Yeah it was quite poorly done. The spirit of the game was absent.

agree, and once again fellas, i'm sorry i missed it. next time

lol @ Austria's final message.

Two words for you: draw Alliance.

Germany should have immediately gunned for russia, Italy for Turkey and Austria, France for England then shore up the front line.

Yes it was poor sportsmanship, but you had the ability to not only force a draw but punish the asshole who wouldn't cancel. Blame yourselves too.

Hmm, the point is that he does not 'quite obviously win', you had an opportunity to force a stalemate in 1905. Funnily enough, you had it easier than Austria - you and Germany got your 17 uncontested between the two of you, poor Austria had to fight Italy for his half.

Correction: Austria had to fight for Venice, shortly after which Italy left.

you guys could have easily stalemated him had you and Germany bothered to coordinate moves.

I feel like often in this game there can be times of woe when the circumstances feel unfair... although unjust and spiritless it may be, it is part of the game it seems.

Woods, he quite obviously won because you don't know how to setup a stalemate line, not because of the Balkans. 1905, you convoyed an army down to Spain which was smart, but you moved your fleet in Spain to GoL when it should have gone to Portugal. You do that and then move your Paris build down to Burgundy or Gascony and the game is over. Do yourself a favor and learn the correct lesson from this experience. Or do others a favor and don't. Your choice.

As for poor sportsmanship, I'm a bit split. If it was WTA, then yeah definitely. But being PPSC, you all were just raking in the points from the players that didn't show up. Only one I really feel sorry for is Italy who did show up and unfortunately was in Austria's way.

ROFLOL!

I did give a brief explanation in game, but I'll add to it given it seems to have caused a stir. I created the game and was looking forward to it all day, so I was actually pretty sullen/furious about it when we had 3 NMRs. I actually really just wanted to stick it to them points-wise (probably unfair I know) so they wouldn't do it again, and tried to work with Germany for originally a 4-way, then a 3-way when Italy bounced me in Tyrolia, then eventually 2 just from getting on fairly well with Germany. I figured the advantages (Germany France & I) were relatively even around 1904 - I had to fight Italy and didn't even get around to finishing Turkey until the very end of the game, and France had got the same free pass on English centres that I had with the Balkans and Germany had with the Russian ones. Thus I didn't see anything particularly *more* gamey about 1 player with ~8 centres being teamed by two others of about the same size - that is, being able to convince someone to work with you rather than with the other guy is the name of the game, and incidentally France was able to convince Germany to betray me *almost* in time to change the final outcome, exactly in line with what santosh said.

I wouldn't do that again, granted, and I do feel a bit sheepish now, but I genuinely feel like the game should be played with the understanding that nobody is obligated to (or breaks any rules or codes of honour by not) pushing their own self-interest points wise. As often as not the consensus when one player NMRs early in a game is just to screw them and adjust the arrangement of interests accordingly. There doesn't seem to me to be any particular reason why *three* is, by contrast, a irrevocably different ballgame. And probably most importantly, as mentioned by some, it isn't my fault the other (present) players couldn't put together an effective 3 versus 1 draw alliance when they saw what the board looked like.

Anyway, to make you all feel better I'd be more than happy to play another game with (basically) the same conditions at a time of your choosing (I'm on Sydney time though so within reason please) and you can all ally against me with the knowledge of how much of a big nasty old sport I am. Does that sound alright?

If you wanted a four-way draw, why didn't you simply draw once those three were in CD? That would have "stuck it to them" points-wise like you said you wanted to. Your explanation made me laugh. You wanted a four-way draw, then you wanted a three-way, then a two-way, and finally settled for taking a win.

Why would you want to waste several hours playing a broken game? Is that enjoyable? I certainly don't feel that it is. The only reason I can see to do it is to pad your stats. Otherwise, why not draw/cancel and remake with active players?

You were working with a huge advantage from the very beginning. A draw was essentially worst-case scenario for you in this game. To suggest otherwise is a bit comical. Nobody is saying you were obligated to cancel; you weren't, and didn't break any rules by not doing it. However, it is a bit in poor taste to not cancel a game where you are working with a big unfair advantage from the very beginning.

Also, it sounds like this was a live game that was made ahead of time; is that correct? Unless playing a private game with people you know or trust, this doesn't usually seem like a good idea since I'd assume no-shows more common than they already are.

You cannot possibly blame Austria for taking the win there when you could have set up a stalemate line by 1903. Seriously, I don't like games getting ruined by no-shows, but Austria "quite obviously won" because of complete ineptitude in defending the line, not because of any CDs.

Now, *your* chance to win was indeed ruined and I can understand if that were your complaint. But Austria didn't win because of absent people, Austria won because it inexplicably had time to swallow them up and THEN breach the stalemate line when it should have been obvious from about 1902 on that Austria was the solo threat.

"If you wanted a four-way draw, why didn't you simply draw once those three were in CD?"

Italy never voted for a draw OR a cancel IIRC, so this wasn't applicable.

"Why would you want to waste several hours playing a broken game?"

Reasonable question; to be fair, it *wasn't* broken. It was equal opportunity (the margins weren't game breaking in the slightest, any more than Austria or Italy's usual starting positions are) at the start, and a close run thing from the middle to the end. I mean, if I wanted to be cute about it, it was a 4-player map for all intents and purposes. If it were to pad my stats why would I be offering to play a game with all the haters right now which I'll almost certainly lose?

"...big unfair advantage from the very beginning."

I think this has been addressed adequately. *EVERY* live player had two neighbours and a bunch of outlying centres up for the taking. I was no bigger than either Germany or France until mid-late game. Italy I defeated fair and square after he stopped responding and then came for me via Tyrolia, rather than defenseless Turkey.

"...this doesn't usually seem like a good idea..."

Evidently - it's the first time I'd tried it. I'm hardly any more to blame than the people who joined and didn't show, am I? I mean lol obviously I understand that real life gets in the sometimes way and whatnot, and to their credit I haven't seen any of the NMR players complain about their own fate in this particular game.

Just to clarify, France and Germany each got their original bets back or more. The NMR players lost theirs, but except for England they're both below 100 so they've presumably been replenished automatically. Italy, I do agree, came out of this poorly, but I don't think anyone could argue that I didn't play very hard against him to win (surely it's not my fault he wasn't able to draw Germany into assisting him, is it?).

Finally, as I said, I'm open to a game with any and all of the outraged individuals on this thread if they're up for it. “The problem after a war is with the victor. He thinks he has just proved that war and violence pay. Who will teach him a lesson?”

Here it is. I've thrown in 35 which is about two thirds of my winnings from the previous game. Password is 'justice'.

http://webdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=77931

"It was equal opportunity (the margins weren't game breaking in the slightest, any more than Austria or Italy's usual starting positions are) at the start, and a close run thing from the middle to the end."

I guess we'll have to just disagree on how much of an advantage it game you. As far as it being a close run: it was a close run in terms of forcing you into a draw. You were never in danger of losing, and nobody else ever had a shot of winning. How is that equal advantage?

"I think this has been addressed adequately. *EVERY* live player had two neighbours and a bunch of outlying centres up for the taking."

I seem to miss the bunch of centers Italy had available to take. Will you point them out for me? All I see is Tunis which he always gets. France had England, Germany had most of Russia and Scandinavia, Italy had nothing, and you had the Balkans, Turkey, and the rest of Russia.

And it's not only the number of centers, either; it's the ease of taking them. Needing to support into a country's home centers is more difficult than simply walking into the Balkans.

"I was no bigger than either Germany or France until mid-late game."

False. You were bigger than them all game starting in Autumn 1901.

"Italy I defeated fair and square after he stopped responding and then came for me via Tyrolia, rather than defenseless Turkey."

Interesting spin on that story. You claim he turned on you, yet you were the one who build a fleet in Triest in 1901. You then moved into the Adriatic and tried to move into the Ionian as well. Besides the fact that attacking you would have been the proper strategy, did you consider that maybe he tried to move on you because you displayed that you were obviously preparing an attack on him?

Why are you trying to spin this into a story about him betraying you when you were moving on him at the same time?

You claim he should have attacked defenseless Turkey, yet you bounced him in the Ionian. How was he supposed to get to Turkey even if he wanted to?


Now, the other players certainly made mistakes and they could have forced you into a draw. However, that doesn't change the fact that you were working with a big advantage from the beginning.

Hmm, I prefer WTA but what the hell, I'll join it if I'm going to be around at that time. I don't know my plans yet and I'm not going to be one of those people who sign up and no-show.

Now, if there IS no-shows for that game tomorrow will are we agreeing to cancel/draw it?

"You were never in danger of losing, and nobody else ever had a shot of winning."

False for the first couple of years of play, fair enough observation for the rest.

"I seem to miss the bunch of centers Italy had available to take."

The Turkish ones I didn't get to until like 7 years in. Greece, too, if he had asked nicely. I'm saying I would have supported him, which I guess is neither here nor there to most because I can't *prove* that. He went for Tyrolia instead, so I suppose I should have just laid down and let him take my home centres.

"You were bigger than them all game starting in Autumn 1901."

Autumn 1903:
Me 9
Germany 8
France 7
Italy 3

One center. Hardly a ball-breaking runaway lead

"Interesting spin on that story. You claim he turned on you, yet you were the one who build a fleet in Triest in 1901. You then moved into the Adriatic and tried to move into the Ionian as well. Besides the fact that attacking you would have been the proper strategy, did you consider that maybe he tried to move on you because you displayed that you were obviously preparing an attack on him?"

He stopped responding, and so I bounced him. I honestly had no idea that building a fleet might be taken as some unambiguously offensive gesture, and if I recall correctly he didn't say anything about it to me. I've been caught plenty of times with 1 fleet versus 3 Italian ones as Austria so I didn't think it was unreasonable to think it was as valid defensively as it would be offensively. Anyway, if he had built a fleet instead of an army (I found this really confusing) worst case scenario it would have stayed 4v4 in that part of the world, am I wrong? I'm not blaming him for trying to fight me (although I would have just as easily worked with him on Turkey had he initiated it), and nor would I expect anyone to blame me for fighting him back.

"Why are you trying to spin this into a story about him betraying you when you were moving on him at the same time? You claim he should have attacked defenseless Turkey, yet you bounced him in the Ionian. How was he supposed to get to Turkey even if he wanted to?"

Look I'm not trying to spin a morality tale about it like you seem to be suggesting - if I *had* been aggressive towards him first it would not have precluded the other three from working together to outnumber me, would it? The fact that they didn't *obviously* came down to the fact that I had Germany on side (using the 'd' word), didn't it? He could have supported Italy into Tyrolia and I would have been stonewalled from Italy. Now it just so happened that this was the way it went - giving an account of my thinking and behaviour - he stopped speaking to me, I was suspicious, and so I blocked him from Tyrolia (neutral ground if not Austrian) and Ionian (Italian, but clearly not intended to *take* it from him at that stage). And so it deteriorated. Put me in the dock!

"Now, the other players certainly made mistakes and they could have forced you into a draw. However, that doesn't change the fact that you were working with a big advantage from the beginning."

An advantage that everyone has the ability to a) see and b) counteract is no advantage at all in this game. It's a pretty simple point, am I missing something?

Not sure what others can see, but here's the quote of the game from France on the public chat:

"lets push out austria and italy who refuse to cancel then we draw / i take england you take russia over the top"

:P

I stand by my original statement that to continue to play a 5 minute live game where 3 out of 7countries miss the first phase is not in the spirit of the game. I find it interesting that the entire point of my post was missed by many who took the time (some in great depth I might add) to reply. Analysis of ANY PLAY after the first turn is really irrelevant to my point. A player who valued the true spirit of the game would not have progressed any further. If playing with 3 out of 7 countries not in attendance is perfectly fair to some, they are more than entitled to that opinion. I however feel that it was not. I wonder why the software allows you to only start a game once you have the full complement of seven players? It could be due to software limitations or things beyond my understanding and in no way do I criticize the generous persons who put together and maintain this awesome site. I interpret the fact that you cannot start a game shorthanded is because the ideal way to play the game is with a full complement of players from the beginning, irrespective of what transpires after the first turn.

Now as between Octopus_seppuku and myself, I have no further issues after seeing his reply. I can understand his position and his arguments although I disagree. I appreciate his magnanimous gesture in offering to play another game. His reply and the entire discourse on this topic by all members heartens me and let's me know there is a solid community here dedicated to the playing experience. Thanks to everyone.

Thanks Woodsjacker. As I said above, playing on after the NMRs was not something I'd *usually* do (and really only did because of particular personal circumstances which I touched on), and *especially* after this am pretty unlikely to do again. I very much appreciate your wanting to point out why this went against the sort of standards we usually expect from other players and have genuinely taken it on board. Another partial explanation for my behavior which I didn't bother to get into was that it didn't seem that was breaking any rules by pushing on with the game, and very much agree that it would be nice if the game had some way of dealing with or compensating for first term NMRs (I know vdip has an automatic phase extension, for example). I'm *also* pretty glad webdip as a community can sustain a discussion like this :D