@Zultar: His response wasn't that bad, you're right. But I could tell he was sending me off, I could tell my initial message didn't have a good effect. Plus, I was dealing with much shit at the time in RL. So put the two together, and I got frustrated (maybe a touch more than I should have). All it did is it prevented me from writing him again before much later. It also frustrated me out of how I first wanted to approach the game.
So not his fault. Though I do think he sorta kinda slammed the door where there was no need to do it, but I'm not saying he was wrong for doing so.

Sorry for the delay. My EoG statement is forthcoming.

Wonderful group to play with. Great game, truly a pleasure.

@Babak I'm sorry if my last move was not in the spirit of the game, I was exhausted from trying to convince people to keep me alive who had no reason to, so I thought at least I can give Russia a centre and a little better odds against Austria. Your right though, I should have kept trying.

My EOG will be up sometime in the next couple of days.

Okay, here goes, and just so you know, I'm not going to go back and read old press in an attempt to give every insight possible, I'm going to go through the map each season and share the most important things I remember, so it may be a bit more loose than the others in here, but that's my style in game as well, so it seems appropriate:

1901: LOL, I don't know what it was about that initial message from England, but that seriously creeped me out!! I don't know if it was partially due to starting seven games all at once and it was a friggin' nightmare dealing with that much press all at once, but it seemed like England was getting all up in my business and I wanted to nip that in the bud quickly. I tried to be polite about it, but it appears the true emotion I wanted to communicate to England came across really well, good bad or indifferent, oops! I agreed to typical DMZs with France very quickly, as usual (LOL, that's an inside joke!!), and tried to feel out the southeast. My typical approach is to try to feel out who I can trust and who I cannot, and then team up with whoever I can trust. The southeast was feeling pretty open to whatever might present itself as the logical way to proceed, had a good feel from everyone and was open to anything, though wanted to play it cautiously in 1901. In a show of good faith to Austria, I asked if he wanted to bounce in Trieste to insure him I would not try to sneak into Trieste, and Austria accepted that offer. Looking back, Austria did a great job of getting Russia and Turkey to fight, and since Austria was allied with Russia, based on support into Rumania, the game flow appeared to not be in Turkey's favor.

1902: I guess it's Lepanto time, no way for Turkey to defend East Med, so the game flow dictated that I go there. I absolutely do *not* have the nerve for such things is the main thing I got out of this part of the game! My back side felt extremely exposed to France, but luckily France asked ahead of time about taking Spain to Mar and I was able to talk him into going to Gas instead, which gave me a bit of breathing room, so I was starting to feel okay about things, especially combined with the fact that Austria agreed to accept East Med's support of Greece to Aeg and allow me to convoy Tunis to Greece and get a build... But Austria "misordered", are you friggin' kidding me?!?! This sends me into extreme paranoia and makes me "Mad" (the fun "in-game" anger of my webdip persona MadMarx, no real life overlaps, it's all in good fun!), so I do a bit of freaking out, sound alarm bells, promise my soul to Turkey if he helps me kill Austria for stabbing me, yadda yadda yadda (the typical stuff), and Austria agrees to not build since he should not have kept Greece and gotten a build and we agreed to try it again in the spring.

1903: So, after getting back on track with Austria, with help from the German, I had to go back on all the stuff I talked about with Turkey, which I felt bad about, but that's the flow the game was dictating and I like to go with the flow, let the game lead me rather than try to force my agenda on the game (which I am horrible at, unlike Babak's description above, seems to me like he and I have pretty opposite approaches to the game, which is pretty fascinating to me, especially because I consider Babak a *much* better player than me and even though I'm "doing it wrong" [by definition, if Babak is doing it right] I still manage to do okay, which I find fascinating, but I digress!). Where was I? OH, so Germany asks me to head to Pie to help with France and I decide to slide on over. Germany promises me Por/Sap/Mar, but, oh, I need to support him into Mar first, WTF?! Okay, whatever, the Central Powers Alliance is looking to be moving along and it's not like Germany is in position to solo just yet (obviously) so I can agree to that. At the same time I was trying to feel France out, he wasn't real happy I was in Piedmont, but France stayed calm and we talked about the situation a bit, and in the end we couldn't get anything figured out, I actually think I was unsure about supporting Germany into Mar, but in talks with France, they broke off and France NMR so I figured I better support Germany in to keep his favor and then I could try to talk more with France later since hes NMR messed up or negotiations.

1904: Turkey was falling, which was great, I'd get a build and the Lepanto stress would go away, though it was quickly replaced by squabbling with the German. Germany promised to give me Mar this spring, since I supported him in last autumn, and he didn't seem to be too happy about it. France offered to support me into Mar, for peace, so I accepted that since Germany had promised it to me anyway, figured that would give me options in the west, wich was good because now it looked like an EG against France and I'd want to have the option of stalemating that with France if need be. In the autumn Turkey died fast and I thought I was to shift Tyrr to West Med to help France defend against the EG, but there was some miscommunication and France bounced me out. France also did not accept my support of Gas to Bur, which was fine, whatever France wanted to do worked for me. Germany stole London and England obviously was no longer coming at France, so the game dynamics were quickly changing in the northwest yet again.

1905: Russia offered to support Smy to Con, to get me to fight Austria and help Russia out. I accepted and told Austria of the plan, and asked Austria to attack Ank so that either Austria would get Ank (if Russia went to Black Sea) or if Russia did actually support me to Con then Austria could retreat to Black Sea. Either way Ank would fall that year. Austria agreed, even though not liking the idea of leaving Black Sea wide open for Ank to take, but that all worked out. I often like to give my units orders, so I decided to have Greece attack Bul, thinking Bul was staying put, so it was a bit of a surprise to find myself in Bulgaria, which didn't really make the Austrian too happy, but I was just goofing off a bit and it gave Austria and me some controversy which is often a very good thing (for when you work through that controversy, it builds a stonger and more trusting relationship). I shifted units towards France, obviously, with Germany's help (along with a little rage from the German, he was not real happy with how I was handling the Iberian/France, but we were working through it alright). I was a bit out of position against France, and submitted orders that would insure I would not lose Mar and I somehow got into Spain which was a total surprise/accident, but I would obviously take it! Here's the part where, in the east, I got a bit nervous that Austria would kill Russia quickly, have a few builds and with nothing else to do, figured Austria would be tempted to head west and pay a visit to Venice. So, I came up with my sneaky plan to misorder Bulgaria by submitting "via convoy" and expected to remain in Bulgaria even though I had ordered Bul to Greece, I'm so smart!! WRONG (dumbass), didn't work that way and that's when I emailed the mods, and I should have put the game name in the subject or something, but as I found out after the game Ye had read that email accidently and this game went from, in Austria's eyes (I'm guessing here), some random anonymous Italian that may be up to something, to MadMarx admitting he was trying to screw you over. I think Austria did his best to try to not let that influence his game, but at the same time, how do you do that? I kind of view it like NFL football where sometimes the official gets in the way of a defensive person trying to tackle the guy with the ball and the offense gets a big play because the official is part of the field and sometimes a random bad break comes about, so too it was a bad break for me that a mod was playing Austria in this game, but that's just how it must be and oh well.

1906: Okay, the CPA is really coming together and the game is looking to be locked as a three-way draw, but I am still a bit nervous Austria will come after me, and what the hell, might as well experiment a bit in this game since we all have plenty of experience in 1901 and 1902, but how often do we get the honor of experimenting in 1906, deep into a game? So, since the last spring I had taken Bulgaria and I walked out of it, I figured it probably wouldn't hurt to triple attack Bulgaria this spring, again, to try and keep Austria from coming after me, one of those deals where your best defense is a good offense. In the west, I walked straight into Portugal. Germany had told me that he was nervous about Austria going for a solo, though I'm sure he was just sowing seeds of mistrust between AI, or at least trying to, so when Germany said he preferred me in Tryolia rather than Austria I decided I would take it. This is also the part where the German and I had been at each other's throat a bit regarding Paris and France, so I figured in here I might just see what happened if I "tried" to solo. I've never gotten a solo with Italy, so I wasn confident I wouldn't do it, but the effort should be insightful regardless, so I decided to press my luck feeling Austria and I could easily get back on track if things went poorly and stalemate the German. SO, the theory I wanted to test was, what if I did get real bitchy with Germany, tried to piss him off a bit, draw his attention away from Austria and towards me, would there be a chance to solo? I assumed England would be easy to recruit, since if I were England and had been played by Germany, I'd want nothing more than to go suicidal against Germany and do anything in my power to have any sort of negative impact on the German that I could. I was more focused on recruiting France in the moment, though, so I told France that Por would attack MAO and vacate Por, thus allowing France to live, and asked France to help me by moving to NAO and maybe I could solo or whatever. France balked and never answered, but he did end up moving that way. As far as AG, again, my theory was that if I presented myself as going for a solo, I figured, if I were Germany, I would make quick peace with Austria along our shared border and push most everything I have at the Italian front because I'd be so (in-game) Mad at Italy for trying to pull this sort of bs. If that had happened, if Germany had pulled away from Austria to face me, I thought in the long-run I could crack Germany in the north since I had a French fleet, thought I could recruit an English fleet and as long as I had a few units to dance around with Austria in the southeast, I thought there may be enough confusion for something intersting to happen. BUT, to my surprise, Austria immediately gave SC's away to Germany and Germany shifted several units at Austria. I did not expect Austria to take this approach, to immediately agree to help Germany to solo in that situation, which I initially thought was good information to learn, until I later found out that Austria was a mod and had written notice that MadMarx was messing with him, I still wonder how that affected Austria's decision to so quickly throw a solo to Germany and force me to straighten up real quick and jump on the stalemate line.

That's about it. It was a great game, I really enjoyed it, especially the part where I thought I was testing a theory and experimenting a bit. I do have trouble stabbing someone like Austria, who had been very accommodating all game, but again, it was looking very clear for quite a while that the three-way was the obvious conclusion to the game, so even though I was experimenting around a bit, I felt in my heart that it wasn't going to lead to a solo, I'm just crap at predicting the future so I also did want to respect Mr. Callhamer's game a bit and at least tell myself I did try to solo and make sure in my head it was not possible for me.

That was a fascinating read, MM. I wonder if that's how your brain works in real life as well. :)
And now I feel a bit cheated for not having the chance to play in one of your games. Ahh, real life. You get in the way sometimes.

zultar, in real life, I'm not real big on making decisions, I get burnt out on that at my job (as I'm sure most people have jobs where you are constantly making little decisions all day long), so in playing diplomacy I like to base my decisions on other people's press and actions, I tend to mirror their actions towards me, I do unto them as they have done unto me, so if you present yourself as trusting and honest then I tend to treat you that way, whereas if you lie and/or stab or whatever, I tend to do that in return as well. There are exceptions to every rule, of course, but that's my predominant MO.

If I may ask, what do you do for a living?

Curiosity killed the Zultar!

Fascinating thread.

I've only been playing for a year or so, so a lot of the acronyms are mysteries to me, but the gameplay description and the motivating factors behind moves of some really accomplished players are very interesting to read.

If I may ask one clarifying question - re: the move Bul-Greece, did you forget to make it 'via convoy', or did you put that and the game software moved you anyway?

He wrote it as via convoy intending for it to fail. But since the move is possible via land, it moves via land even if the convoy route is not available.

funny inside joke MM ;)

I did not realize I was related to the feline family, but yes, curiosity tends to get me into some troubles.

zultar, I'm an architect.

Babak, I thought you might find that slightly amusing! :-P

What?! Four years of lies and stabs from you after I was nothing but truthful. Don't listen to the saint, he's the devil.

After a while you learn to just think "I wonder what MM is going to do that he told me he wasn't? Oh well, at least it stopped raining."

Particularly fascinating, in my mind, is the way that high-end players react to various styles of communication. In this game, just the tone used in messages could make or break alliances, and entire moves were based around the feelings one got from press.

Geo, I'm not exactly sure what you are describing, certainly not my play on webdip. If you are referencing Boston F2F (everyone knows F2F is a whole different game, and I'd describe myself as a n00b in that arena), the first game we played may have taken a unique path, but we got where we agreed to get in the end. In game two, you (Italy) started the pre-game swearing you'd be my (Austria) game-long ally come hell or high-water, yet with 30 seconds left in the *pre-game* (seriously, less than 15 minutes later!) you confessed to aligning with Russia and Turkey to take me out immediately, so certainly I was allowed a bit of latitude in our discussions after that, no?! ;-)

Fascinating thread.

I've only been playing for a year or so, so a lot of the acronyms are mysteries to me, but the gameplay description and the motivating factors behind moves of some really accomplished players are very interesting to read.

If I may ask one clarifying question - re: the move Bul-Greece, did you forget to make it 'via convoy', or did you put that and the game software moved you anyway?

Weird that that reposted. I refreshed this morning and I guess my browser thought that meant I wanted to repeat the same post I put up last night.

@Kochevnik: Some diplomacy acronyms that you might have seen in this thread:
EOG - End of Game Statement
CPA - Central Powers Alliance (Germany, Italy and Austria)
WTA - Western Triple Alliance (England, France, Germany)
Alliances are also referred to by the first letter of the power. For example EG is England/Germany.
Territories and Seas are usually named by the first three letters: thus Lon = London. But there are variants to this rule, such as MAO = Mid Atlantic Ocean (this can also be written as Mid)
NAO = North Atlantic Ocean (also Nat)
WMS = Western Mediterranean Sea (also Wes)
NMR = No Moves Received
NAP = Non-Aggression Pact
MM is MadMarx
LOL = laugh out loud
WTF = What the fuck (these last two you probably know)

typo above... *WT = Western Triple (England, France, Germany)
WTA is of course Winner Takes Al.

OK, I actually had most of them. I didn't know EOG or CPA (I confess to never really having considered that alliance; sounds like it might be a fun option). Oh, and NAP I've heard but never been entirely certain what it was, so thanks.

LOL, spyman, thanks for including me on your list, it's quite an honor! ;-)

Oh! Spyman DID forget an acronym:
HWMNBN stands for He Who Must Not Be Named. ;0)

This last one is probably my favorite one of all! ;-)

I've had a revelation!! Okay, I'm sure I'm the only one excited about it, but I must share.

So, I'm crap at understanding why I do what I do. I play by feel, and in this game England's first message to me (as Italy) *really* turned me off and I had no idea why, but I think I figured it out!

When I'm Italy, I'm a frightened mess. My biggest concern is always France, maybe because France is my best great power to play and I eventually end up killing Italy off at some point, so that's always at the top of my mind. My second biggest concern is Austria pulling a fast one on me, since he' so close to my home SCs. An RT Jugg is always a concern as well. One way to deal with all these tense relationships is to discuss DMZs (Piedmont and Tyrolia being two big ones). To me, DMZs and discussing who's going to do what and who isn't going to do what are one big stress, will the person follow through or are they lying, it all points to potential enemies coming to kill me off and it freaks me out. Seriously.

As Italy, one of the few comforting things is England. I can chat with England in a pretty laid back manner. I typically don't get very involved with England from the start, I have *many* other issues on my mind, and even though it would be nice to one day work together, and we may exchange a bit of info, it's always a nice break from the drama known as Italy.

So, when England started this game off with what was more or less a conversation of DMZs, or who could go where and who couldn't, it came off 100% as conflict, like we were enemies that needed to keep each other in line and form an agreement so we both knew exactly when the other was declaring war. As Italy, I have way too much of that with all my neighbors, I certainly don't want that with England. Again, since I don't typically get involved with England right from the start as Italy, and since England was was focusing on confrontational stress, my knee-jerk reaction was to want to make that go away, and fast.

I never understood why I felt the way I did about England's first message, but that makes some sense to me now, or have I just rationalized this argument in an attempt to give myself some peace of mind, any opinions out there (on if what I just said makes any sense or not)?

Austrian EOG Statement

1901

(Opening diplomacy)
Before I even got my first round of press out, Italy had proposed a long-term alliance, and indicated that he would like to see it develop into a CPA (Central Powers Alliance) should Germany be willing to get on board. Germany gave the usual spiel about Austrian and German success being highly correlated, and in further diplomatic exchanges, stated that he was on-board for the CPA.
England and France had also initiated the conversation. They both indicated that they would like to work together in the long-term, sharing information, but ultimately not much significant diplomatic exchanges resulted.
I opened the conversation with Russia and Turkey, offering a partnership with both and tried to push them toward attacking each other. Russia and I arranged the bounce in Galicia, helping to facilitate the ruse with both Russia and Turkey.

(Spring)
I was very pleased to see Turkey move into Armenia. England and France (EF) displayed quite a cordial opening, however the possibility of an EF forming would certainly help to compel the CPA to stay intact. Little did I know that we were in store from some excellent play from Germany (and Italy) later on, seemingly manipulating those two at will.

(Fall)
I promised to help Turkey into Rumania, setting up Greece to be taken unopposed, but then I helped Russia into Rumania instead.
It was interesting to see England try for Denmark instead of at least bouncing Belgium, but I guess the other player's EOGs have already explained that one thoroughly.

1902

Russia paid back the favor by helping me into Bulgaria. I felt quite good about how the CPA was progressing. We had successfully turned Russia and Turkey into enemies, and Italy seemed trustworthy, so we were well positioned in the east.
Germany seemed to be playing everyone to his advantage, but the western theatre was still far from being quickly resolved, so there was no real threat of him coming out of that too strong too quickly.

(Fall and Builds)
My fall move Gre->Ion was actually a legitimate mis-order. I intended to move it to Aegean as arranged with Italy. I waived the build in order to put Italy at ease, but I wonder how much this snafu factored into Italy's behavior later in the game.

1903

England's capture of Sweden helped set the stage for stabbing Russia this turn. The spring move on Rumania would have likely worked regardless, but the lack of an extra Russian unit left the follow-up play even more attractive.
It's always an interesting game playing Austria and making quick enemies of both Russia and Turkey :)
Things seemed to be patched up with Italy, as I freely gave him Greece, while coordinating an advance on Turkey and mutually moving away from our home SC border.

1904

Another productive year for the CPA, but with a few interesting surprises. I didn't expect Turkey to fall on his sword like that, but I guess he lost the will to go on and just wanted to give what he could to Russia. I had suspected that the "mis-order" by Germany (Silesia supporting the wrong unit against Warsaw) was intentional, however Moscow was left open for the retreat, which was just as profitable and likely put Germany a bit at ease.

(Diplomacy)
However, more interesting than the tactics of this year were the intrigue and paranoia developing between the members of the CPA.
Germany sent some very paranoid press expressing concerns about Italy. He also expressed a great sense of stress about the fall move. He told me that he was considering a convoy to York, but then ordered the convoy into London, which was left open by England moving to block York. He quickly turned that around, claiming that someone must have leaked his plan since he told several people that he was convoying into York.
Italy seemed somewhat more reasonable, but also seemed to be playing the paranoia game a bit.
Frankly, I felt that everyone was just trying to play a bit of a psychological game to gain an edge diplomatically. I went along with it to a limited degree, but I mainly tried to play the role of calming everyone down. It seemed at that stage, the greatest threat to the CPA was internal tension and mistrust collapsing the alliance to the advantage of the other players, which had by then realized that the alliance was in full swing.

(Builds)
Despite all of the intrigue and mistrust, the CPA still managed to negotiate a reassuring set of build orders: F Kie for Germany, F Rom & F Nap for Italy, and A Vie & waive for Austria.
However, Italy told me hours before the deadline that he had changed his mind and decided to build an army in Rome. That coupled with his insistence on forcing Ankara according to his specific plan (see 1905 comments) really caused me quite a bit of concern about his long-term intentions.
A fleet build would have been more effective for assisting the more urgent strategic goal of securing Iberia in order to hold at least his half of the stalemate line against Germany.
While the army in Rome could be argued as a protection for Venice (against me or Germany), I could have bounced Germany in Tyrolia if Germany had decided to build a threatening army in Munich, or if I had wanted to stab, I could have forced Venice regardless, so that argument was quite weak. Actually, I was a bit worried about a potential Rom->Ven, Gre->Ser move making an awful mess of things.

1905

(Spring w/ Italy)
Italy went ahead with the Rome build despite my protestations, and I really didn't want to make a huge deal over it, so I acquiesced on that issue and also let Italy try his plan (instead of mine) to force Ankara this year. Frankly, I felt that I had made too many concessions and that it was weak play on my part. Here are the two plans that Italy and I were debating:

1) I had proposed: Con->Bla, Bul->Con, Aeg C Gre->Smy, Smy->EMS
This would have set us up to force Ank in the fall (which I was prepared to give Italy), and also ensured that Black would remain out of the hands of Russia during the fall move, which could have been helpful for my tactics against Russia.

2) Italy was very insistent on: Con->Ank, Aeg C Gre->Con, Smy S Gre->Con
This would either give me Ank or the forward retreat into the Black Sea. Italy would get Con and I would get Ank in the fall (so still giving the net gain to Italy), but Russia occupying the Black Sea during the fall became a possibility.

As I already said, I relented and accepted plan 2, despite the strategic advantage of going with plan 1, since negotiating with Italy didn't seem to be going anywhere productive. However, what actually ended up happening was quite different... Italy snuck into Bulgaria why taking Con with Smy.

At this point, I knew that Italy had stabbed me, as I had given him too many concessions and he had paid me back with selfish moves that worked in his best interests. He was quick to explain that it was all just a misunderstanding. I wasn't buying that crap, but I took the approach to laugh it off and give him the chance to rethink his position while echoing my earlier appeal that our AI needed to stay coordinated and strong, else Germany would walk away with an easy solo. I thought I had made it clear to Italy (with press starting in 1904 and over the rest of the game) that any betrayal between the two of us would only result in mutually assured destruction as the other could easily hand the solo to Germany.

(Spring w/ Germany)
I was quite intrigued by the convoy from London to Brest. No doubt that must have required some serious diplomacy to coordinate after the betrayals of the previous year. It was a shame for England to have been continuously manipulated by Germany like that.
Also, the move into Norway was specifically coordinated by Germany; he asked me not to bounce StP in the spring and convinced England to vacate.

(Fall)
After the drama of the spring, I was happy to see the fall moves work out nicely. Italy had backed out of Bulgaria and supported me into Ankara, and Germany had ordered the moves that we coordinated against Russia and England.
Also, Italy's moves against France went very well (surprisingly so, as France seemed to give away his SCs). At this point, Italy and I could (nearly) force at least a 17 SC stalemate line running from Spa to Sev (leaving out War, Mos, and Por). I only say "almost" since it seemed that the western half of the line might have been possible to prevent by a completely coordinated effort by England, France, and Germany requiring several good guesses.
However, this 17 SC line would have been just a fall back position, and I was actually planning to hold both Warsaw and Moscow, establishing a stalemate line through Tyr, Boh, and Gal, while hoping to see Italy make good progress into the Atlantic.
I think that would have been the ideal position to aim for, as had the game developed that way, it may have offered the best chance to solo, should Italy attempt to move aggressively into the Atlantic against Germany, and if both of them left their guard down to fight each other.
Of course, an Austrian solo would have been a long-shot, as even if I had obtained that position, the solo chance isn't very realistic, given that it was very clear from early in this game that Italy and Germany were very strong players that understood stalemate lines, balance of power dynamics, and would have never let that happen. However, one must, in the spirit of the game, attempt to negotiate oneself into these favorable positions to enable such ambitions.

(Builds)
Unfortunately, after the fall move, but before the builds had finished, Italy had accidentally revealed to me his identity and his intention of keeping Bulgaria (which had ended up not working due to his misunderstanding of an obscure rule).
Rather than use that information to my advantage or as diplomatic ammunition, I decided to play on as best as I could in not letting that affect my play.
Given that the move didn't even go as he had planned and that he didn't pick up Bulgaria, I figured it wouldn't be fair to throw that piece of information in his face, and likely these was a good chance that he would have reevaluated his position and perhaps decided that not taking Bulgaria was for the best.
I even told Italy to build in Venice instead of Rome and that I would help him take Tyrolia in order to ensure that crucial element of several eastern stalemate lines.

1906

(Spring)
There was a bit of tension with Germany, but we both understood that we had stalemate lines to fall back on, effectively resolving our border.
Italy on the other hand was quite continually paranoid about Germany attempting to solo. I tried to reassure him that we had the eastern stalemate and were almost a lock on getting the west as well, but I guess he didn't seem to believe me.
The stab into Bulgaria and move of Pie->Tyr (instead of Ven->Tyr) actually came as quite a surprise to me, despite the inadvertent knowledge that I had gained. With Germany so close to threatening to solo, with a such a position to rapidly approach the stalemate line, I figured that Italy would have heeded my advice and simply worked toward establishing the western line, while not risking to disrupt my eastern half. I thought that I had done enough to explain the logic of not stabbing me, but clearly I had failed in that regard.

(Fall)
Given the messy situation, I had a lot of work to do diplomatically. First off, I had a few quick words with Germany, telling him up front that the move into Bulgaria was not planned and that Italy must be up to something (like attempting an irrational, long-shot solo). I wanted to make it clear that I was prepared to do what it would take to either make Italy fall back in line or punish him by handing Germany the solo. I needed Italy to make the 3-way possible and the best way to do that was to compel him with the threat of a German solo.
Next, I hear back from Italy with "explanation" of what happened... wow, utter nonsense. Basically, he's trying to pitch the idea that the supported attack Bulgaria was intended to "freak the German out into submission". None of that makes any sense tactically, as the eastern front was already settled with easily achievable stalemate lines, while moving that army out of Pie only weakened the western front, which was of somewhat higher concern (concern that Italy had voiced in the previous season).
I made my case to Italy that it's going to be either a 3-way draw or a German solo; we could easily make the 3-way with his cooperation and withdrawal from Bul, or I would throw the solo should he not comply.
I also arranged to give Germany Warsaw and StP, as those two SCs would be unnecessary for stalemating Germany, but hopefully the threatening position gifted to Germany would force Italy to comply.

(Builds)
Italy had promised to vacate Bulgaria and put Venice in Pied, but instead he continued the stab.
At this point, the threat of having to throw the solo to Germany was developing into quite a reality. I had to disband Moscow, which isn't necessary to stalemate Germany and is best in Germans hands for compelling Italy to respond to the solo threat, but Italy really has to change direction in the upcoming year or the game is going down the tubes.

I allow Italy to speak first, which he quickly does. He expresses surprise at Germany's apparent hostility toward my collapsing position, claims that his past moves were just for experimentation, and wishes that we could just put things behind us and stalemate Germany. He specifically expresses concern that I might throw the game to Germany out of spite.
He also made a remark that was quite off-putting "Not sure how familiar you are with stalemate lines..." (which was simply insulting given that I had outlined several lines for him in previous turns).

So, I decided that a bit of the "chainsaw" was the best course of action, as I really needed to show that I was serious about throwing the game to Germany. In response to all that Italy had said, I simply said the following in response to his insulting remark on my knowledge of stalemate lines:
"Are you fucking kidding me? Have you been reading my past press? Did you understand the lines three lines for securing the east that I sketched out for you?
This comment coming from you means that you're either trying to be a condescending prick or you're just a complete idiot that doesn't even understand a stalemate line when it's laid out for you." [followed by restating those lines]

That's all that I said as I let that message stew with Italy for about a day. He had responded in the meantime with further reassurances, offering to pull out Bul and give me Con, apologizing for the remark, linking to the stalemate index (http://devel.diplom.org/Online/StalematesAtoY/southern-progressive.htm), etc.

I replied with just two short messages:
"Build a fleet, do you what you've promised for this spring and maybe we can try part I, position 6" [in reference to the stalemate index linked above]
"Fleet Rome, specifically"
and Italy responded with a simple one-word message: "Okay."

1907

Italy wound up building the fleet in Naples instead of Rome, but the style of speech in the press had significantly changed. Don't worry, MadMarx, I won't give away your tells ;)

My moves were quite straightforward, safe against Italy, while falling back into the stalemate against Germany, and also maintaining enough flexibility to easily go nuclear by throwing the game to Germany (had Italy not gotten his act together).

The result of the spring moves were a relief. Italy had backed off and we were able to arrive at a very stable 3-way finish. 1908 was just a matter of cleanup.

It was fantastic game and truly a pleasure to play with all of you!

Babak and MadMark: I really enjoyed the diplomatic exchanges with both of you. With the ups and downs, the intrigue and paranoia, it was certainly an exciting and interesting game. Glad to finally play again with both of you since the Boston FTF tournament.

Cachimbo: I did enjoy our somewhat limited communication. It certainly would have been nice to be able to work with you, but it just wasn't in the cards for this game. To be frank, I was a bit put off a bit by your messages trying to persuade me to attack Germany. However, I do apologize for leaving you waiting for a response on a couple of occasions. I did face some situations where my time was limited by external factors, but it was simply rude of me not to at least get back to you with some sort of acknowledgement.

Manas: I'm sorry that our relationship didn't progress beyond "non-trivial press" (as you put it), but I'm not so sure that I'm fully to blame for that.

Frank, EmperorMaximus: Sorry about the lies and betrayal, but frankly that's just part of the game and all that I could do to ensure my survival.

Thanks Ye, I enjoyed the read, was curious about your thought process!

Anyone else have something to say?