Sarg, I would like to point out that the first time I moved towards you was Autumn of 1910 and the first time I attacked a center of yours was in Autumn of 1911. You had already taken one center of mine in pre-1910 play.

forgive me Sarg, on the turns I was trying to point out, you were attacking me. I apologize, I misspoke.

"You had already taken one center of mine in pre-1910 play."

Favio you are ridiculous. The only center I took from you pre-1910 was in 1902.

One more thing: In a WTA game it is far more honourable to die out trying to stop a solo than it is to survive while someone else wins. I believe both Russia and England ignored this fact in this game, which explains the outcome.

If two people try and hold a line while third costs them the game, two people played well and one person played poorly. Here, the fact that Russia created the whole makes it pretty clear that he lost the game.

This, again, is my opinion. We all lost the game but Russia was at fault.

"forgive me Sarg, on the turns I was trying to point out, you were attacking me. I apologize, I misspoke."

You still haven't said which turns you think you offered only support holds. I still don't see them. Every turn has you move against me.

"I believe both Russia and England ignored this fact in this game, which explains the outcome."

I didn't ignore it. I felt that England was oblivious to Turkey's solo chances. I honestly thought England must have thought the game were PPSC or something. His play was ridiculous. In the very final years, I felt the least I could do was teach England a lesson in not attacking a player that is vital to holding the stalemate line.

Again. Favio and Lando, there is not a single turn where England simply support holds his units. And neither of you can offer a single phase where he does so.

you know what Sarg, I'll give you that. the turns i spoke of I was trying to defend my own territory, which I lumped into "support holding". I am sorry.

@Lando: I will try to adhere to that...its difficult knowing you are going to die....

@Lando: I supported my unit to the North Sea in Autumn 1911 in retaliation to England attempting to move on St Petersburg in Spring 1911. He was the one attacking me - yes, I am shocked that you don't see this.

My point is, why did you care ti retaliate when you must have known it would lead to a loss. Do a quick NPV in that situation and everytime it turn out better for you to not retaliate. Let him take STP and SWE, disband in GAL and MOS or whatever you had down there and in like 3 years the game would be drawn. I don;t understand what you are on about. Your existence was never threatened and neither was your worth on the stalemate.

I honestly don't understand your decision making.

Also, Sarg, I am pretty sure my argument included more than saying the move to NTH in 1911 cost us the game...

"...its difficult knowing you are going to die...."

See, this is where you misunderstood the situation. I was clearly not attacking you. You were the one who attacked and took my centers. Absolutely incredulous that you persist to say I was the aggressor.

Spring 1911 - England attacks St Petersburg. Russia no moves against England.
Autumn 1911 - Russia moves against North Sea to protect Scandinavia - which England bizarrely decided to surround with fleets. England takes Norway, a Russian center - the first attack between Russia and England since 1902!

I'll just take the blame on this. I can't seem to convince Sarg that I was more threatened of dying especially when in spring of 1909, Russia began his conquest of the entirety of germany while still holding the draw line line. He took germany and didn't leave the draw line until Spring of 1914. It was at that point that he began again to "teach me."

That being he didn't leave the eastern draw line until Spring of 1914.

Lando: "Let him take STP and SWE, disband in GAL and MOS or whatever you had down there"

Why exactly? If England was stupid enough that he felt the need to attack and take all 3 of my northern centers, I believe I was justified in thinking that he would not stop there.

I didn't feel Mun-Ber-Kiel was an acceptable stalemate line for a number of reasons.
I didn't trust England to support me there, ie to move a fleet to Baltic Sea. And I didn't feel France could offer me a unit in Burgundy to provide the necessary 4th support hold to Munich. For me, the stalemate line centered around Mos-War-Ukr-Sil-Mun.

It is important to note here that nobody is lying. People see the board differently due to different variables affecting their perception.

Favio seems to be willing to accept Sargmacher's position here, to an extent. Sarg, on the other hand, seems to be refusing to see Favio's perspective as being true. I don't understand this. Sarg, your moves are not necessarily interpreted as you would interpret them, you know.

thanks for your support in agreeing to disagree lando...

We had a stalmate at MUN set up when you decided to take PAR and BRE....

To to answer "Why exactly? If England was stupid enough that he felt the need to attack and take all 3 of my northern centers, I believe I was justified in thinking that he would not stop there." because this is the only option that arrives at a stalemate. Just because England is slower than you to see the threat doesn't mean he won't see it.

"Sarg, on the other hand, seems to be refusing to see Favio's perspective as being true. I don't understand this. Sarg, your moves are not necessarily interpreted as you would interpret them, you know."

Lando, yes I do know that, thank you.

BUT, 2 important points:

1. Favio says "I can't seem to convince Sarg that I was more threatened of dying especially when in spring of 1909" - he says that as if it is fact, not interpretation as you say Lando. Well, I don't think it's fact that Favio was more threatened. I had voted draw and all Favio needed to was defend his centers and shut up - certainly not move aggressively all three fleets aggressively in a circle around my norther centers and start attacking my home center.

2. Part of the anti-Russia argument IS based on lies. There have been repeated claims that Favio/England had 2 turns of pure support holds. This is a lie. There is no way round that. It is just not true. Every turn post-Spring 1910 England moved against me - it was aggressive and persistent. That is a fact not interpretation.

"Just because England is slower than you to see the threat doesn't mean he won't see it."

England's aggressive retrograde moves in the north made me believe otherwise Lando. I slowly lost all faith in him.

BUT to go back to the 2 main points:

1. Favio says "I can't seem to convince Sarg that I was more threatened of dying especially when in spring of 1909" - he says that as if it is fact, not interpretation as you say Lando. Well, I don't think it's fact that Favio was more threatened. I had voted draw and all Favio needed to was defend his centers and shut up - certainly not move aggressively all three fleets aggressively in a circle around my norther centers and start attacking my home center.

2. Part of the anti-Russia argument IS based on lies. There have been repeated claims that Favio/England had 2 turns of pure support holds. This is a lie. There is no way round that. It is just not true. Every turn post-Spring 1910 England moved against me - it was aggressive and persistent. That is a fact not interpretation.

Sarg, I retracted my claims and am no longer using them to support the so called "anti-russia" argument. so far, you are the only one saying that only your point of view is correct. the rest of us have supported the idea that there are multiple POVs in a game. I really think this is turning into a "russia lost and now needs a scapegoat so he doesn't accept his share of the blame" game.

We both screwed it up. I've admitted my part in it.

According to all you have been saying Sarg, I didn't need to attack you because you were only supporting your centers and taking everything from Germany on up. Should we ever find ourselves in a game together, could you please set up a telepathic link so I know your intentions?

Or is this against the metaplayer/metagaming rules?

I have not considered nor referenced point 2 in any of my arguments. As for your first point, you're right. he should have felt threatened. but he did, and he moved in on you. I also maintain that until 1910 it was fair of him to do that as I believed you were still potentially unnecessary for the draw. Your defense and strategy allowed you to become more than necessary but very critical. I believe England began its attacks on Russia while it was still 'allowable' and Russia initiated defence in the same period. I believe that once Russia became critical for the draw, that Russia was behaving far more aggressively than England was.

I should also mention that in Autumn 1910 I made a supported movement against Russia. I immediately recognized this as an error, but I did not retreat. Russia never made any moves of retaliation against that. I wonder why he didn't think England would back off but seemingly wasn;t worried about France's intentions.

Favio, you don't need to get cute. Most people who have commented in this thread actually support my point of view and criticise England's needless aggression in the face of what is clearly a Russian emphasis on securing a stalemate line.

Sarg, you were taking the entirety of germany, while at the time holding both all of scandinavia as well as the draw line in the east. how else am I supposed to respond to that?

"I should also mention that in Autumn 1910 I made a supported movement against Russia. I immediately recognized this as an error, but I did not retreat. Russia never made any moves of retaliation against that. I wonder why he didn't think England would back off but seemingly wasn;t worried about France's intentions."

Lando correctly identifies Autumn 1910 is the turning point of the game.

I understood that France noticed this. It was clear that England was not going to - and this is true, England took Norway that turn. I believe that Russia was important to the draw as soon as the turning point in Autumn 1910 came. England ignored this.

and can I point out that since I entered this thread, the only people who have spoken since that point are you, Lando, and me.