I'm going to have to do a lot of digging to refresh my memory of this game. As Austria rightly points out, I spent some of it obscenely drunk. EOG will come within the next week or so.

Maybe while you're doing that, uclabb could tell me what magic words would have gotten him to take Sev and Rum sometime before 1910 :p

please didn't do it?

@Stack- why should I have? I see absolutely no reason.

If I had a very convincing reason, of course, I would have sent it to you in 1905. But hindsight must make one a bit more likely to exist. After all, your centres and position basically didn't change between F04 and F09. You can get away with that playing Turkey, but surely there's a possibility taking an easy build from Russia one of the times he was vulnerable would have gotten you the chance to break out sooner.

And there's always the quid pro quo aspect. You wanted to shut down the French solo, and getting me into Moscow before England was out would have done that. I grant that you weren't inclined to help me after I refused to attack France before England lost Sweden, but that doesn't mean it couldn't have been a stronger play. There might be a more straightforward reason I can offer if I look through the maps from 1905-1908.

I had no faith that you were going to defend yourself against France. Starting in 1905 or whenever, the whole time you were leaving yourself open to France, so in my mind it made no sense to let you get into a position where when France stabs you you are now able to effectively throw the game to him.

And I don't think that there is much of an argument around the whole "you didn't gain any centers" thing. I already had perfect position and a guaranteed three way draw (well... ). The only question was trying to get a solo position, and the only way I could see to get that was to flip you and Italy onto France and get the position moving that way.

Couldn't disagree more.

1) There was next to no evidence that Germany would 'throw the game' to France. If every time an ally left himself a bit exposed, the assumption was that he would 'throw the game' - that would be stupid. Moreover, Germany was forced into leaving himself exposed because you propped Russia up. Had you not done that, Germany would have been in a position to not be exposed to France.
If anything, your actions facilitated the French solo push that almost resulted in a solo. In fact, a correct French guess at the end had the solo in the bag.

2) Had you stabbed Russia, you would have got way more centers rather than sitting static for 6 years. With builds pouring in fast, and armies in Rumania, Sevastopol and eventually Galicia - you would be in a much stronger position to eliminate Austria by surrounding him and perhaps use the fleets to push on against Italy.
Certainly, had you stabbed Russia - I would have considered stabbing Italy (as I made clear multiple times, including by taking Trieste)- AI fighting was basically ideal for you as it would put both me and Italy on the chopping block for you. You kept hoping that you would just wing it (for example, through your ridiculous counter offers to me) - but you failed miserably at that, and better diplomacy to encourage A-I war by stabbing Russia was the way to go imo.

You don't get to solo by staying static for 7 years and not doing jack shit. The bottom line is that in 1902 Winter, you expected the next 7 years to be much better than they were - so you were basically wrong. Had you grown and got into better overall positions, you would have greater strength and greater diplomatic leverage - and a solo would have definitely been on the cards with a stronger Germany holding off France. The only way to 'flip Italy and Germany' onto France was to stab Russia - not doing that was the wrong choice. Instead, you turtled and stayed in the corner, essentially feeding off our mistakes, risking a French solo, and ensuring yourself a draw rather than a much better result.

3) There were many mistakes that AI made. Had Russia fallen before we committed errors, its entirely possible AI would have advanced on Turkey.
Had that Turkish army been destroyed whittling you down to a solitary army, its entirely possible you would have been pushed back further.
Lets not forget - For the most part it was never in Russian interests to stab Turkey. But Russia *did* turn on you when he thought it was in his interest. If he had turned on you when you were down to just one solitary army - you were fucked. to put it mildly...

I think Turkey made a bad decision to not take Russia out and got very lucky. He made one or two brilliant defensive moves - but he also got very lucky with multiple mistakes on our part - He ended up almost giving France the solo, and also ensured that he never had the chance to solo himself.

Also, YHN - really looking forward to the Italian EOG!

I don't think i agree Russia needed to be stabbed, but I do agree uclabb didn't take near the right steps to work towards a solo. When there's a solo run from France then Turkey is generally in the best position to capitalize and there were a lot of factors working in your favour by around the time of my rise in 1910.

At that time the Juggernaut seemed pretty tight and at that point you were the final remaining real alliance on the board with a respectable 10 SC's between you which compared to my 11 was a pretty balanced fight. As i was already clawing at Italy and Germany you also had another two countries with 8 SCs together who ought to have been quite happy to help your cause. All you needed to do was push these combined 18 centers in my direction (taking out Austria remaining 3SC's out on the way) and completely neutralize as a solo threat. Once that was done and Italy/Germany were holding down the front you could have then been able to start picking away from their rear and making a run with the Juggernaut.

The reason that never happened was due to poor investment into relations with them. This is that "rapport based on nothing" approach you chased me of in your EOG, but that was why two countries i helped eliminate were willing to help me later in the game so it's really not a waste of time. You over pushed the "France is a solo threat" campaign too early which made it sound like background noise by the time it actually was true. You also for some reason felt the need to force yourself into Ion completely killed your chances of ever getting Italy's full support. Had you unified a collective resistance and patiently earned a little goodwill you'd have probably been able to eventually just talk yourself into Ion in the name of offering help and set yourself up nicely for an Italian invasion later on.

I also have little doubt you could have also properly set up Ssorenn for a strong stab at the end. Late in this game he seemed fairly content to take a lackey role, something i suspect could have carried on even under times of greater success, and he seemed pretty content in just getting a moral victory of knocking Germany out. He would have spent all his builds on Stp NC fleets and Warsaw armies to push west and north leaving you wide open to eventually walk in his back door when the time was right. By that time i wouldn't really be in much position to help him.

Your "don't tell a lie all game approach" seemed a pretty squandered. Bluffing certainly have helped you on more then a few occasions while the frank 'honesty' in many ways only hurt you to the point of Germany trying to throw me the game following your blunt "tough break, we're cutting you from the draw" attitude, Italy seemed clearly was on edge with you throughout putting a French solo a lot closer to reality because of it, and your unfiltered frankness certainly burned bridges with me early on. Now that you'd mentioned it in the EOG i can see maybe you actually were pretty honest all game but at the time i don't think anybody actually perceived you in that light. Something about your personality just seemed untrustworthy and dodging direct answers often came cross about as bad as a lie would have.

A lot more effort towards diplomacy, more focus in the game, and loosening up a little on the blunt 'honesty' probably could have made all the difference in the world for you.

Well, we never got around to discussing it, uclabb, and that's at least mostly my fault because I never raised it. But I never got the sense you were very willing to listen to me. Maybe I was wrong.

But Sh@dow's point is basically what I would say. I'd committed so much against Russia by the time it became clear that France was becoming a threat that I had run out of options. Either stay the course and get taken out by Russia, or fall back and defend, and get taken out by France. The only player on the board that could have changed my calculus was you.

And, again, I didn't say it in the game so I can't blame you for thinking the way you did. But I'm pretty sure VillageIdiot will believe I'd have attacked him pretty much the second I got Moscow.

I love how VI knows exactly what anyone would have done. He only knows what I told him and nothing more and nothing less.
As far as the Turks honesty, it was one of the reasons I worked with him. After the press nightmare of years 1 and 2, it helped us both get past all the bullshit on the board. And if the English weren't so waveringly stupid, this game would have been very different.

tbh, I still don't really understand what happened you between you and England, ssorenn. It never made any sense to me that you two started fighting (I loved it of course but it didn't make sense), and even after reading your eog and VillageIdiot's, I don't really get it.

At one point when I got Scandinavia or maybe just Sweden back, and VI had stabbed the English I was having long conversations with the English and the only thing he wanted was to reengaged the French. I said great, with my forces and maybe one or two of his units we could have finished you off stack. I told him point blank, I was taking Norway, but that would be as far as I would go, because I wanted him to engage the French. It would have allowed me to move south, and free up turkey and I from the A/I in the center. When I built a fleet in st Pete, England went nuts, and started becoming very erratic. That wavering cost him the game

I think pretty close to everything Sh@dow just said was wrong and pretty much everything VillageIdiot just said was right.

Especially at the start of the game, my expectation was that I would be sending most likely the least press out of any of the 7 powers (I think this turned out to be true), so I decided to try to set up a powerful strategic position and suck the air out of the game. My hope was that pairing this with bluntness would create a sufficient credible threat to get Germany and Italy to fight for their place in the draw rather than just accept the inevitable 3 way F/R/T draw. The way to do this was to go after France. I think I was right about this and the game result reflected this (sans the failure to eliminate Italy). I failed to sufficiently communicate this to I/G, especially because I failed to translate my bluntness/honesty into trust. This was my critical error, i think.

Pretty much everythig you said, Sh@dow, was nonsense. There was no point in the game after Russia's NMR that I was at all in danger of elimination, and there was no point where France was a guess away from winning, assuming Germany would have been willing to flip back with us if France had guessed right, which I am confident is the case. Also, for the record, in no way did R/T get lucky in our defense against A/I. If anything, we got unlucky- we guessed wrong and/or Russia NMRed on the first 3 or 4 turns. I think this fact is reflected by your belief that we occasionally made "brilliant" defensive moves- I don't think any of the moves we made were particularly inspired. They were just good moves.

Correct, you were the only person who bought into his "i cannot tell a lie" angle which would have well set you up for a late game stab. I would have loved to have had you as an ally if i was in in Turkey's situation, aside from the unreliability of the NMR and not listening to advice over potential game ending vulnerabilities.

Whatever. If turkey stabbed me, you would have solo'd. He could never take more than 2 of my 4. And I did not want the three way because then maybe you figure out how to get rid of me. Get off your horse VI. Turkey needed me to hold the line. I'm more than positive that he, if possible would have taken me out, but the way the end game happened it really wasn't a possibility.

uclabb, there was definitely some lucky, maybe not against AI, but against AIG. Eg, in Spring 1905, both Moscow and Warsaw are vulnerable, but I attacked StP instead. In Spring 1908, italy and I lose Ukraine when we definitely could have kept it alive by attacking Moscow again.

And are you saying that if I had come to you in, say, Spring 1908, when I'd moved back to Munich and could have actually attacked France, that you still would have said no if I'd asked for help? I was thinking about it but never seriously entertained making a big proposal because you had definitely given me the impression you weren't interested in any kind of deal.

I wouldn't go as far as that, ssoren, but I will say this- I had no interest in taking you out instead of Italy/Germany. At all points in the game, to my eye at least, there was no time that stabbing you would do anything except give I/A/G breathing room, so I never seriously considered doing so.

I'm not saying he should have stabbed Russia in this context, absolutely right it would have been short sighted. My point was he should have tried to leverage both G and I at the same time against me rather then play them off each other to create a stronger position for himself and take out any chance i had at a solo. I'm saying you were low hanging fruit that uclabb probably could have been able to easily blindside and out play if he were able to create for himself a solo run opportunity.

Sorry if that wasn't clear.

@Stack- I'm not sure. I would have to look back. It was a somewhat hard position because the position was such that R/T > A/I but A/I > T, so what I didn't want was to stab Russia and then have you and France stalemate forever, especially because the likely outcome of that was eventual reconciliation. You also have to remember that around that time you kept sending me messages that effectively said "he hasn't stabbed me yet, so he probably won't ever" even though literally all of his units were in the north, including Holland and North Sea. This made me have very little faith that you would attack France. Italy also had screwed me over a few times by then as well.

Having said that, looking at the board, Autumn 1908 was where I got Italy's fleet in Albania disbanded adn France moved to West Med, so this is exactly when I was trying to get Italy against France (and to my memory, you to join). So I think the answer is yes?

I've pointed out about 3-4 different occasions where RT was on the ropes. Had we made the right moves, or more importantly not fucked up in the diplomacy, coordination and communication before deadlines - there were multiple opportunities to make significant dents into RT - dents that may have been crippling in nature.
Easy for anyone to claim 'nonsense', but when you don't engage with the substantive examples, arguments, or points, then my assessment of your claim is 'nonsense' as well.
Not just was France a guess away from winning at 1 point with an attack on unprotected Berlin, but Russia's NMR was inconsequential for reasons I have outlined earlier.
You've obviously not read the moments I pointed out in any detail - so its not surprising that you make claims on a foundation of hot air.

I can maybe address you point by point tonight, Sh@dow, but the last time I did this you just ignored it. I'm pretty confident that Italy would agree that you two never actually had any chance of taking me out; I'm pretty confident that in his mind he was stalling/ holding the stalemate waiting for the draw.

To talk from hindsight means so lillte though. You can probably go though any game and say "what if"

I probably wasn't very persuasive in my presentation, uclabb. What I had been thinking, but definitely didn't say to you, is that France was obviously being very strategic in his choice of when to attack me. He wasn't going to do so just because there was a quick centre he could pick up without a bigger payoff following that being pretty clear. So I ought to have been telling you I thought I had more time, and a better chance of opening something up for you if I had a bigger force to attack France.

1908 or 1909 was probably the closest I had to good chance, and the most aligned our positions were.

And Sh@dow is right - I was playing with fire and I think the first two times Berlin was vulnerable, France probably would have soloed if he has guessed right. If we were guessing right in Livonia, I could have flipped sides and maybe stopped him. But I don't know if I would have been able to if, the first fall phase we bounced in Liv, he'd have taken Berlin instead.

Sh@dow is wrong. We could literally take Berlin back the exact same way we took it in the first way. The only way Sh@dow would be right is if you would have been unwilling to work with us if we had guessed wrong. I don't believe that to be the case, and it sounds like you are saying that was not the case.

Looking at the map, you're right. I'm thinking of Fall 1913 and probably would have refused to do anything except order Baltic-Berlin, though, and it looks like you and Russia could have made that move succeed if you wanted to. I might have insisted on waiting for the fall phase and given France support for the spring, so that you couldn't boot me out of Berlin without knowing that losing it would give France 18.

I think Sh@dow is right about earlier moves though. There were definitely weaknesses between 1905 and 1909 that were not properly exploited on our end.

Autumn 1914.
Baltic, Kiel S Mun-Berlin, Ruhr S Bur-Mun wins the game.

@Sh@dow: I obviously agree with that, but I'm sure you also realize that that was a (truly upsetting) misorder by ssoren (and I anoyed Rusia and Italy the rest of the game to use the preview feature to make sure it didn't happen again). Prussia was supposed to support Berlin's hold. By then the stalemate was truly perfect.

More than one big game has been lost to misorders (VI will attest to that :P). Its an integral part of the game. Immaterial how or why it happened: the point stills stands that France was a guess away from a solo. Fact.