Congrats Cezch. jmeyersd - fun game, very impressive end-game. wish it had been enough.

how'd you beat me to that??


That was an epic game. Well played all. Italy, nice alliance. Sorry I stabbed you in the middle there, but I had to go for it. Go big or go home, ya know. I think I might have gotten it but for guessing wrong on the LIV/MOS game with England. But you really shouldn't have lat the line fail there. TYS had to go to NAP earlier to let the Turkish fleets in, and at the end your army had to go to VEN to let mine into PIE. As it was we units in AEG & VIE idle. oh well. England, well done. Turkey – nice job hanging in there. I probably should’ve cut you out sooner as it turns out, but for me the chance at a solo far outweighed the 4 v. 3-way draw loss.

But yeah, great tactical battles throughout. Thanks all for a great game!

It was a gg all.

Take a better look at the game and say thanks to Austrian idiot.

Yeah you tell it.

He did nothing wrong. You mean him taking VEN? After you couldn;t set a proper stalemate he tried to do it himself. It was a valiant effort.

For you to look at: Consider you held in TYS in S16 the game would have been drawn.

And how I could have held TYS?

Look at the map and my support order.

Hmm, I did not have a very nice game. When I built NC StP, I expected France and Germany to drop their squabbles and go for England with me, but clearly something in Belgium was more dear than survival in this game. Germany really should have been more active against England in the north, and that eventually led to him going as well, and without his support, England's move in was rather untimely, would have had Austria down in a couple of years.

F ION s F TYS - it should have been clear that he would go for TYS and not TUN.

"Consider you held in TYS in S16 the game would have been drawn."

How so? Piedmont-Tuscany and North Africa-Tunis would have meant that GoL-TYS s WMS would have worked.

I was joking before with me "Yeah you tell it" comment but actually I think SplitDiplomat is being criticised unfairly for not holding a line.

You know it can't be hold after Piedmont is gone.

But anyway, santosh- i owe you in that game, when you dropped to ARM and gave me that support it was the only way I was able to stay in the game.

"F ION s F TYS - it should have been clear that he would go for TYS and not TUN."

That is NOT a stalemate line. That would rely on lucky guesswork every turn until you would eventually get it wrong.

Lando, you're being hash to SplitDiplomat. Please read my comments.

They don't know what they are talking.Lando if Austrian is your friend that doesn't mean he's right.

Look at the map and stop calling people names. Austria got PIE back and if you had held in TYS you would have been in TUS and TUN and TYS and the line would have been finished with AH using VEN s PIE for eternity.

*harsh

Sarg and Split, please look at the moves very carefully and tell me I am wrong. Austria's intentions were clear to me and they worked well unfortunately the Italian misunderstood and cost the game.

Ok,stay blind.Goodbye.

@Lando: Yeah, I was getting back at Austria out of spite for the tap on Warsaw when I was trying to retake Munich. I was afraid that would happen, hoping it wouldn't.

@Sarg: Ion was support holding Tys. If Italy had held, Austria would have had Pied and the line would be complete again.

No, it wouldn't. By S16 it was way too late in the south.

I don't really see where SD gets the blame here. He never had the right units to set up the line and was caught out of position while defending from Austria.

The move to Venice, for example, was well-intentioned, but it didn't solve anything - it forced Italy to disband. Italy needed 4 SCs and two foreign units to support him.

What is wrong with you you people that you can't see the map as it is presented? It is a fact that cannot be argued. Thank you santosh for realizing it.

The line was very very much there for years but Italy never went for it. All he had to do was move tys to nap & let the Turkish fleets into Tys & ion.even after that fell through we could easily have had the draw if he'd moved pie-ven as I indicated with my supports.

On a side note; was there a glitch with Russian orders in gal in '03?

@Lando "Sarg and Split, please look at the moves very carefully and tell me I am wrong. Austria's intentions were clear to me and they worked well unfortunately the Italian misunderstood and cost the game."

I agree that Austria (jmeyers) played very well and he did the right thing to try and take back Piedmont but you must admit it was too little too late, especially and obviously from SplitDiplomat's point of view.

"@Sarg: Ion was support holding Tys. If Italy had held, Austria would have had Pied and the line would be complete again."

SplitDiplomat had no way of knowing this though. He shouldn't get the blame here when it was obviously a very tense turn and losing Piedmont was not his fault.

Oh wait, I see now. Hmm... understandable miscalculation on SD's part. He may have thought he was being squeezed out of the draw. It was a miscalculation, no doubt, but I can understand why he'd have made that miscalculation.

@jmeyersd: Yes, Boh ordered support from Vienna to Gal instead of the other way around. Probably wouldn't have mattered too much in the end.

Yes, it was anon, and in all honesty, Italy had no way of knowing what Austria was trying to do - if he was simply new, centre-grabbing, or taking Pied, despite the signals. It can be frustrating enough to throw the game, and everyone's done it at some point before. You're correct in pointing out that he should have known the line, but probably a bit harsh to demand that he continue to hold in the next turn.

I agree it was a completely understandable oversight on his part, but Austria and I both clearly understood the ONLY route to a stalemate. This just stresses the important of needing to know not only the lines but also how to get to them.

"What is wrong with you you people that you can't see the map as it is presented? It is a fact that cannot be argued. Thank you santosh for realizing it."

Now whose getting personal?

That said, of course there are previous examples of how a stalemate 'could' have been realised but you cited 1916 as a pivotal moment but it's obvious that SD did not see it that way - from the history of the game he had little reason to trust Austria. It's not as black and white as people are making it out to seem - surely that's the whole point of gunboat.

I've seen SplitDiplomat play very competently.

All I am trying to argue here is a tactical fact that we were one move away from a stalemate. I understand it was a reasonable departure.

Please understand my point though,

I completely understand why you have your point of view.

@santosh
Right, but my unit didn't move vie-gal, either despite the Russian support. Does it fall under the"can't dislodge self rule" if you're supporting but not moving?

@ all but lando
I don't understand the problem here. Anyone should have seen that the line wasn't quite set in the south. There was one very simple option & one more complex. Italy chose neither and cost us the game. That's fine - mistakes happen. But let's not pretend it was more difficult than it was.

@jmeyersd: Yes, it does, I can't support a successful move against my unit.

Look, I completely accept that the situation in the South could have been saved but I can understand why it wasn't. I don't like the idea of someone facing a lynch mob, especially someone who is not a native-English speaker. I think the game shows SD wanted to try for stalemate lines but perhaps didn't quite trust Austria or Turkey enough. The stalemate could have been reached but I can understand why SD may not have felt particularly comfortable in his position, especially if he's not as experienced in gunboat as Lando or jmeyers might be.

Rather than lampooning him - I would have used my first message simply to explain in clear steps what he could have done differently. Why didn't anyone do THAT?

(Jmeyers: I appreciate you did try to do that to a certain extent)

I thought I kinda did. But I am on my phone so apologies if I'm coming across a bit shorter than I intend to

I didn't think the line was set in the south. That was where I was focusing my energies.