Nerevatus, thank you for a very well-written EoG. I was unaware that you'd actually made moves to demonstrate your desire to a small draw with R/F/E at its axis, but stand by what I said about the three-way draw attempt in my own EoG, that it was simply not realistic and hence, not relevant.
@jmeyersd, the command structure comment is very true and one of the sources of diplopain that I experienced throughout the game; if we could have only prevented the two NMRs by Germany (LakersFan), we would have been able to stop you, I share Nerevatus' confidence that a lack of full cooperation in the anti-solo effort was at the heart of its failure. Still, kudos for how you exploited and recognized that.
President Eden, the floor is yours.

Floor's mine? I've gotten through 1902 and a little into 1903. This is taking a lot more time and energy out of me to do right than I thought it would.

I guess in response to Neveratus - I wasn't doing things out of spite/emotional rage/etc. I don't know how much clearer I could have been in-game or now; I wasn't working with Russia to spite A-I, I was working with Russia because the alternative was total annihilation early, and once things got to around 1904ish, Russia basically had me by the balls. You saw his commentary about trying to push me into Budapest - I know it didn't show to anyone outside of the alliance (that's part of what a good alliance is about, not showing cracks in the armor), but I was definitely fighting quite a bit internally to maintain integrity as an independent power despite very clearly being the junior member.

Have to say that characterization is disappointing. I felt like after we had talked in, what was it, 1903 or 1904 that you pretty clearly understood my dilemma. If you think it's just some emotional furor, though, then you clearly didn't.

asdfghjkl;

*Nerevatus

You finish that EoG PE, scribble scribble, then we discuss.

This drama is lengthier than a battle in Dragon Ball. Even YJ gets more action than this.

@redhouse re 3-way draw now being feasible:

I disagree with you on this point. As I tried to impress upon you in my messages during the game, I'm confident that if I had not soloed, you would have been cut from the draw. (My solo push was based on the fact that I could always fall back on the E/F/R draw.) If I were stalemated, my plan was to forsake Scandinavia to England and let him take DEN/SWE/NOR/STP. This would eliminate the solo threat from both me and France. Whether France would have been willing to work with me after my breach of trust is another question, but since it would make a rather large difference in the result I believe he would have been willing to take out your remaining scs (perhaps Glorious can enlighten me here). Of course, none of this is the type of stuff I could put in my messages to you, since if I threatened to throw the north and have you eliminated, I become the bad guy instead of E/F and you wouldn't work with me, anyway.

Personally I think - given the cooperation F/E/I at that point, that in that case we would have tried to cut you out of the draw rather than them turning on me, but that's possibly very optimistic. Was there a stalemate position you were planning to retreat to?

So I read through this thread today (okay, skimmed). The first page got me interested when PE said "I have never been in a game where so many people just absolutely refused to give a fuck about what I wanted, feared, and could do and just expected me to bend over and do whatever they wanted at whatever price to me without any concern for how it might affect me. I'm glad Russia soloed, frankly. At least he cared."

Is this normal? For other players to not give a shit about one (tiny but influential, important) power? To essentially say, "Listen, my interests are more important than yours, namely, I want in a draw. Oh, that's nice you want in the draw too but you're concerned about elimination. I'm sure that would /never/ happen, you damned fool. Now just do what I say. ... WHY THE FUCK DIDN'T YOU DO WHAT I SAY????"

I'd like PE's opinion in particular, if he has time, and I'm willing to take responses in PM if anyone would prefer to answer that way.

I had considered that possibility, but figured that it was waaaaay to much of a stretch to be a credible threat. You would not have been able to break me in central Europe, so a line from MOS-SIL (LIV/PRU) would be strong. Italy would not be able to break TRI. Most importantly, France would not be able to really hurt me directly. TBH I think you overestimated your control over France for most of the game; there were many occasions when he was looking to attack you. At the end of the day, eliminating a 3-center Italy would have been much easier than eliminating a solid 12-center Russia. (Maybe Glorious can let us know his thoughts on that?)

I'd be very interested, but in that case, I believe you would have soloed anyways. Turkey and me would probably have smashed everything we had into France the moment we'd see the first peaceful transfer of terrain. For example, if you look at the final screen, I would have used the fleet in Adr to convoy you to Apulia. Either you would have soloed, or the draw crucially held all other players.

Very hard to say what would have happened if we'd successfully stopped the solo - in the early stage of the coalition, I would have probably turned on you, redhouse, if the possibility of a draw with Russia again reared its head. Having said that, I don't like to turn on long-term allies, and so as the game drew on I'd say it would have become less and less likely that I would have stabbed you given the opportunity.

Of course, its hard to say. As mentioned, taking on you would have been an easier alternative to taking on Russia and that would have factored into my decision. Totally hypothetical of course and its impossible to really make a judgement on it now.

"Personally I think - given the cooperation F/E/I at that point, that in that case we would have tried to cut you out of the draw rather than them turning on me"

If the SEVENTEEN-CENTER POWER gets cut from the draw in favor of a three-center power, someone's being silly.

Like Glorious said, it's a hypothetical. If the solo was prevented and resulted in a stalemate where Germany and Turkey held critical SCs, obviously it would have been a 6-way draw. If there was an option to safely eliminate Germany and/or Turkey, I'm honestly not sure what I would have done since they both switched sides during the endgame. If the game went on and they worked closely with us and were integral to stopping Russia, I probably would have pushed to keep them in the draw. If there was more back and forth of allegiances, I probably wouldn't defend them.

If for some reason it was E/F/R/I left standing, I am confident that I would not have allowed Italy to be eliminated from the draw, unless somehow pretending to go for an EFR draw meant I could stab France and Russia enough to have the chance at a solo myself (not so likely, but we're talking about hypotheticals). I'm not a sentimental player and would stab a game long ally if it meant I could take a solo, but the difference between a 3- and 4-way draw is marginal. Italy played a crucial leadership role for our coalition and was a valued partner to me throughout the game. We developed a strong rapport and he had my loyalty. I'd also have used my military and diplomatic leverage to protect Italy from France if France was tempted, although France has made it clear that he also grew to value his relationship with Italy, especially in the endgame.

I'll defer to you guys on the tactics of whether Russia could have locked in his position and prevented us from pushing him back had he not reached the solo. This was my first experience with a hard fought endgame, so I don't have much tactical knowledge to draw on. *If* it would have been tactically feasible though, I think that the E/F/I alliance would have had the trust and close coordination necessary to roll Russia all the way back. Once we were in the endgame, I would have preferred and E/F/I draw to and E/F/R draw given our very close cooperation and rapport, but an E/F/I/R would probably have been more likely.

Ok, I still haven't found time to write a proper EoG. Here's a quick summation, I guess.

Thanks for organizing things, RedHouse. I really appreciate the hard work.

I too am glad Russia won. I definitely think he deserved it. I blundered terribly on my Spring '02 move. If I had just supported NTS to Belgium w/ Holland, rather than the other way around, I might have had a chance to stop the French aggression.

In general, I think I would have been better off letting England know right from the start that France was coming after him to develop a better relationship w/ him. I am sure that would have formed a better long-term alliance (if he was able to bounce France in E.C. in Spring '01). I just didn't realize France would be so untrustworthy.

Suffice to say though, I think France's comment to me after he stabbed me for the third time explains a lot:

Autumn, 1906: I guess another apology won't really make you feel any better but I think you at least deserve to know the reasoning behind it. Russia was pretty much set to take most of your centres - I just didn't want them all to fall into his hands.

This was after RH had worked his ass off to get all of us western powers together to try to oppose Russia's solo. And the funny thing is, I still tried to work with them to oppose Russia for another few years. I half-heartedly tried to stab France in '09 to help Russia, but France again got the last laugh by not supporting my hold in Munich in Fall.

Thanks LakersFan! *bump*