Or more correctly congratulations to Lybia, China, Europe and USA on the 4 way draw :)

First of all, thanks to all of the players on this game and a special thanks for the other three remaining ones (Napoleon of Oz, Babak and Dave) and also to Braveheart, who deserve to be on the draw, but sometimes diplomacy (like life) isn´t fair.
I was enjoying the game a lot until the problem with the convoys started (looking back, I tihnk we should have called a 7-way draw at this point, but we are more focused on the game itself and let things go, a big mistake that lead to all that bs on the global and for a less enjoyable game on the end.

Like I said before, I don´t intend to play on this map again.

Well, going to the point of this thread, I have been writing my EOG during the game, so I can take my thoughts and perceptions on the game at that time (first time I do that and find it really interesting). Will post in a minute.

A long EOG.....

2000 - Well, draw Europe, the Italy of this map, so let´s try to find a way to get over that 4 SC limitation.

2000 Spring - Everybody wants to be friend, let´s wait when the neutral´s are over. A good negotiation to get into the Med. So far so good, maybe that 5th SC can be reached this year.

2000 Fall - Well, now thinks starts to get ugly, Near-East didn´t answered and seems that are going to a NMR with 2 hours to the turn deadline, so took Russian support and headed to Turkey. And things get really bad, Near-East shows up, attack Armenia, resulting in a bounce and 3 builds for Russia and only 1 for me. Still have to find a way to get that 5th SC. And hope Russia get´s busy with other problems and didn´t want to crush on her small neighbour. The same goes for Lybia. Well, I guess Europe is even worst then Italy!!!

2001 - Spring - Not a good turn overall, I break into Northeast Atlantic, but Ghana just doesn´t seem to be a trustable ally, we´ll see. Also, Near-East did some tricky moves and I will probably get no builds this year. Well, it´s really hard to break the 4 SCs limitation on Europe. I have a chance to get an SC if I stab Russia, but is this worth?

2001 - Autumn - Well, a lot of diplomacy this turn and this end up really bad on one side and good on the other. Finally I got the 5th SC and have a decent chance to get another one next year. Near-East NMR just killed him, and make me change my moves near the end. Bad work with Quebec and Ghana, and that alliance of Pac-Russia and Quebec will really give me a lot of trouble. Will need to work really hard on the diplomacy, specially with Russia. Maybe I focused too much on the south and forget a little bit to do my homework on the north side. Another fleet on the north and we´ll see what happens next.

2002 Spring - Well, a lot of diplomacy again and with most of my neighbours not commited to anything I decide to keep my policy of not getting involved in sea fights and also let the two Russia fight each other while I try to get another build from Near-East. Hope nobody attacks me, at least on Spring.

2002 - Fall - So far so good, seems I will be able to build again and no one attacked me on the West shore. Will have to start thinking about where should I go when Near-East centers end. Lybia seems really strong and without India (a pitty he just trust to much on China) it will be better have him as ally not an enemy.

2002 - Builds - A lot of pressure to build a fleet from Russia and Lybia and for an army from Pac-Russia and Quebec. Well, Russia and Lybia are closer to me, so the fleet is the choice. Also, Lybia wants to start a campaign against Ghana and asked for support. THe alliance with Lybia seems natural now, but what I will do when he get double the units I have?

2003 - Spring - Well, Russia asked to move a fleet to Turkey to have it disband in order to push against Pac-Russia. With India disband on Iraq I think it´s ok because I can retake Turkey on the Fall. Also, maybe we can set some fire in the game as it will seem he is attacking me and I can gain some trust from Pac-Russia. Those Quebec fleets doesn´t seem good. Also, SA move to help Ghana make me more easy with Lybia as now he need to be in peace with me as much as I need to be with him.

2003 - Fall - So far so good, another build and NEAtlantic is mine. Lybia is not growing too much but have a good potential and good connection with China. We need as much allies as we can find as seems we have a united America wanting to rule the world and I am on his way.

2003- Retreats - Builds - Well, I think I never have done so much diplomatic work. If everything went right we will have a 4-way alliance (me, Lybia, China and Pac-Russia) and even Frozen is starting to give signs that he want to join the party. If this block doesn´t break to early, Americas will not even see what hit them.

2004 - Spring - Decide to take some risk this turn, after a lot of pressure from Pac-Russia I have to stab my old friend Russia. It´s a pitty as I really like to chat with him, but he can´t offer me any help now and Pac-Russia is key for this alliance to work. Got some strange messages from Quebec. First he told me he isn´t attacking me, and after that he will hold a turn and see what will happen. I would rather make some bounces with him to keep my position, but in the end the outcome was really good. I can probably get two new builds this year, and even losing NEAtlantic I can probably take it back next year with my brand new fleets.

2004- Fall - Well, this turn didn´t end that well. I should have taken Godthab from Norw Sea supported by Barrents, buut how can I sensible insist on that when I have two builds assured and my ally have none? Try it the other way and failed miserably. Also, Russia moves split PR on two, and this is not a good sign. PR doesn´t seem to be the best tactician/strategist around, but I have to deal with it.

2004 - Builds - Well another really busy retreat and build phase with a really long and painfull diplomacy work. Russia tried to get along again and offer an alliance with Quebec to overtake PR. Ghana keeps ofering support to attack Lybia and Americas keep silent, bad sign. This could be a good option if Quebec stab USA or USA stab Quebec, but I am not really sure if this will happen. I really enjoy chating with Russia, but his lack of ability to get China on his side sealed his faith. Now I got two Best friends, China and Lybia, both keep telling me I am his best ally, bla bla, I guess I will be stabbed soon, lol.

2005 - Spring - Well, after all things are going well until now. I choose the right side, Russia NMR will have killed me and now I probably will have two builds again. On the other side, PR did another stupid move this turn, why give up Barrents to Quebec? Now he have to defend all his north centers from Bar and Artic. And now the easy builds are gone and will have more serious business to keep expanding. Also, I am in the Lybia hands as a stab now will put me in a really bad position (he can take two centers right now and middle east is really open too) and with America fighting this could be a sensible option to Lybia. I am working hard diplomatically to avoid that, but still not sure if he can avoid the temptation. Well, don´t see another way to go now, so will have to trust him. Anyway, I am not that sure if America is really fighting or they are just leveling the SC count or even doing some simulation to make the other alliance to break. Will see next turn, this could be the turning point, for good or bad ;-)

2005 - Fall/Buils - Well, alliance with Lybia seems stronger and give me another center. The America´s stab was a fake, like we have thought. Seems to me I will have to choose a side again soon, as PR and China seems to be going to fight. PR is doing some stupíd moves up north and China doesn´t seem to want to attack USA right now.

2006 - Well, seems we can´t advance on the north or in the Atlantic. Either we got China to attack USA or Frozen to attack Arg or this game will go to a draw soon.

2007 - Action!! China and I decided to attack PR. Seems we choose the right moment as the America´s alliance seem to be falling too. I really didn´t understand the moves from Quebec and USA. Bad timing as me, Lybia and China will have some builds and they will be stuck fighting. Quebec will lose, but he will give USA a hard fight I guess from his messages to me.

2008 - Three builds and the north is open. Seems I could have a good ride on Quebec centers. USA start to talk again. Maybe too late.

2009 - Two builds from last year and the first foot on America. Seems that the triple alliance with Lybia and China will hold well. Another build from Alaska and things seems to be going well

2010 - Things start to get harder. I have to travel and can´t input the convoy orders. Decide to change the orders on the last minute (because I can´t input the convoys) and screw big time, losing New and my bridge to America. Also, Lybia take one of my centers on Africa forcing me to disband two units. I was infuriated, but he said he didn´t got my message on time. Have to believe, but will have to take care being the small guy again on these alliance....

2011 - A lot of diplomacy going on. I start to fear both Lybia and China to try a solo. USA want me to join him and Arg to force a 5-way draw. At this point I voted for the draw but Lybia convinced me to unvote. I would rather support a China solo then let Lybia take me down and told this for everybody. Seems my messages pay off as Lybia at least emptied the Med on this turn.

2011 Fall - Now China did some strange moves on America and I get pissed off again. Now I start to message Lybia asking for some support to make China help me against USA. At least I get one center from USA. But by the time I get over NWT China will have taken all the rest.

2012 - Seems my messages pays off again, as China is now working again with me and I got another center. Now I come back to my size on 2009.....
USA wants me to accept a 5-way draw. Seems the time for this has passed, but I could agree with that as this game is now not funny (long phases, USA and ARG using all time for retreats and disbands, I still have problems with the convoys and the game is really boring and will last at least more 6 or 7 year I guess).

2013/2014 - Slowly and painfully advancing into North America. Seems the 3-way will come in some more years.

2015 Spring - Now a surprise, Lybia decide to take his chances for a solo. China is really infuriated. I am not, I guess I should have taken more seriously his talking about removing all blue from Africa and considered his ability to convoy. Anyway, it will be interesting to see if we can stop him.

2015 - Fall/Disbands - Well, in the end I could manage to lose just two centers. Also, the talking with USA are going well, so I think we can stop Lybia.
The convoys seems to be working a little better, could enter orders in only 30 minutes last turn :-(

2016 - Spring - Well, seems the convoys are really better, so I think me and China will build a stalemate line on Europe-NE soon.

2016 - Fall/Disbands - Well, the convoy to AHU is a problem, but I hope I can dislodge that unit next turn and can build the staleline from Mos to France, even giving Bal, Bla and Arm to Lybia. More two disbands, but I have still some fleets I can sacrifice and hope to not lose any more centers. In fact I hope China could give me one to have a build option for an army.

2016 - The pause and the global - I don´t have nothing to said diferente to what I said in the global. To shorten my thoughts, I don´t think Lybia is cheating and also think that everybody in the game know it´s unbalanced and with bugs and accepted to keep playing, so we have to live with that. We could stop Lybia solo and force a draw or not and this is part of the game. Also, PR and China have taken it to personally, in the end it´s just a game.

2016- Fall/2017 - Well, the alliance to stop Lybia is working well and we have stalemate lines set on Eurupe, Middle-East, North Atlantic and Asia. Seems we are starting to get some ground against Lybia and that Argentina will be killed on the processo, so I expect Lybia to agree with the draw soon.

2017- Builds - End. A pitty Argentina couldn´t be on the final draw, but in the end the natural outcome.

I didn't write year by year, but will now summarize. Well done to any who get through 17 EOGs. I think Lybia's more like Italy though, as it and Near East the only ones with an home SCs next to each other.
INTRO:
Opening African negotiations go well, I convince Kenya to give up Eth, and Ghana offers Alg- I look set for a strong opening. NE's opening stab worries/angers me, but he didn't move to SAr, so I just ask/threaten him to retreat, and succeed. I begin to form alliance with Europe for possible protection from Ghana/NE. Interesting message from China offering game-long alliance. I suspect this has been sent to many people, but bite.

AFRICAN CONQUEST:
I decide sharing Africa is not on.
I then attack Kenya, and form alliances with Ghana and SA against him, but a stronger one with Ghana. I turn everyone surrounding Near East against him as I would prefer to avoid sharing home SC border
After Kenya's gone, rather than doing the smart thing and sticking with my strong ally Ghana against SAfrica and then pulling in Europe later to deal with Ghana, I am greedy and decide the gains on attacking SA are too small, wanting to retain strong constant growth. I trust SA to help me stab Ghana, and stick with me against him. In fact SA tells Ghana i'm stabbing, and joins him against me. I'm angry at SA, but keep my cool. I manage to build a defensive line against Ghana and SA using my strength from my stab on Ghana, and convince Ghana to stab SA. He shouldn't have done this, but I was glad he did, and in the end I'd have defeated him anyway with Europe, so he was in a sticky situation. By this time I'm verging on hating SA as when I asked him why he refused to even discuss cooperation when I'd saved him from elimination by stabbing Ghana, Ghana had stabbed him twice, and i'd never lied, he told me he knew who Ghana was from out of game (thought he was Ivo) and so knew he could trust him.
Eventually Africa falls, although I have to give some away to FA and Europe, who help me conquer it. My share in NE is disappointing all things considered, but I'm too big to demand a bigger share.

Supper time. I'll write in phase 2, world conquest, later.

Amazing game, great play from everyone involved, and I'm glad I participated despite everything.

In retrospect I should have not worked with China when he offered an alliance and instead focused my efforts on working with White Russia (LanGaidin, one of several great players in this match) to secure our own survival at the expense of China and Europe. I should also have started working with India (Crazyter), Quebec (ZaZa), Western Canada (Ivo) and Oz (Chrispminis) right off the bat, plotting China's demise. Like Highlander, there can be only one--and the primary reason I didn't actually do this is because of the vast wasteland expanse in Asia.

This board has no centers in central Asia: Kaz, Omsk, Irk, Mong, etc. are all worthless, which is one of the many imbalances in the map. They shouldn't all be centers, obviously, but the lack of them means that there's generally not much reason for Pac Russia to push south--where's the reward? So my opening should likely have been Vla - Kor, Yak - SoO, East Sib - West Sib or some variation thereof. LanGaidin was clearly willing to work with me, at least at the beginning by letting me get West Sib, so I should have respected that and profited handsomely from the south.

Another imbalance in the game is that Pac Russia's fleet is in Yak, instead of Vla, where it should be. In fact, one could argue that Pac Russia should really start with two fleets considering the wasteland in Asia, but if one corrects the Asian wasteland problem then two armies could make sense.

My demise ultimately came after I did Europe the favor of wiping out White Russia, which was my most costly mistake of all. Sorry LanGaidin! I thought I could trust Napoleon of Oz and I could not have been more wrong.

All in all, great game. davebishop's play has impressed me in the past and I'm glad he pulled through victoriously.

I can't believe I drew Oz two GR World games in a row. >=(

Well mine won't be up to the standard of Europe's EOG - but I will try:
2000: Draw China and get depressed. I write to all 16 other players. I offer serious game long alliances to India, Pacific Russia, Lybia and Russia and offer information exchanges to most others. Play the 'feel sorry for underpowered China' card with everyone. White Russia does not respond - each of the others agree to alliance. I agree with PR to take a very big risk for both of us by moving our units away from each other - which ultimately works out well and ensures we split Kor/Jap without conflict. The trust created by this initial gamble is invaluable. In order to try to preserve an alliance with both India and PR I try to arrange an India/FA/China tripartite alliance against Oz and tell Oz FA is attacking them in the hope India and I can take most of the gains - FA finds out and things get messy in the south. Promise to support India into centres next year in order to get Thailand. 3 build China!

2001: 3 builds in 2000 draws some unhelpful attention. It is the most I can do to keep my alliances together including demonstrating my loyalty to India by supporting them into Indonesia. India/PR seem loyal - but the FA/Oz mess makes India nervous. Do some agreed bounces with India to try to hide our alliance.

2002: Near-East's moves threaten my Indian allies centres in Afg. I suggest moving to WCh to help protect it and India agrees. Following a botched move on FA in the south, I have a fleet which can only retreat to Bombay. I am genuinely torn as to whether to protect India (who I regard as my most loyal ally) or make the attempt to position myself as a world power by stabbing for up to a 3 centre gain. The dark side of me triumphs as we are not having success against FA and I want to keep the PR alliance alive, and another 3 builds come my way.

2003: Some last ditch diplomacy from India's sitter but I have to stay the course - particularly as being a 9 centre China is drawing attention now. India RIP - apologies to Crazyter.

2004: Befriend what is left of Near-East and encouraged them to move on Europe. See this as a perfect opportunity to upgrade relations with Europe in order to start a policy of containment against my increasingly dominant ally Lybia - so leak Near-East's moves to Europe and stab for Afghanistan. Have started serious discussions with the 'team america' alliance (Quebec/Argentina/USA) - Argentina and the USA appear to want China as an ally, I feel Quebec doesn't want me on board and is just trying to splinter the rest of the world so team america can take this game. Nasty surprise when the USA takes most of the Pacific. At the same time am in serious discussions to create what the commentators ultimately refer to as the 'mega-alliance' of PR/China/Lybia/FA/Europe in order to contain team america. Things are most difficult with FA due to the early fiasco - but we regard each other as the lesser of the two evils compared to the americans and so the mega-alliance is formed.

2005/2006 - As part of the 'mega-alliance' provide support for PR in the north against Quebec and FA in the south against USA/Argentina. I place supporting the mega-alliance as a far greater priority than my own growth. In the face of the successful mega-alliance, the team america alliance fractures. The move to support PR puts me in a good position to stab and I start serious discussions with Europe about whether we can afford that. Lybia/Europe/China form the core of the mega-alliance with each regarding the 3 way as a good counter-balance against a solo attempt by any one of the 3.

2007/2008 - The true core of the 'mega-alliance' is revealed with the threat of team america disappearing Europe and I stab PR and Lybia and I move on FA. Convoy problems now start to be a serious hindrance in preventing attacking FA properly with armies. This ends up costing me most of the gains from FA and sets Lybia up in their Antartic stronghold. FA fights bravely and clings to survival.

2009-2014 - Little to say - the core alliance hold together well. Convoying problems means that Lybia takes faster gains than Europe and I do and getting into the americas is very hard going in the face of solid Arg/USA resistance - but it seems little will stop us. I do talk to Lybia about a possible 2 way - but Lybia's greater strength, the difficulty of any agreed 2 way draw on this map and the convoying issues mean I ultimately reject the idea and affirm my intention to play this out to a 3 way with Lybia and Europe.

2015 - Lybia stabs for the solo. The convoying problems and Europe's lack of effort to defend the middle-east means we are badly out of position. Enough has been said 'in-game' about my views on that move. I work overtime diplomatically to restore the relations Europe and I have with Argentina/USA to create the resistance needed to stop Lybia soloing. A share in the final draw is promised to both USA and Argentina who thankfully and both forgiving enough to join us and Europe and I agree to basically completely exit north america. From this period to the end - is very tense strategically trying to out-guess/out-smart Lybia.

2016 - While the resistance is going backwards in centre count, Lybia can only build 3 units a year and the resistance has sured up most areas. Only South America remains an area of trouble. Lybia sees the writing on the wall and agrees to a 4 way if Arg is removed - I save Arg by support back into Chile.

2017 - The tide has turned and Lybia is now in danger of elimination if we continue. In the attempt to finally secure South America, Arg gets removed. Europe and USA are too battle-weary to keep playing until Christmas so we maintain our draw vote and the 4 way draw is called.

There is a fair bit of stabbing in there - but I think it would be very hard to successfully play China any other way given its ugly starting position. Ultimately my major regret (other than the obvious system problems and subsequent arguments) is botching the diplomatic work in year 1 in relation to Oz/FA - as if that had worked then I feel I could have kept at least one of India/PR as a long term ally - both of who I felt would have been loyal to the end.

I am so damn pissed off at the way the Premiere Leagues played out that I really dont want to bother with anything... but I do owe you all an EOG. I wont have the time to write one for a while though as I have a guest arriving for the weekend.

I will say a few short things then flesh them out later hopefully...

1) I drew USA for the SECOND time in a row (chris I feel your pain). the first time I tried a NA triple and attacked Brazil (the previous canceled game) and got close to elimination... this time I started from the get-go to see which one (Quebec or WestCan) would ally with me against the other... unfortunately West can (the better candidate) did not cooperate at all and wrote really sub-par press so Quebec became my ally.

2) there were some bad moments in the early going, but finallly it worked out and Que, Arg and USA had a solid alliance and it was going well.

3) the reason I ended up stabbing Que in the later stages were two fold: 1st and foremost, the writing was on the wall with the 5-member mega alliance working against the 3-member team America. I did contemplate working WITH Que against Arg, but made a decision based on several factors to go with working with Arg - A) element of surprise was better B) I felt that Que was dishonest with me when it came to his relationship with PR and ended up hurting our chances because he lied to PR/Eur so many times and made ME and my efforts to split up the mega-alliance not work C) China was very much anti-Quebec and I held out a lot of hope about China for a long while and D) I felt it gave me the best chance of coming out of the game as part of the draw...

4) Arg and I tried to work with the Eur/Lib/Chi trifecta to get rid of FA and PR for a 5way, we coordinated our diplomacy REALLY well on some occasions with Lib/Chi but our moves were not as well coordinated. in the end, their 3way was stronger than we had hoped.

5) I offered to help Libya (and china) solo on several occasions near the end... China explicitly said no... Libya hemmed and hawed... in the end, it was Libya who went for it. My offer was semi-serious... it would be nice to see a solo, better then being eliminated in a 3way draw... AND it would give me a potential shot at squirling my way into a draw if I played my cards right...

in the end... that is exacly what happend... after the Libyan stab, China and Europe, specially China really did stick to their promise to back off of me - Libya had a less communicative replacement at a very bad time - the debate in the global made a china/libya peace even more far-fetched (which made libya's promise of eliminating me and going back to a 3way if I did not help him less plausible)...

too bad Argentina ended up not being part of it, he deserved it - but his late NMR and problems submitting orders really hurt him. we did try to keep him in and get Libya to vote draw a year earlier... and the move to Chi was not supposed to kill him off - but alas... the writing was on the wall.

I feel a bit lucky that I was in the final draw (I owe it to the ill-advised Libyan stab... and I will take SOME minor credit in making him think he could pull it off). but I also think I played this game exceptionally well... I diplomed well, I allied well, and I even feel I stabbed well. the only thing I should/could have done better was to either stab Quebec 2 years earlier or to have done it more effectively somehow. my problem was that I expected and hoped that PR and I could counter China or China and I could split PR... but Quebec's incesent lying and stabbing of PR pushed PR closer and closer into China's lap... and China (rightly) did not want to stab PR early and give me a foothold in Asia when he knew he could stab PR at any point later in the game and take it all himself.

I diplomed early and often with every single player... and had great conversations with most players at some point in the game... it was truly a great experience playing with SO MANY good diplomats in one game, but in the final analysis - the flaws of the map, both technically and structurally made the game a poor one.

I would not play this map again - though I would welcome a chance to play with almost any of the foes I faced in it (except maybe Ivo... =P)

If it helps Babak - you and Argentina did do a very good job of trying to convince me to come over to team america. Ultimately the problems were that Quebec kept trying to play you, I and PR off against each other and I kept finding out about it, and that the mega-alliance was proving so solid. I would be very interested to hear Quebec's (ZaZa) side of the story.

Just to complete some holes, after read the others EOG. I was always the small one between the so called "Mega alliance", so I tryed all the time to keep it stable, as the obivous one to be crushed is me.
Lybia did a great job having two centers of mine as "hostage" in Africa, so I can hardly do something against him. But my lack of defense in south and NE was mostly due to the convoy problems as I have to move all my units up north and use mostly fleets to break USA defenses. Also I trust that Lybia or China won´t risk an attempt to solo as this could turn everyone against him (I was wrong on this assumption, but right on what will happen).
Also, I would like to say that I got really great press from almost everybody on the board, specially Napoleon of Oz, Dave Bishop, Babak and LanGaidin (I was really sorry to have to stab him at some point, but I have no other way to go). The only one I can´t set a good communication (the one´s I tried, some were dead before I can really have some interesting thing to say) was Quebec.
All in all, the game was good, but could have been really better if the board didn´t have soo much problems.

I wrote this in July for anyone interested in an early out's opinion:

Argentina early established DMZ's, but I feared a quick run at me (since I was SA last game and got bum-rushed), so I violated the DMZ early, but backed off hoping to salvage the alliance. I kept in contact with Quebec and the US, but apparently Argentina was a better diplomacy player than I and had them both under his spell, and I spent the rest of the game trying to convince them without any result. I tried to get Ghana to come help, but he wouldn't break away from Africa. So I was stuck between 3 enemies, trying my damnedest to convince one of them to help. I'm pretty sure US "accidentally" (if you know what I mean) missed a support to give me a breather and that is the closest I came from one of the three helping me. I was giving them anything they wanted, but they either feared argentina, or they had an early alliance that wouldn't break.

What I learned is that if you aren't aggressive and fast and early in the world variant, you are in serious trouble. I traditionally play a more conservative approach and build alliances, but aggression seems to work much easier in the world variant, because everyone wants to be on the side of someone with more SCs instead of strategic position and help.

I had a lot of fun, but I definitely need to work on my world variant skills :)

Part two: GLOBAL CONQUEST

Extensive discussions between myself, Europe and China before Spring 2007 lead to a decision to stab FA and Pac R, believing we could "go it alone". It turned out we could, so things were looking up and it soon became very clear we could make a 3 way draw. As Arg and USA slowed down retreats and build phases (this was annoying and a unsportsmanlike tactic, even if it worked a bit!), I became increasingly bored and a little decided, so decided, in what sounded like the last GR global game on the site for a while, I would try and solo; at least have a bit of fun before the end. So I set about trying to maximize my gains from Antartica and South America, to put myself in a position to solo. Despite China's bullshit, these gains were not acquired simply because I could convoy. My convoying ability went on and off just as his did(in fact when i went for the solo i thought he'd be able to convoy again- clearly i should have checked with him though, sorry!!); the way he twisted the issue to suite his arguments still slightly shocks me. Anyway, I also talked with USA and Arg about soloing. I didn't trust either, but eventually went for a solo, reasoning the worst that could happen was a 5 way, but that a 4 way was much more likely, with a real possibility of a solo. Unfortunately I had to go away just after I stabbed for the solo, and my sitter couldn't keep up the conversation that would have been required to keep USA onside. If he had been onside, I genuinely think I would have soloed. With better tactical play (this didn't happen partly due to the sitter (e.g.giving up Ven) and also due to careless order entering after I returned and USA had gone against me. I think I could have secured All of South America except maybe Peru, Ukraine, France, Italy and maybe Moscow. I think that would have given me a solo.

I don't really regret the stab, as it only slightly reduced my results, and certainly made things more interesting. The flame war between my sitter and China kinda soured things though. I honestly believe a large amount of his "righteous" anger just came from spite of my stab and fear he'd lose; funny seeing as he'd done a fair bit of lying and stabbing in the early game.

@Babak, I was kinda miffed when I found you were USA. You'd been commenting a lot in the commentary thread which seems completely wrong for someone still playing. Especially surprising given your 'pure' view of the game?

Just to be clear, I don't think I'd have won if I hadn't needed a sitter, but perhaps I'd have head a better shot at soloing if I'd been able to give it my full attention and do my utmost to convince Babak to help. Most of the tactical errors were mine after USA's betrayal led to laziness on my part ordering. Tactical mishaps included letting China's fleet into Southern Indian Ocean through a misorder, taking Arm with a fleet and not an army while moving the fleet to BS, and not convoying to AH earlier, all in 2016

For your information:

I drew SA for the second time in a row for this game. I asked about this at the time - specifically questioning whether there was in place an algorithm that would set a player who had had drawn country X already at a lower value for getting country X again? I was told yes. Therefore, the only logical way I can get country X twice in a row is if I still had a higher probability for this than all the other players. However, as some of the players were new to the map, that should have been a simple no. So, the question remains, how did I, or any of you, get repeat draws on countries when there were players in the game who were new to the map?

I didn't complain, I merely asked and then smiled at the explanation I was given.

Fortunately I was dead by the time the convoy problem was identified. Had I been alive, I would have taken a very active role in the discussion. As it was/is, I have made my personal take on this type of situation boringly clear. I honestly believe that the game should have been stopped at the point where the convoy problem was found. To play on in any game knowing that there are difficulties that go against the rules/system that was thought to be in place at the start is a complete no no.

I do not ask for comment or support of my position, I merely state that it is something I feel strongly about.

@flashman - in hindsight I wish I had taken your position.
I take strong issue with some of what dave bishop says in the 2nd part of his EOG above - I don't want to restart the flame war but I will not shy away from responding to lies that are being broadcast publicly.
Lie 1 - the statement that Lybia's gains in Antarctica/South America were not attributable to the convoying issue and that China's ability to convoy turned on and off when Lybia's did. I know there were phases when I tried to convoy to both of those continents, was completely unable to and then dave was able to. Dave has no idea how often this occured. I significantly changed the share I was hoping for from both continenents because of this issue. Anyone who looks at the phases will be amazed at how China seemingly made no attempt to land armies when Lybia was doing it like no tomorrow. If I need to mention particular attempted convoys and phases I can do that.
2) the statement that my anger was because of being stabbed and a fear of losing - I promise all I had (and still have) genuine and great unhappiness about what I consider was a serious abuse of a system problem. Once it became clear Arg/USA would side with Europe/China it was evident Lybia could not solo - but I continued to argue vehemently about how wrong I regarded Lybia's actions as being. This has nothing to do with being stabbed - which frankly you accept as a possibility when you sign up for a WTA game. Again, dave cannot know my state of mind - and wild accusations like this just read of sour grapes of not having been able to take the solo.

@NoOz
I also wish you'd taken up a consistent position on the issue, rather than deciding it was only an issue when it didn't benefit you.

I really cba to argue this, but the sea regions we controlled effectively dictated what SCs we took there.
Any sour grapes are probably just from the violent, consistent cheating accusations to be honest. You also admitted in game you were angry at the stab, and I'm certain you wouldn't have been so against going for a solo if it had been you going for it.
Again and again I've asked what I should have done in my position, and again and again no one has answered.

@dave - I also explained my position many times - if you actually bothered to read it you would have seen there was a consistent rationale about playing with the problem until it became game altering. I specifically refused to try for a solo because I regarded attempting it as completely unethical. Others have already confirmed that is the position I took.
The sea regions held are not the whole story - if I could convoy into South America, and Antarctica quicker than I did the interiors of those continents would not have fallen to you the way they did. Even a quick scan of the map will show people sea positions are important but not everything.
Of course I was angry at the stab - but that did not cause what happened on global - that was caused by a genuine belief that your conduct was unethical and wrong - and by the fact that you and your sitter reacted in an equally violent manner.
What you should have done in your position is: in flashman's pure view of the world agreed a draw/cancel when it first became a problem or in my pragmatic view of the world agreed a 3 way draw if you agreed that reflected the likely outcome if the system problem had not ever existed.
Again both of these points were raised multiple times if you had actually bothered to read what others wrote - so you had plenty of answers, it is just that you didn't agree with the answers you were provided with.
Happy to take this off-line or more privately - but if you are going to sling mud in public then lets at least have a balanced account of the disagreement.

I read it N of Oz. The way I saw it though, most others thought that I wasn't cheating, so actually disagreed with you. Funny how you saw them as agreeing...
I simply disagree on your analysis for SA and Antartica. I would have always taken the inland SCs in Antartica, and in SAmerica i was clearly going to have the SCs on the East coast.

I was not violent in my negotiations, in private or global. I was, as I've said before, very surprised at how angry you were and how emotional you found the experience.
The problem with both your solutions is they mean I'm not even allowed to try for a solo. That's very unfair on me, and not a solution I'm read to accept. I can't know the reason you didn't go for a solo, but suspect it was more to do with the fact you were in no position to solo, than any "ethical" considerations.

haha, i'm the one slinging mud now!! You should re-read the global tab. All I've said here is that I believed your anger was 'sour grapes' for the stab.
I think I've said enough, so feel free to have the last word if you wish.

I will post once more on this because dave continues to blatantly try to misrepresent my position.
I clearly acknowledged in global that majority opinion was that you were not cheating - but there was a range of views on what you should/should not have done. This game was reported to the mods by 3 people - that tells you something about the level of frustration with your actions. But I have never in this thread attempted to say everyone or the majority agreed with me.
If the system is not working I don't see how it is unfair to a player within it that they can't solo. I specifically told you I was not willing to reduce the game beyond a 3 way due to the convoy problem - so if you were actually honest with everyone, you actually did know exactly why I did not even try for a solo.
Unless you are going to be honest about what was said there is no real point in continuing this - so I hope this thread can now return to the EOGs it was intended for.

bump.

I want to add to this later... and lots of other folks to hear from no?

Yeah, sorry, I need to add to this as well when I get some spare time...