I might be wrong here, but I think you are criticizing Italy's play, is that correct?

If that's the case, I don't see how Italy made you lose the game.

he took what? 2 centers from me in the middle of setting up a stalemate line.

sure i mad eother mistakes but that completely negated the possibility of us stopping you.

As well as not really working very hard to fight you JC and push you back in the south.

Though I have to admit I thought you where going to point at england in our live game >.<

oh that one kinda stab of sweden. you can ask ava i was ranting for a bit but it wasnt terrible play just a little foolish. plus it didnt really cost the game.

oh that game! yeah that was bad.

you lose it on your own, centurion1. Really.
Well played England and Austria btw, They got cought on crossed fire and did their best.
Centurion1, you messed up in scandinavia, and with russia freezed on south and me saving your but at munich, instead of using your fleets to retake scandinavia, you went... EC and Edinburgh?? Epic Fail.
You went after England with Russia unable to find those last 2 Centers. I was at the monitor asking myself what was going through your mind, but hey, that is the nice thing about this game. Random players happen.
And at the end, you just gave him the game.I was holding you, and my fleets were going through north Atlantic to help against him up north, putting pressure so you could retake some ground.

So, mocking ME for what was a well played game form my part as i see it, while your decisions were questionable ones... I don't know, it seems to me that self-criticism is not your thing.

Nice game anyway, pals! Fun.

i gave him the game with that one move?

you gave him the game when you have the gall to take 2-3 centers from me in the midst of forming a stalemate line.

honestly, I don't see how Italy could have stopped me the south. I had far more units deployed in the south than he did. IMHO the point I knew I was going to win was in the Spring 1908 turn when Germany moved his fleets towards England instead of trying to stop me in Scandinavia.

you had one fleet down south. he could have easily taken you and even taken ground.

i still had the ability to set up a stalemate line with my questionable play on england.

Italy and I had one fleet in that point in the Med, Italy had far less armies than I did. He didn't lose ground nor gain ground. You on the other hand lost a lot of ground after your move against England. So how do you claim that you could set up a stalemate line when you let me have the Balkan sea?

just my two cents.

Anyway it was a nice game and I had fun.

more fleets up north.

ad if he had stayed in burgun and support held munich it would have been secure and kiel could have blocked berlin and baltic would have been untocuhable for quite awhile while i repositioned my northern fleets.

I really really don't get it. It was impossible to stop the zillion Russian tanks anywhere before Trieste. I even had Trieste and left, letting Austria have it so he could defend it better, with me supporting him... but knowing that it was doomed. So i put a feet on the ionian sea and 2 armies north italy to prevent russia to grow any further. When he made another fleet at sevaastopol, i had to build another fleet in time to support the one i had at the ionian sea. And i had another army on rome just to push into tyrolia to protect munich... couldnt do anything more but to pray that germany could do the right moves up north. I started sending fleets just to stop that nosense fight between germany and england. I still dont understand that North Sea -> EC move from germany just when he had everything to fight for scandinavia! I will look at the game again tomorrow, maybe i DID do some mistakes and there is a logic, but as of now i can't see it that way.

you know how easy it is to hold italy when there is no fleet support? you need two armies!!!!!!!!!!!!! he had another fleet coming from nSEVASTOPOL you had ample time to move your northern fleets down soputh and reposition.

I have to say that I am probably agreeing with centurionfu here. Italy had a stalemate in the south. Although, It may have just been a matter of time in the north.

or it may not have. it could have turned into a stalemate. quite easily really.

centurion, I agree with your point on Burgundy. But I also regard your attack against England instead of allowing them to survive and potentially help you in the stalemate as the move that cost you the game.

I cut Frances' support twice to help Germany, but that didn't stop the inquisition against the English. Letting Russia get 4 units in Scandinavia was a mistake. I even relegated myself to exile by convoying out of Norway, so Germany could do battle with Russia. I'm just happy I survived.

after you attacked sweden i was a little nervous about how you would act all left alone. obviously an error but not an irreparable one.

i am going to sleep. However, i wanted to say that on my moves on france, Germany lost 2 centers, having to destroy 2 units that were on EC and Paris... so i dont see how that affects the fight against russia. And for the defense of munich, please look at the game, i really helped there both from burgundy and from Piedmont/Venice... so No, the game was not lost on Burgundy by any measure. In fact, when i saw Germany going EC and Edinburgh instead of fighting russia, when i saw him going west all the alarms went on, that is why i went for belgium. That and the thought that he was going to take Brest that was open so he wouldn't lose much. But again, he lost 2 centers on france, and then 2 units ON FRANCE AND EC, no harm done on a fight against russia he was not even putting up anymore.
What i am trying to say is, Burgundy doesn't look to me not a mistake nor a cause, not even a lateral and tiny cause for losing the game.
As I see it, the fall of Turkey that soon affected Russian strength at the begginning and that was the biggest factor.
I would still take to martial court that German fleets running away of scandinavia when the free world needed them the most.

my attack on sweden was my only play. france had convoyed to wales, and that was my only way to stay at 4 sc. i had an army in sweden, so i couldn't do much that's why i tried for st. pete. once you took sweden back, you were hellbent on coming after me. i couldn't believe you supported yourself into edinburgh. you could've put pressure on norway instead, and russia wouldn't have been able to take the baltic without losing norway.

i would take to martial court stabbing your allies in the back. your army in burgundy was needed when it was actually there. with it there we had a stalemate almost. i needed that fleet up north because i sont know it could be used against russia

centurion1 lets consider a hypothetical scenario that Italy's burgundy supported Munich instead of taking Belgium. On that very same turn you left Baltic sea. You had no idea what Italy was going to do and you left Baltic sea. That's it. No stalemate.

false i did that because i could tell that italy was going to stab. if you noticed the turn before he moved to paris i knew he was going to.

as well as his builds.

centurion1 it is not a stab when you are playing for a draw. Italy needed a unit in the south.

no he really DID not. and he definetly did not need two.

I must say, the blame is split.

Centurion, you made some dumb moves, which made it far more difficult, italy just sealed the loss.

But then he will only have 2 fleets in the south. Notice that I had an extra build that i chose to postpone in the last turn. I could have had a third fleet in the south and moved a third fleet to Greece and that way i could have taken Ionian sea. i didn't feel i needed that extra fleet because I knew i could take 2 more centres in the north.

he still would have had enough fleets if he moved his southern ones down.

and yes im not denying that i made mistakes everyone does in these games but what italy did wasnt a mistake it was like throwing the game.

Outsider here, but I believe it was really Italy that lost the game with his moves in Spring 1907. A move to MAO was not necessary, nor was he move to Piedmont. Had that army moved to Tyrolia, Vienna could have been saved. Had there been another fleet in the south, Italy could have moved into East Med and pressured the Russian.

As for Germany's move that fall in the north, I don't blame him at all. He took the guaranteed build instead of risking getting Norway back, because it was 50/50 that Russia would support Norway into Sweden and he'd lose a center anyways.

And then again Italy in Spring 1908 you don't move to Tyrolia, dooming Germany, nor do you save Trieste. The moves are illogical if you were playing for a draw (what you should be doing in this case) and not a strong second (which is what you were doing). I am completely with Centurion on this one

goldfinger, flawed reasoning everywhere. With one fleet (or even 2) trying to go to eastern mediterranean??? are you mad? if on that move he goes aegean -> ionian, the game is over. You just have to stay on your line and not open to him. Plus, he had armies in smyrna, so i can't see what can i win with such move. Really, man, you are talking bananas. You say we could have saved Vienna?? Stop drinking and texting, pal.
I accept any suggestion to improve the game, but what you just wrote was no sense, sorry.

As for Germany's move that fall in the north, I don't blame him at all. He took the guaranteed build instead of risking getting Norway back, because it was 50/50 that Russia would support Norway into Sweden and he'd lose a center anyways. No he wouldn't have.
If Germany would've supported Sweden to Norway with Skag, Norwegian, North Sea, and support Denmark into Sweden with Baltic Sea, he would've taken Norway back, and kept the Baltic. Instead, he attacked Edinburgh, and let his line buckle.

Does look like Germany has a point Italy.
At the end of the day, taking the French centre's off him meant he had to worry about you rather than being able to put all his efforts against Russia.
Now whether he could have reached a stalemate line or not (which I'm unsure) there was no way you could have taken the win from there, so all you were doing was earning yourself a few more SCs for vanities sake.
That was not a well played finish.

Oh well, i guess it was my fault then. He really needed a fleet in EC to destroy Russia. And his Picardy army was a step away from Moscow.

With Russia on 16 centers, I was stopping him south, attacking tyrolia, supporting munich, and driving my fleets north without taking england but to fight Russia. On the other hand, Germany (who, lets be clear, other than at scandinavia, played a good game) was going for england.
He lost 2 centers at france, and because of that 2 units awaaaaay from the Russian front, so all i am getting from this chat is a clear, selfdeclared statement on the twisted reasoning of some players.

But, you know, i am just kind of slow.

I'm not saying Germany could have stopped Russia if you hadn't taken France, I don't know.
However, in taking France you made it harder for him, and with you taking France there was no way he could have stopped Russia.

Alright, so maybe the Ionian move was safer, but still you should have moved fleets in to support it or moved them to go after England. But if you moved to Tyrolia in the Spring of 1907 you could've saved Vienna with a support hold that autumn. As for Germany's moves n the north, again I say he did the smart thing. He did a self bounce in Kiel with Denmark, so he knew he couldn't guarantee Sweden. Plus, he didn't want England having a build in his backside, because that would only be troublesome; England had to go. That being said, the army in Pic and fleet in EC were probably meant to convoy into England, not attack you. But in the end, I'm with figle, I'm not sure if Germany could've stopped Russia anyways, but Italy sure tossed it for Russia

I don't think it was one player's fault. Just something that can happen in a game without verbal communication. And that's the beauty of it!