Crap! I remember when I got interest from both Sarg and Lando that I made a note in my head to make sure to put you two in separate games, since I was thinking you both play a lot of gunboat together, and thus may be more apt to team up in a game because of that, even an anonymous game. Not sure how I got that mixed up, but, damn, my gut instinct strikes again (even if it was mere coincidence, I'll still take credit)! ;-)

I'll get to my EoG in a bit, but hopefully over the weekend.

Ok, this is my story.

I didn’t kept notes so if I made any mistakes in timing, sorry.
First of all, I have to confess I was a little bit busy during the start of the game. So i chose to cut back on press. Second, Italy isn’t a country I think im comfortable with so I chosed to play it out slow, letting the eastern powers clash each other while leaving the west to do the same. I wanted to sit out the start of the game and screw around to keep things off balance.

1901
I just talked sweet with Austria and Turkey to tell them I won’t attack. France and I agreed on a dmz and I talked with Russia about taking T out together with him and A and then use a nutcracker on A.
So I made a lot of promises without committing to specific actions. After spring moves. With G moving on R and E and F away from each other, I started to be suspicious. And in the fall the board screamed Western Triple to me.

1902
F build the fleet in Mar, something I told him not to do. And With R in Bul and Rum I thought that would keep A and T busy. So I moved west. Afraid of the possible western Tripple, the army in ven went to Tyr. But the WT wasn’t there anymore after spring. Because it thought France would consider me an inexperience player, i sneaked behind him into Spain, leaving the east to fight itself.

1903
G was going down against ER. A was going wild in the Balkans and T was boxed in. I think i only kept Spain because F misordered? in Fall, it became clear that attacking France any longer would mean fruitless effort so we started to talked friendly again. In the mean time, I started to get bored by the way A was pointing me to the west while continuing to grow at my border. In the mean time, my communication with Russia was good so I decided I could work with him. Bye bye Austria.

1904
During the last turn, RE and I talked about an alliance. i agreed, but because I finally agreed peace with F I wanted E to move on F first to keep him busy. I was also offering F support against E, an offer I kept making three turns after but non taken. R and I used T to take out A. I was quiet mad on R for making me disband the army in Trieste by keeping it from moving to Vienna (looking back, I think he was scared of me getting big to fast?)

1905
E refused to move on F, F refused to move on E. E stabbed R and was growing to rapidly. A nmr in the spring and T lost Greece. My survival in the game was secured.

1906
E still refused to go on F, F was just sitting pretty between us. But he let me keep Por so I was happy to let him do what he wanted to do. In the mean time, R tried to let me attack E, while I agreed with E to try to go for a 2way draw. I agreed because I was mad ad R because he kept Serbia, what was agree upon to be mine (second attempt of keeping me small?)Now A was gone and T was still boxed in.

1907
E finally moved on F. R and I started to work on T. I went west to share F with E, but F was still behaving erratically, so he probably had a deal with E. E’s actions would show if he was serious on the 2 way or that he just tried to solo. In the mean time, T went down to 2.

1908
E was moving on R again. More early in the game, R expressed to me an frustration of keeping stabbed by E. He even told me he would support a solo from me If E tried to solo. So if E really want to do the 2 way and moved out of mid atlantic to north atlantic, I would have got a clear solo chance. And if he stabbed me at Port, I still could keep the med closed. So i tried to hit Russia.
Sadly E didn’t moved back and even helped F keep Mar. Ok 3 way it is.

1909
Now it was just a case of securing the 3 way. So we got F and T out of the game and secured the stalemate. @ Sarg, did you agreed with Fortknox he would got a spot in the draw if you would not solo?

@ Fortknox, I really want to know your plan after 1904. What did you want to gain by sitting silent? And what did Sarg promised you all those years?
@ Alderian, Sorry for the boring 3 way. But I was in no position to do otherwise. And you didn’t offered my a viable alternative once I think. And we didn’t gave you a big chance for it, I know.

"A nmr in the spring and T lost Greece."

For the record, I did not NMR. I had to choose between taking Bulgaria from Russia and letting you have Greece or holding onto Greece and letting Russia hold onto Bulgaria. I.e. I had to choose between you and Russia. Russia had stabbed me repeatedly so I choose to give you Greece. I supported myself into Bulgaria and bounced Russia in Armenia.

no, Austria had a NMR

but thanks for giving me Greece :)

Ah, sorry, I misunderstood.

I actually really enjoyed the beginning of this game, regardless of how it turned out. Here's what I remember:

1901: I touched with with Germany and Italy about being friendly, which they seemed open to. Turkey and Russia seemed open to possibilites. I got an especially good vibe from Russia, so I went with a DMZ in Galicia while I tried to get two builds. After spring moves, I saw EG going at Russia hard. Italy was not talking much, said something on global about being busy in real life, which is fine and all, but I don't get why people join a game to not fully play. So, with little press coming from Italy, I didn't really care too much about him as far as a long-term ally goes. I was also now started to get a less than good vibe about Turkey, not sure if the press was also relatively low or what. Anyway, the one thing I did know is that I did not want EG killing Russia quickly, and since I enjoyed chatting with Russia and got by far the best vibe from Russia, I decided I would put all my egg's in the Russian's basket and help Russia stay even at four centers even though he was getting blitzed. Most people on this site, myself included, feel a bit of gratitude when people stick their neck out to help you, but not this Russian. As I've said in other games, life is a gamble, and so is a game of dilomacy, I gambled on this Russian appreciating me helping him out, and I was wrong, bummer for me!

1902: Okay, I was allied with Russia, that much I knew. Italy still wasn't talking much and I wished he hadn't joined the game, why join a game and not participate fully, but suppose I tend to take things a bit too seriously. I had clearly declared war on Turkey. I was chatting with Germany, but I play diplomacy for interactions and working with others, Russia was far and away the most enjoyable person to align with, so win lose or draw I was happy with my choice, perhaps because there didn't seem to be another option.

1903: I was very excited about 1903! I had come up with a plan for me and Russia, it was foolproof, unless of course Russia played me for a fool, and of course we all know he did. Anyway, the plan was for me to dislodge Russia from Bulgaria, so Russia would look attacked, and then Black Sea would support Bul to Con while Greece tapped Aeg. Russia was to keep Rum and Bul, but I needed to insure Turkey thought I was attacking Russia, so I took both Rum and Bul in the spring. This would have been a very fun plan to play out, and I did assume Russia was with me since I saved him early on, but this Russian did not care. In fact, I have now come up with a theory about gunboaters since I know Lando plays a lot of gunboat. It seems to me that gunboaters are used to only thinking about themself while playing and Never Having To Say Sorry. In gunboat, you don't talk, and even though I know you communicate, you are really focused mainly on yourself. This sort of attitude, if when watered down in a regular game, is absolutely not the sort of person I would want to ally with since I'm a team first sort of player that is loyal to a good ally. My gut really failed me in this one, Russia did a great job of "talking nice" to me and he stabbed me good and hard, there is no question about that. Italy also stabbed me this season, which I was not concerned at all with, I understood Italy could stab me, but I just didn't care about the Italian and left myself open to that and got burned.

1904+: It was all over except the crying for me, I was toast. I tried to get a little revenge before I died, but was unable to do anything. The IR was very solid and Turkey wasn't about to latch on to my sinking ship.

I love playing Austria, it is my favorite along with France. I was very excited to get Austria in this game and supporting Russia into Bulgaria in 1901 was a new twist that I though was sure to bring a whole new set of possibilites to playing Austria, since it would very likely lock in an AR for a long-term alliance to kick butt, but it just wasn't meant to be. Maybe next time!

I don't really have the time to write a lengthy EoG right now, but I will make some quick comments on this game. First of all, I have to say I had been playing only gunboats recently and had a long time without a full press game. Thus, I was feeling a bit rusty. I usually favor an EG alliance when I play Germany, but I needed to make sure there was no EF there before. France kept saying to me that he had planned a surprise move against England in 1902 and I thought that was the greatest thing that could happen to me as I would be able to choose between France and England, so I decided to stun the board by blitzing Russia. It was really a last-minute change of heart and it was mostly because from the get go I recognized Russia as a dangerous player. Did not have a clue of who it was, but I was right after all. Everything started out just fine, but in the following year I dug my own grave. Made a bad couple of decisions and could just not figure out England. I realized in spring someone was feeding Russia info, but could not tell if it was E or I so I tried to bluff them to get a better position. Either way they read my bluff perfectly and I got screwed. That, plus the fact, that France and I never got on the same page. As soon as I figured out that E and R were allied I tried to convince France to go after E hard, but he was just too non-committal at all times. I had the perfect plan to take England off the mainland as soon as he had Bel and Hol, but he never was interested in doing so. The move to Burgundy apparently pissed him off bad, even when I told him I would be doing so and explained my reasons for doing so. It was a late move and he did not have a chance to reply, but I did not think it would make him mad as he had all SCs more than covered and there was no real threat from my army. It was intended to be as final attempt to sway England to join me against Russia, but the move ended up being my suicide as E had absolutely no interest in allying with me and F was angry at me. I was surprised from year one to see Austria help R, as I thought he would join in for the R kill so we could have our backsides free of threats. I probably should had spent more time chatting with MM *no idea it was you* but I assumed too many things and forgot at times it was not a gunboat. I did some bad tactic calls as well, had I known England was Sarg I would had been able to outmaneuver him, but I kept thinking England was a lesser player for some strange reason. All in all, it was France who pissed me off the most with his lack of commitment towards anything and anyone, and I kept warning him that he would be under heavy attack from all fronts if he just kept playing the defensive turtle and never moved on anyone. So, in my dying years I decided to just use my waning strength to screw with him, as my diplomacy attempts with Russia and England were looking more hopeless by the second.

In 1902 there was a lot of talk going between F/E/R/T about a central alliance. I was certainly talking up fear of you (Austria) as much as I could. In Spring 1903 I told Russia I thought he and you were just jerking me around and in Autumn 1903 after your moves into Bel/Rum he told me you had been but that you and clearly taken advantage of both of us.

I'd love to hear Lando's perspective on how it all went down.

But I have one big question. The support of Russia to Con. Normally I would almost always support Con to be sure of getting it. I have to wonder why Russia took, what seems to me like such a large risk. There was a high chance of not getting anything but a pissed off neighbor. I even told everyone I was supporting it so no word would get to Italy.

Hi all, its been a busy weekendm I'll respond tonight.

"had I known England was Sarg I would had been able to outmaneuver him"

Lol. I like that. What makes you think that, guak?

Here it goes. I will talk this whole process through and address some things mentioned in this thread towards the end.

When I first saw the advertisement I immediately knew I wanted to join. Firstly, because I still consider myself beginner to the full-press variant of this game. Secondly, ebcause I had played Marx once before once and had a poor performance. Initially it seemed like MM had lost my message so I followed-up and he said something about not being sure I really wanted to play (what?) because if something I said during our last game. Eventually he conceded and allowed me to join a game.

In the phase leading to the game Jacob had begun posting some really interesting threads in the forum. I wanted to try out what I learned from them in this game. I was especially interested in his ideas about spreading information and his advice with regards to what and when to say, and how to be the master diplomat.

As the game opened I drew Russia. The Austro-Russia alliance is probably my favourite on the board so I knewI wanted to try and push for this. I also want to try and push to get T/E eliminated early since they are the most dangerous to me. Germany had already sent me some anti-english messages and France was talking about some secret plan. So things looked good up there. I went south and things seemed good too. Austria talked a lot and seemed really amicable and Italy seemed on board to be in a long-term alliance with me. One issue was I wanted to open WAR-UKR but AH wanted to bounce me in GAL. We talked bounce a long time but I eventually told him that if he really wanted to work with me he wouldn't move there and I assured him I wouldn't either. I basically ended the discussion and I am pretty sure Austria never got over that.

First moves process and Germany has speared right towards me. I opened north and couldn't hold WAR if I wanted to. I was scrambling. I somehow convinced AH to get me into BUL, I really didn't think he would but he came through. I also tried to make some deals with Germany and wanred of England and France getting right after his underbelly.He basically lied to my face thereafter on every issue and talked to me in an extremely condescending fashion. I was not impressed and really wanted to see him out of the game.

I made sure to tell England all about his opportunities in the Low Countries and tried to give him the best deals I could in and around Scandinavia. Getting rid of Germany was a priority. In the south things seemed good other than I had basically declared war on Turkey already. But Austria and I were having some really good discussions, sending far too many words to each other, and it was a lot of fun. We had a good plan to destroy the army in WAR and went forward with it.

I was also working really hard to spread rumours of a Central Triple around so that England would play ball and so Turkey might stay on side a bit.

In the south, Austria and I had planned to move him through BUL and into Turkey. While he moved into BUL he also moved into RUM which was a complete surprise to me. He tried to epxlain it off very casually but this was a big deal for me. My ally had just misled me and occupied one of my territories. And now he is telling me not to worry about it and it is for my best? It was ridiculous and I had already made up my mind that I couldn't trust him and I immediately started messaging Italy and Turkey frantically. I played nice with Austria of course and pretended I would forgive, of course. I was lucky enough to get Turkey and Italy on board. Austria it seemed had been the bigger bad guy with Turkey, as I was able to convince Turkey that Ah was jerking us both around. Which was my honest opinion.

In the north Germany had retreated to SKA which caused all kind of problems. I only had a few units over there and this retreat caused England to have to bring some more over to defend him. I protested that armies would come over and other things but England ignored this and gave me some excuses. This is where our relationship started to deteriorate.

I tried to keep both Turkey and Italy happy in the south. I made a pretty bad misorder which cost Italy some growth. But now he was behind a bit so I went with him thinking it would give me the edge later in the game.

In the north, England had taken SWE and I was pissed, I was mostly pissed with how he was treating me. He kept talking about how he was worried about me growing, and that he still wanted to work with me. I didn't have much in the way of forces up there and I tried to play really angry for a bit and then agree to forgive him. I gave him a final warning about him stabbing again and me throwing the game to Italy.

This whole time so weird things are happening in France. It is like he has not done anthing all game. He is making a dance with Italy in Iberia and not moving on England at all. I wonder what he is waiting for. Or what he thinks will happen?

The game continues and I know I am playing the balancing act until the end of the game. Italy is dangerously close to me and I don't want him any opportunity to stab. We clash a bit because we aren't seeing eye to eye on all things. Eventually England stabs again and this time I am serious that I might throw the game. I don't want to, and I try and make plans with Italy that leave me safer. I feel his stab coming and prevent him taking BUD and am lucky that Turkey bounce me back from CON so I could keep BUL. England pulled a lie to Italy in the same move and became the real threat so I knew I could trust Italy again.

England is still too far behind the line so I tell Italy the stalemate and we achieve it.

MM -above you said something about avoiding putting Sarg and I in a game together? Do you really think we meta game in that way? I am kind of insulted that the above thought even crossed your mind. With respect to Sarg, I eventually found out who he was because we have played a lot of games together. We were already well into an anonymous, blind alliance before I discovered him.

You also mentioned a bunch of times you think I am selfish. This is equally offensive to me. If anything, my impression of you from this game is the same. I didn't want to bounce you in GAL. Whether that is fair or not, I knew that i needed every advantage in this game. ANd I also knew that me showing you the trust would help our alliance grow. I wanted to hit the ground running, and you should have as well. That choice was in our interest as an alliance. And THE alliance I wanted. I really enjoyed our discussions through he game. And I need ot say thank you because you taught me A LOT about how to play this game. I could tell you were the most dangerous player on the board and when you moved to RUM I knew I couldn't give you an inch so I took proactive measures. I agree with you about playing the game to work WITH people as opposed to against them. Unfortunately for you in this game You made a move and gave it an explanation that combined to motivate me to find others to work with, You unfortunately had to bear the brunt of that.

Alderian - do you really think anyone could have won this game? England would have needed to make a play a fair bit earlier and Italy would have needed to be a little more aggressive for England to solo. I also think I did a good job in my part of ensuring it became a draw.

Sargmacher - I told you this in-game, and will say it again. Your method of stabbing leaves me feeling frustrated. You take outrage in things from me that you do right back, you get so stuck up on promises from me you forget about those you made. I find it difficult to reason with you once even one block has fallen out. When our goals are aligned you make a great partner, but once you start trying to stab, I find you so difficult to dialogue with.

FK - I am still baffled by you this game. Its like you just wanted to sit tight and hope to be in a draw. AT one point you told me you couldn't move after England ebcause you wouldn't stand a chance. Isn't that a moment where in actions are necessitated ?

guak - I do not ever want to play with you again.

Victoriou - we had our differences at times but you played a very good game. I am happy to end the game as your ally for almost the whole way through.

Thanks for the game everyone. I certainly learned a lot.

@ MadMarx, sorry about my absence at the start of the game. Doing "temporary work"? i didnt know i would have to work 60 hours that week, plus starting on the Winter gunboat Tournament, plus some other games that didnt wrap up with the speed expected.

Plus, i started that game with the intention to not commit to anything in 1901 so i could keep the east and the west balanced. I also wanted to keep honest for the longest time to most people to earn some goodwill.

@ Guak, i wasnt the one feeding Info to Russia.

@ Lando, still claiming the move to Vienna was a misorder :)

And A and G talked about an Central alliance. But i didnt want to commit to anything in 01 and G was going his own way in 02.

I do know i spoiled France his move on England, giving England the advantage. But i still like to know Frances motives from 1903/04 on. I do think he had a deal with England all the time.

And i did expected England to move with me on France from 1903, giving me some more power, that combined with Russia slowing me down made it clear i would never solo. I think i should have accepted Russia's proposal end 04 or 05 to give me the solo shot before England had a chance, but seeing an England who already occupied Germany with me in vienna and greece, it wasnt a real option.

"before I discovered him." Lol. Is that the way you tell it, Lando?

Some really great lines of egotism in this this thread.

Also kudos to the ever-modest MM: "even if it was mere coincidence, I'll still take credit!"

Hats off to guak though, who singularly failed to hold any center or alliance he scraped together but who still managed to say: "had I known England was Sarg I would had been able to outmaneuver him"
Yes, I'm sure that's all you really needed, guak (whoever you are) ;)

Like Lando (coincidence only - but no credit taken), I have also had a busy weekend so will post my EOG in the next day or so.

@Lando, yes certainly.

Could England have solo'd just by pushing forward? As it turns out, no. He could have taken Silesia from Munich if he had thought of it (or if I had which I hadn't.) I did point Silesia out to him as the key of course. But even then he couldn't have kept Silesia.

That doesn't mean the game has to end at the first sign of a stalemate line. One option would be to pull back some and then hope to smash a few armies. But you two probably wouldn't fall for that. Next option is to give Italy a chance to solo. Maybe pull back to NAO, Irish, EC, Bre, Par, Bur. And in the east pull back to Mun, Ber, and Sev. 14 centers held with 13 units. Talk to Italy about a 17/17 but make him think solo, then who knows.

Of course again he may not go for it, but maybe he does. I think this game could be a lot more interesting if people weren't so satisfied with draws.

I did make a deal with Sarg about him keeping at the line you said. And i did said i would think about it if he moved back. But even at that point, he was so close to war and mos that it would be very risky. And it took to long after the point Russia told me he would throw the game to me if it was between me and England. I think he would not remember it the moment i gone throught the bulk of Russian terretories to get close to Solo.

@ Lando:

I wouldn't describe your play in our last game as poor, I just found you unwilling to talk much (5-10 words a day doesn't cut it with me, and that was about all I'd get from you, and it was my invitational, right?) and you said you mainly play gunboat, so I didn't really want to play with people that wouldn't engage in the games.

As far as metagaming, the point of this invitational was that nobody was to know who anybody else was, and if I thought two people may be able to figure out who each other was, I wanted to separate them, based on this specific set of games. In the end, you admitted that you figured out who Sarg was, and that's what I wanted to avoid, so my fear were correct. As far as you and Sarg finding out who each other was and then being more likely to cooperate, that's just human nature, and I wasn't meaning to imply it was a metagaming sort of thing where you and Sarg would 100% ally (even if I did joke in this manner, so I apologize for that since I did not intend that), but I didn't even want the possibility of you and Sarg allying to go from 50/50 to 51/49, I was shooting for perfection and a truly anonymous invitational. In F2F, it is common for people to ally with someone they know over someone they don't know at least 90% of the time, and I wanted to avoid any of that. (PS - Sarg, can you not tell a joke, of course saying I was taking credit for something being a coincidence was a joke!)

As far as me saying you were selfish, that was my perception before your EoG. To me, the reason I didn't give you more of a reason for sliding into Rum that season is because it 100% made sense to me and I didn't think it needed much explaining. So, based on that assumption, I viewed your actions after that as very selfish. Also, I was very confident that you *knew* I was allied with you at that point and would be your loyal ally well into the end game, so that's why I said you were selfish. But, two points. One, you must be selfish to do well in diplomacy, at least to some extent, so that isn't so bad of a comment. Two, based on how you describe the situation, I don't think you were selfish at all about that issue and I apologize for viewing the situation incorrectly, that was my take based on what I knew. If you felt I stabbed you, then I think you are free to abuse the hell out of me and good for you for doing just that! :-)

@Victorious:

Life takes priority for sure, and unexpected things come up, so that's no problem, of course. That said, I often view someone that doesn't talk much as an unacceptable ally that I will want to kill asap. Regardless of real life, the game must go on.

All that said, well played, you did your thing and got part of the draw, kudos!

@Marx, the first time we played was a non-anon game that I had set up.

I also figured Sarg out, because he was telling he wants to speed up and maybe leave the site for some time, just before the forum exploded. But it was just during the last year after F an T ware gone and we ware securing the stalemate line. And i even guest lando a few hours before the end because he said he had played with Sarg a lot :) just guessing :)

And next time, i will talk a lot more.
I do think its an eyeopener for me that other players do want you to come up with en entire strategy right from te start to be willing to work with you

Lando, I remember, and you didn't like to talk too much in that game and you didn't like me talking so much. That's fine, but it seemed as though you were trying to play gunboat, like when you referenced how you were trying to keep balance on the board and that's what drove your decisions regarding who to align with and who to stab. So, part of the reason, I think, I chose the word "selfish" was because you seemed to be playing the game all by yourself, it was a more introverted sort of gunboat way to play where you mainly seemed to rely on your own judgement and you mainly seemed to base decisions on the game board and moves submitted rather than based on chatting with people (which, again, is fine, I just think it's okay to analyze and label things the way they seem to be). So, looking back, the fact that you took my move to Rumania as a stab, if you look at it in a vacuum and/or without my explanation and/or more with a gunboat lense, then for sure I can see where you'd think you got stabbed with Rumania, but in fact I was very confident that you knew, before that next phase rolled through, that I was 100% committed to you and our alliance. I'm not trying to judge to the point of saying you shouldn't do that, you can do whatever you want, I'd just anticipate people at least having an open mind to what I have to say, and I'm guessing you did have somewhat of an open mind... Regardless, I get a bit fascinated by these sort of dynamics within a game and like to discuss and think about them, but I understand the way I (naturally) tend to do it offends some people to varying extents, so I should probably quit while I'm ahead (and/or not as far behind as I could be).

Your post is interested, MadMarx, I will try and respond to it soon because there is definitely some things that can be explored and some new learning opportunities in this.

Marx - The previous game was a while ago and likely we don't have all the information anymore. I remember not liking hwo much you wrote because I perceived the messages as being very long but containing very little content. I was not trying to play a gunboat game, I understand and understood very well the differences. I spent time talking in that game, I just don't think I said what you wanted to hear and I don't think you really said what I wanted to hear. But granted, I was a different player at that time as well. I also had far less time.

I have to disagree with you again about his game too. It was not the move to Rumania that was the tipping point, but far more to do with your explanation. I really hate it when another player tries to give me a message with the theme "I know i didn't tell you, but trust me its for OUR own good". If a player thinks they can make decisions for me than I have absolutely no use for that player as an ally.

Your move, created the situation but it was the messages you said and their contents that gave me the motivation to do whatever I could to find allies to work against you.

I agree with you that my main guiding light in any game is the board and the movements it contains. This is my strategy when it comes to Diplomacy. And I believe it is the right strategy for me since it is where my strengths lie. I am not great at reading people, I think negotiate well-enough and make good deals. If someone is going to stab me I will more likely notice it from some movements than I will from their press. Again, just my style.

When I say at the end of the game I tried to play the balancer. This is far more than about tactics only. I need to use press even more. I try and make sure each of thinks that the other is the bigger solo threat, and I try and tell them what they want to hear about my future decisions.

I understand the value of press, and how the game is different. I think I understand it a lot more after this game. A lot more how to use it anyway. I would like to take credit for convincing the corner provinces that we faced a CT. I will also like to take part of the credit for getting Italy to stab you and keeping my alliance with England as long as I did. I did these things with my words, not with my gunboat experience.

@ Lando, if my memory is right, you wanted me to stab Austria in 01 and 02 already. (or it ware to other nations)

So, are the MM games all over? How did I do on betting? Will I get 100 daggers from Babak? I lost my game I was in with MM :>(

@The Czech, results are here: threadID=800930

to = two, but i think Both Russia and Turkey asked me to stab both Years.

Still waiting for Fortknox's story :(

Fortknox?

Looking back over the messages I didn't ask you to stab Austria in 1901 or 1902. In the initial discussions I suggested that we could do an I/T alliance, taking out Austria and moving on. You were the one that asked me to try and limit Austria to just 1 build. I did talk about how powerful Austria was likely to get, but I didn't ask you to stab that early.

I'd certainly like to hear from FK as well.

As would I.

last try, bump?

Heh, I'll let the game speak for itself on its own??? ;-)

Sorry, I didn't notice this thread (or confused it for one of the other many MM game threads). For the record, I don't remember much and honestly, don't want to go through all the message history to remember it all, so what I'm doing is from memory.

Honestly, I had my classic opening for france setup. Lisbon leap, total anti-english opening, but once builds happened, something broke down between germany and I (or sarg sniffed it out, immediately), and I decided not to go that route. As france, I value fleets, which is why I built the F mars, and I did prove I didn't want a stab. The I/F battle stalemates quickly unless there is help and F doesn't get much from invading italy... an SC or two at most.

So... I setup myself for the german invasion that went smashingly. Italy only sent one fleet over which was dumb or brilliant (I'm guessing the later). Why? Because I thought it was an honest mistake and not a threat, when, in fact, it was the beginning of my downfall.

The real problem throughout the game, though, was that I -really- wanted to work with england, but neither of us could trust one another. England wouldn't remove himself from iri/eng, and the accidental convoy to pic (sarg, was that really accidental?). It showed no trust and I was expecting a move in my direction every turn and tried anticipating it, which just soured our relationship.

Once I finally talked italy into stopping his attacks on me, I waffled, which was the other part of my downfall. I had a stabber inside my territory and would have to move all my units towards england whom I wanted to partner with. However, england never gave me a good opening because we were too leery towards one another. I wanted to recover my area and take out italy, but with england having units right next to my border (that damn fleet in iri/eng), I felt like the moment I turned, he'd be in my back with 12 units. So I waited for an opportunity to present itself. Looking back, I should have just taken on sarg. I don't know if italy would have taken advantage, but at least I wouldn't end up in the most tasteless position in all webdip: Small and the big 3 already agreed to a draw.

I did the only thing I could. Promise england a win if he'd let me survive. I still think he had an opportunity to solo, even without me. Sarg: Did you just give up? Why not even let it go another year just to be sure you couldn't win, outright?

I'd also like to hear Sarg's comments on the game. Were you setting up for a stab and I wouldn't give you an opening? Was it just mistrust? What happened between us from your side?

I just could nof affort to send two fleets over, because i could not trust Turkey not to move in my back. And it was just to be sure i wouldnt get a Western Tripple in my back so i talked a lot to you about my fear so you wouldt see it as an attack :)

Thanks for your response. Now your 'inactivity' make sense. I hope Sarg can make some kind of statement about his thoughts.

happy bump. He told me he will write some soon

His 'soon' and my 'soon' are a little different ;)

yes, i hope his soon is sometime this week :)