A Diplomystery: Tracking alliance patterns in a game to 1934
Forum rules
This forum is limited to topics relating to the game Diplomacy only. Other posts or topics will be relocated to the correct forum category or deleted. Please be respectful and follow our normal site rules at http://www.webdiplomacy.net/rules.php.
This forum is limited to topics relating to the game Diplomacy only. Other posts or topics will be relocated to the correct forum category or deleted. Please be respectful and follow our normal site rules at http://www.webdiplomacy.net/rules.php.
-
- Posts: 19
- Joined: Thu Jun 18, 2020 12:05 am
- Contact:
A Diplomystery: Tracking alliance patterns in a game to 1934
I thought it would be fun and rewarding to look at how alliances shifted in a game that lasted until 1934. By 1923, 6 out of 7 nations were still alive. This game really shows how important it is to be fluid with your allies. Let me know if you notice anything I didn't that led to this win.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PIm0bF7EOTk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PIm0bF7EOTk
-
- Posts: 4304
- Joined: Fri Sep 29, 2017 4:16 pm
- Location: The Five Valleys, Gloucestershire
- Contact:
Re: A Diplomystery: Tracking alliance patterns in a game to 1934
Firstly, I'm a little curious over why you're using a flag that stopped being used over 200 years ago to represent England. The current Union Flag, or even the Cross of St George, are both acceptable options. A relic of the American rebellion is a distraction.
In terms of the game, it's still a mystery to me why Turkey won. There's no obvious reason why he should have. He's not managed to sneak a unit across the stalemate line or anything like that (although I find it very hard to tell on the Backstabbr map). Did someone missorder? Was there an unfortunate Civil Disorder? Did Turkey make a deal with someone to throw the game? Your comment in the end that Italy maybe joined forces with Turkey to end the game... what is that based on exactly?
In terms of the game, it's still a mystery to me why Turkey won. There's no obvious reason why he should have. He's not managed to sneak a unit across the stalemate line or anything like that (although I find it very hard to tell on the Backstabbr map). Did someone missorder? Was there an unfortunate Civil Disorder? Did Turkey make a deal with someone to throw the game? Your comment in the end that Italy maybe joined forces with Turkey to end the game... what is that based on exactly?
-
- Posts: 19
- Joined: Thu Jun 18, 2020 12:05 am
- Contact:
Re: A Diplomystery: Tracking alliance patterns in a game to 1934
Ha. I just went for the most recognizable flag. Totally inaccurate I know. I did the same for Russia. I also called them England / Britain interchangeably, which I know drives some people nuts. Oh well.
Turkey seems to have counted on the other powers squabbling and he pounced at the right moments. I would have predicted an English win based on board position. The second last turn had Turkey in Nap. The only other available place for him to secure a build would have been Mun. I'm guessing that England didn't want Turkey to win, and he had the power to stop Turkey. So, without seeing the final move, I think Italy, who was mostly dead, must have united with Turkey. I could be wrong though.
Turkey seems to have counted on the other powers squabbling and he pounced at the right moments. I would have predicted an English win based on board position. The second last turn had Turkey in Nap. The only other available place for him to secure a build would have been Mun. I'm guessing that England didn't want Turkey to win, and he had the power to stop Turkey. So, without seeing the final move, I think Italy, who was mostly dead, must have united with Turkey. I could be wrong though.
Re: A Diplomystery: Tracking alliance patterns in a game to 1934
I think the point Octavious was making is that you *didn't* go for the most recognisable flag:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_Jack
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_Jack
Re: A Diplomystery: Tracking alliance patterns in a game to 1934
Interesting analysis, though! I'm curious how you decided who was working together and who wasn't- there were some turns there where it's hard to say for sure - and in many games I've been in, I don't think the alliance structure is well represented from the moves.
Also, was this a game with press, or no press?
Also, was this a game with press, or no press?
Re: A Diplomystery: Tracking alliance patterns in a game to 1934
> I would have predicted an English win based on board position.
Go on....
Go on....
Re: A Diplomystery: Tracking alliance patterns in a game to 1934
Apparently this was a gunboat game among F2F players for additional context.
Re: A Diplomystery: Tracking alliance patterns in a game to 1934
Hey! I was France in this game. It was a no press gunboat tournament game.
Re: A Diplomystery: Tracking alliance patterns in a game to 1934
Also Turkey did not win, we stopped him at 17.
-
- Posts: 19
- Joined: Thu Jun 18, 2020 12:05 am
- Contact:
Re: A Diplomystery: Tracking alliance patterns in a game to 1934
It was a Gunboat game, so no press. I mostly looked at whether a nation was actively attacking, passively waiting to attack, moving away from, or working to help another nation. That was my scale.A_Tin_Can wrote: ↑Fri Jul 10, 2020 4:07 pmInteresting analysis, though! I'm curious how you decided who was working together and who wasn't- there were some turns there where it's hard to say for sure - and in many games I've been in, I don't think the alliance structure is well represented from the moves.
Also, was this a game with press, or no press?
-
- Posts: 19
- Joined: Thu Jun 18, 2020 12:05 am
- Contact:
Re: A Diplomystery: Tracking alliance patterns in a game to 1934
There was no way that any nation would have gotten into the English seas which means they have a lot of protected builds without many forces needed to guard them.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users