to have a lot of people not believing that someone will be willing to throw when screwed over so to see people continuing to make that mistake is baffling.