And?? Instead of a draw and way more points all the countries but italy are settling for way less points.

Uh, its in progress so I probably shouldn't comment. However I think your overexaggerating England's role in the loss.

He ultimately ruined the line we formed, but yeah there was idiocy across the board, german and russias later war being the prime example.

You shouldn't be posting on a game that was still going. If you have an opening for a stab, and a chance at getting more points than a 4 way draw. In PPSC it is worth it. The way he executed it was bad though. So he did the right thing to try and gain. But you and Germany pulled it out so he got less..

Where was there ever a stab opening on italy? Do you realize the difference in points?

None of those countries had any remotely realistic hopes of getting more points that a 4 or even a 5 way draw.

England did the right thing. He had no take in the Draw. so he went for more points. You and Germany were the ones who messed up. You should have forced him to take part in the Draw. Leaving him having his whole country behind you doing nothing while you 2 are wide open for the stab is your problems. Not his. I don't see how it is his fault at all that you lost. You should have taken him out earlier. But you both decided to stop your assaults because you feared each other. England is realistically cleared of blame. F/G would have worked, but you tried to incorporate and England that had nothing to do except stab or sit there. So well played to Italy for the win. Shame on F/G for there play. And Good try to England..

And if you look at the points.
8 centers was enough to make a profit over a 4 way draw.
Lvp/Lon/Edin
+
Den/Nor/Belg/Brest/Holland.
That is all he needed. I am presuming that is what he was trying for..

Are you serious? Are you actually suggesting it was wiser of england to LOSE 4 in the end than it was for him to be in a on a draw he had to do nothing for but not attack that would have netted him a QUARTER OF A 350 POINT POT LETS SEE THATS 87.5 ... yeah how could you possibly justify that. Stop playing the devil's advocate. You're just plain wrong.

if you look we had the stale mate and englands attack on brest broke it...

Where was he even remotely close to getting 8 centers? He could barely hold the island.

Win if you can
Draw if you must
Survive at all costs.
The game wasn't at all over. YOU AND GERMANY didn't play your cards right. You should have killed him instead of trying to kill each other. You aggravated the hornets next with your foolish attack on Munich. Had you not done that. Your chances of the solo, or even just the 3 way draw would have been exponentially increased. YOU were greedy. So now YOU had to pay for it. You are making everyone else who played like they did something wrong EXCEPT YOURSELF. All you have done the past few days is complain about how games that you don't win are bad. But then you boast about the 1 game that you had a 17/17 draw. OMG GET OVER YOURSELF. Your not some kind of Diplomacy god. Nuff said.

And I did look. You never had a stalemate line. Because Germany was always second guessing England. Because you 2 didn't take him out. So St.P was a goner with a completely useless support he kept giving to Norway and Sweden.

Schmoo wtf are you talking about 17/17 draw? When outside of that game have I even mentioned it. All you do is jump on when I make post games and play devil's advocate. While anyone with over five hundred points will tell you that mistakes were made on all sides but when the end game came we were literally in the stalemate line and you some how keep holding up this ppsc bullshit banner that he should have kept going for it. Blow it out your ass. Get over that draw too buy the way. And that is one fucking hell of a game if every other player did the right thing BUT me and yet only one country won? Fuck off, you don't even know what you are talking about.

Maybe he was just playing to have fun and try something. He might not care so much about the points. Personally, I always assume some sort of collusion or multi-accounting before incompetence, anyways.

Once again scmoo how did englands actions ultimately benefit him? We did have the stalemate line England broke it. Jesus. Yes people can break stalemate lines thats part of trusting them, but its idiocy for them to do so when clearly at that point in the game they had no other options. Any advances in scandiniva would have meant italy's win. Any more advances in Germany, the same. His advance into france? Guess what happened?.... Italy got the last sc he needed.

@ SuperSteve.. Thats a possibility.
@ Diplomancer83
Points mean absolutely nothing.
Again..
Win if you can
Draw if you must
Survive at all costs
He did what he should have to make an attempt at getting to 8 or 9 centers. And you have to remember you were playing PPSC. No one cares who wins. As long as they get to be 2nd they are happy. If that was WTA. Then yes. what he did was perhaps the dumbest thing ever..
WTA Press games are fun because people *usually* don't being dbags about it. They will settle with the draw.
PPSC just turn into a f-fest for the 2nd most SC's so they can try to get more than everyone else.

Ok I get it you would rather schmoo you'd rather survive and lose points than have a certain draw for a quarter of the pot. Makes perfect sense. And there is still no second place in PPSC. He lost points.. to clarify also I am speaking specifically of his decision to take brest, clearly such an action means the line is broken and as I stated before it was the same situation everywhere else? Two years before we had the line? Sure go for it. I don't blame him. But its a fools deal to gave up the oppurtunity he did for a supply center he didn't even keep. You keep saying the same shit but it still makes no sense. There is a difference between trying to make a last rush on points and what that guy did. If you can't see that then I really don't know what else I can say to you. Play more or something. Stop being a troll? Btw I never claimed to be a diplomacy god or even good at it, but that board and the outcome of the game speaks for itself.

Spring and Autumn 1911 look at that a good long time.

Play more.. I would if I had the time.. Every time I try to start a live game it is when less people are on. Because I have work in the afternoon for me. So I can't be on when everyone else is running there games.
2. He *tried* to make a benefit. He failed.. He should have got a better position than what he did before trying it. I am not saying that you are wrong about it. I am just trying to say that what he did wasn't without some sort of future avail. He started it good. But when he tried to push into Germany, and hit you at the same time was when it failed.. He made too many enemies at once. You never know, he could have been in league with Italy the whole time and just playing you guys off as pawns so that Italy could win. The variable factors included here are varying enough that no one but himself can be sure as to why he did it and why he did it the way he did. I am still going to stick with the fact that your attack on Munich is really what caused this whole thing. A move to Belgium, expecting the pull back to Munich would have been a more experienced players move. I mean unless you had Germany absolutely 100% sure that you were going to Belgium. Heck you should have told him you were going for Munich. If you really wanted the stab that much. Then Belgium was open.
F Brest, A Mars and Paris.
Without an England until 02 you would of had the North Sea and Holland. Germany would have been done, and you would have forced. R/T/I/A to settle there differences. Which wouldn't have happened at all. And you would have enjoyed the solo.
....

I agree my attack on munich was foolish but I was able to stalemate germany, live through the lean years and eventually get a cease fire and then work together to the stalemate. I recovered from my mistake. The difference is that my mistake didn't lose the game for everyone nor did it even take me out of the game. Thats how things are in the early game, you take calculated risks and sometimes they just dont happen. But the key word is CALCULATED. There was no other outcome for him attacking brest other than italys victory. Granted he may have been in italy's pocket. Why? Who knows? An Intelligent decision in either case? Definitively not once Italy only needed one more sc.

By the way how did my attack on Munich "cause this whole thing"? We were already accepting we had to work together well before the point of facing italy and I can't help a redicously well placed (for the italians) CD austria and then Turkey. So yeah your line of reasoning is flawed at best, plain moronic at worst. If anything you could just as much blame russia for attack germany before he had the south... you could do that shit all day so stop your little quest to try to make me look the fool. I did what I had to and with the exception of the munich attack and then trusting the uk to stalemate rather than take brest and lose (which I pretty much had to do at that point) I made some pretty sound moves and judgements the entire game.

Watch the year after that. You tried to make up for it by pulling back. You invaded England and had to return because Germany was coming back for you. Then after he pulled back he invaded England and got turned around by the attack Russia and that Italy was growing. So without that move on Munich. Germany wouldn't have attacked you and you would have taken over England with ease.

Once again the primary reason italy got so big was because of a cd austria and turkey... you know what I am done with this. If you really think that one move in 01 on munich single handedly won the game for italy yet not the move on brest by england when we had a stalemate line I really have nothing else to say to you.

Oh. No I am not saying that was why Italy got big. Generally that is the only way Italy ever can win. A or T goes CD then the other 2 rush to take the land. But in this case both. And Russia went for Turkey rather than Austria, so Italy got some free land early. Got the upper hand and exploited it to perfection. The move on Brest did cause the loss. But the move on Munich CAUSED THE CAUSE.

You are insane.

Can't argue with the truth..

Well at least you all had fun, and that's the main thing :-)

This is a strange thread. The only reason Germany was in position for the stalemate line was because he was forced to flee from England. England was never part of any stalemate, he never stopped attacking. It was a full press game, so this was a failure of diplomacy, communication and strategy. It almost looks like Gunboat in the way it was played, like no one was really talking.

I sure as hell was trying to get everyone to work together. I spelled out the line to them and what the alternative was. England choose the alternative and it turned out exactly how I predicted.

Not that germany was much better. I at least talked into a temporary cease fire with thmrussia but emotions took preedence over reason.

IT would have been a 4-way draw...

Wow, so much anger over a simple game...
I agree with Tantris' analysis, this game was played like Gunboat.
As player of Russia, I have two explanations for my (less than optimal) actions: 1) I'm a beginner player and 2) I was surprised 3 times by Austria's CD, Turkey's CD and Turkey's return.
It's easy to criticize from France or Germany when you're not that much affected by CD but it has a way of f***king your plans and forces you to react weirdly. I guess I need to get more experience at managing CD in games...or hope that people will stick to games and not act like spoiled child whenever they lose something.

I also feel that sticking to alliances all game long makes the game boring...It's a balance of power!

@Guillaume - You may not have a win yet, but your Draw to Loss ratio is pretty good. Stick to what you are doing and learn from your mistakes. You'll be more competitive/skilled in no time.

As far as avoiding CDs, hang out here, get to know people, and get involved in some of the passworded games. Not all of them are high stakes. Of course, it probably means playing longer phase games. Live games do have serious problems with CDs as people don't always plan for the time it will take to play through to the end.

If you play me in a standard game and show reliability like you have in the live games(reliability in that you don't NMR or CD), I'll be your reference for the 150CC club, which plays live passworded games and is all about non-CDing gaming.

Guillaume, Russia, I have to agree you picked your game up quick although you missed some opportunities with denmark early on but later you played very well for a beginner. You also had the diplomatic flexibility to be able to roll with someone calling you out (something here most people are too sensitive for) I was more than happy with how you performed and think it was personally a shame germany stabbed you once you two stopped fighting. I also totally agree with your opinion of game long alliances being one of the lamest things in diplomacy especially if they draw with each other in the end.