Diplomacy AM - mith wins

[AhoInu]

It is Summer 19, C/G retreats asap

[Ferris]

'Strategic withdrawals' sent.

[mith]

So who are we waiting on?

[AhoInu]

Haven't received Ferris's retreats yet, despite contrary protestation

[Ferris]

Sent again. No idea why they didn't arrive before.

[ChienFou]

Oh dash it all chaps, that bloody japanese dorggy's buggered orf to FE's so Ai've gort to do the adjudications.

It is Forll 19, we'll try to get one more turn in before we go. Fraiday if porssible

[mith]

I believe this game is mine. I will send or post my orders tonight, depending on how sure I am.

[mith]

Alright, sending orders now. I don't think there is anything you can do to stop me from reaching 18, but I won't post them here so that maybe I'll get 19.

[AhoInu]

I have orders from Carthage and Persia. With these orders mith wins with 19. I can't see how Rome and Greece can save 2 SC's, so I declare mith the winner. Game Over.

[mith]

Don't think they can even save one, actually. Good game, everyone.

First question of the post game:

Why LIG-Cor, Ferris? That was actually the move that gave me the game. LIG-BER gives two 50-50 situations (LIG can defend Mas or Sad, Tar can defend Mas or Sag, one has to defend Mas from Rome so I can take Mac, so it's a guessing game with the BER fleet; Also, the Cre/Ale one, where EGY can defend either and LIB can attack either), where I win if I succeed with either of them, and LIG-Mas just gives the latter (As Rome can help hold Mas). Before I saw the retreats, I actually started (and later finished) a big list of possible moves for the SE corner (28 for Carthage, 18 for me), hoping it would tell me I actually had three options (for a 67-33). The conclusion was, however, that I couldn't do better than what I did, with a coin flip for which EGY defended (actually, Luna picked that move for me, I figured that was jsut as random ). You, also, had two moves which gave you a 50-50 (i.e. there was no move I could make that could beat both of them), but I left that stuff in Brighton so I don't have it right now.

More later, going to comment on various things.

[CrystyB]

wtg mith, Persia has won w/ 19.

I'd also like to see what orders Greece will issue, b/c i did send my move. It must have gotten lost, but i think you guys can trust me i won't cheat to invent a better one after i see FE's orders.

[Ferris]

Congrats mith - well played.

Thanks go to AhoInu for another great game. I've really enjoyed Diplomacy here on the GL.

I'll write up some thoughts and comments some time at work in between other stuff.

[Fried Egg]

Wow, over at last. Well done Mith.

When I try and cast my mind all the way back to the beginning of the game, I see so many things I should have done differently.

Firstly, I should never have conceeded both supply centres between Rome and Greece (to Rome). I had a good arrangement with Persia but was too generous to Rome at the beginning.

Secondly, my initial alliance making was questionable. I tried to forge a three way alliance with Persia and Carthage. Persia proved a good choice but Carthage did not (sorry Ferris) as they quickly took the opportunity of my Early attack on Rome to switch alliances. That decision never made sense in my opinion and I wouldn't mind knowing Ferris' reasoning behind that decision (if he cares to share it).

So, pretty soon I found myself in trouble. Having conceeded too many supply centres to Rome to begin with, coupled with the fact that he was able to trust Carthage completely, it didn't take Christian long to bring me to my knees. I would have been dead in the water there and then if Persia hadn't intervened on my side and stuck true to our alliance.

So, eventually we managed to push Rome back (despite Carthage's help) and then Rome's demise looked certain. Then I began to ponder and wonder at where the game was going. Persia lookde awfully close to a solo victory and thought that he wouldn't want to stop short of that for a two way draw. I began to consider switching sides and approached Carthage with the idea. This time he seemed condusive (and had nothing to lose) but I could not decide whether I should actually betray Persia after all that had happened.

However, the decision was made for me, just as I was poised to launch the killing blow on Rome, Persia got the knife in first. With all of my supply centres lying exposed in the jaw's of Persia's fleet, it was all I could do to avoid being immediately overwhelmed. Desperate to prevent a Persian victory, I approached Rome with an offer of an alliance. He did not appear interested to either help us or throw in his lot with Persia. I guess after spending the entire game at each other's throat, it was just too much to work together at that time.

So, resigned to having no help from Rome, I had virtually lost all hope. It seemed highly unlikely that Carthage and I could turn back the tide alone (although I was sure we could have done it with Rome's help). Our fate was sealed with the messed up and uncordinated orders of the last turn.

Oh well...

One thing that struck me with this variant is that there is much less diplomacy and much more strategy than in the standard game. The diplomacy is all pretty much worked out in the first few turns and then it's just slogging it out.

Still, it has been interesting.

[mith]

Hopefully I will get all this right, it *has* been almost a year since we started.

I was actually offered two three-country alliances early on: Persia, Carthage, Greece, and Persia, Carthage, Rome. I actually find this pretty amusing, since I don't think Carthage and I talked much at all the entire game. Anyway, by the time the first few emails were out, I had already decided that it would be foolish to attack Greece, since there were 4 SCs between us, and 2 were much closer to him. Attacking across Turkey would've taken a long time, and given him plenty of warning to defend (and early on, I doubt I could've brought enough power against him anyway). So, having decided I would focus on Egypt instead, with the promise of ample warning in the event that Greece broke our DMZ agreement, I settled on the moves I did for the first year.

I left Cyprus alone, figuring that if Egypt decided he should have it, I could get two fleets next to it in no time. Obviously I wanted three builds, so I moved to Tyre, but then realized that if Sparhawk went to Jerusalem, I could bounce him, and have an extra unit compared to him. And, of course, if he didn't, I would have Jerusalem, which (in a fair split of the SCs) should be his. I do remember him saying he was moving to Jerusalem, but I don't remember if he said why he changed to Petra. Probably just wanted to be sure of 3 builds.

Anyway, year 2, and I was hardly paying attention to anything else. I was hoping Carthage and Rome would start fighting, as that would've been good for Greece and myself, but otherwise I was completely focused on Egypt. I remember spending an hour a week up in the Chemistry computer lab looking at the maps. The war over Jerusalem was incredibly fun. I grabbed Tyre and Cyprus, and was up 8-6 on Egypt.

Year 3 was sorta up and down for me. I contacted Sparhawk, telling him Jerusalem was his, and that he should turn his attention toward Carthage. I was mostly just trying to get my armies south. Anyway, he got into Jerusalem in the Spring, but in the Fall, I got into Nab. Also, Greece contacted me to tell me to grab Crete, since he'd rather I had it than Rome. I think we agreed that he could have it back whenever he liked, but he never got it.

Year 4 was when I decided I had a decent shot at a solo, I think. Things were going pretty well against Egypt, and I was sending my armies to save Greece from Rome. I was also helped by Carthage finally deciding to move on Egypt, which gave me enough momentum to keep Jerusalem for good.

Year 5 finally saw my fleets enter the Greece-Rome war. I had contacted Sparhawk once again, and we agreed that I would stop attacking him, and he would go after Carthage (I think my reasoning was that the Carthage/Rome alliance was looking too strong?). I almost stabbed him again by taking Petra, but moved on into Sinai instead, which kept Egypt strong enough to deal with Carthage for a while.

In year 6, I grabbed Petra anyway (now that Egypt could do nothing about it ).

In year 7, more fun with Egypt, as I grab Ale and The. That brought me up to 12, and Greece got back up to 5 with a bit of success against Rome. We had half the SCs, and I didn't imagine that the war with Rome would last as long as it did.

Year 9, Greece finally got another SC.

Year 11, we finally get into Vin, and I'm up to 13. I think I finally felt like we were making progress at this point. FE and I talked so much during about our moves, it was great to see them finally pay off.

Year 13 is the first year I would really like to have back. I did get another SC (Cyr), but I think at this point I spread myself out a bit too thin. I should've focused my fleets North and South, rather than making a line of them toward the West. In 14, when I took Sad, I didn't really have the resources to hold it. Second thing I wish I'd thought about was in that Spring, when Carthage took Mem. Had I thought it through, I could've supported Mem and perhaps Sparhawk would've looked a bit more kindly on me. Also, as much as I attacked him, I didn't want to see him out of the game.

Spring 15 I made a silly series of moves in Egypt that I would definitely like back. I actually had an entirely different plan in mind, and then right before the deadline, switched to what I did. Had I not switched, I think I would've kept Cyr another year.

I also started to get paranoid about Greece (and rightly so ). Obviously he wasn't going to just hand me the win, but at the same time, we had been allied all game, and I didn't want to stab him. I did talk to Rome a lot, as he wanted me to win quickly so he didn't lose Rome itself (or so he said at the time, anyway ). I didn't trust him either, figuring if I attacked Greece, Rome wasn't going to help me win any more than Greece would.

In year 16, I finally decided to go for the solo. I was sure Greece was working with Carthage at this point, as he kept ignoring advice. However, I only decided to attack him in the Fall. Had I attacked in the Spring, this would've been a bit quicker of a finish. In fact, I think that if I had attacked all out then, even a completely solid alliance between the three of them wouldn't have been able to stop me.

The stab itself was pretty fun, I think. I had this whole armada sail toward Greece, and then he frantically disbanded everything in site so he could defend his home centers. I was pretty sure of getting Byz and Mil and losing Vin (I think CB or I came up with some way of him only losing Mil, but I can't remember it now). That would've taken me to 17, except for the idiotic thing with Ale (I just completely missed that LIB bordered it and his fleet had moved there). Actually, I had a shot at 18 that year, in a couple different ways. I could've just taken Roma. Or, if I had outguessed Carthage over Sad/Sic. And, of course, I needed to keep Ale.

In 18, I got Sag finally (I had decided in about 15 or so that I should get it, for a whole-map sort of win ). Rome NMRed in the Fall, and I'm not sure why, or whether it hurt or helped me (he could've grabbed Vin to weaken Greece, and Sic to weaken Carthage; or, he could've supported Carthage into Sad, and moved toward Mas).

And finally, Spring 19. I was at 17 SCs, and ended up winning because of these moves, but this was actually the most uncertain I was the entire game. First off, there were several options in the West. Carthage could've done LIG-BAL (which he did), LIG-Tar, or LIG-Mas. I decided in the end that he probably expected me to defend Mas with Tar, and support Sag with BAL, and so he would attack BAL. Luckily, I was right on that. I also figured that if he attacked Mas (or retreated to it) I was fine, since BAL could support Sag and Tar/LIG could take out Mas. I wasn't counting on Rome moving to Rha. And I'm still not sure who he was attacking.

I also saw that Greece had a shot at Byz, though I didn't expect him to take it. Anyway, because of that, I attacked Mac from Dac (to cut the support), moved Che-Sar (hoping Greece would see that and do Ill-Sar, which meant he either didn't support Mac at all, or couldn't support AEG). In the South, I almost attacked Ale with EGY, but didn't want to leave EGY wide open. In the end though, as the internet cafe was about to close, the moves I sent actually had the potential of making things extremely chaotic (Ale-EGY with support from LIB? MES/LIB-Cre?). I was shocked when they turned out as well as they did.

Anyway, that's my overly detailed summary of the game from my POV. We should try this map again sometime, I think, it was quite interesting (and as FE pointed out, much more tactical than diplomatic, which suits me just fine ).

[Ferris]

With only five players and all of those being experienced players, I felt that this variant of Diplomacy would be extremely hard-fought. Coming fresh from such a strong game in Diplomacy 1, I had no illusions about being able to dominate this one so easily and so adjusted my strategy accordingly.

First off, I decided to actively form the strongest alliance that I thought existed on the board for me: namely, Carthage/Rome. My long-term strategy was to keep this alliance right throughout the game – only considering stabbing Rome in order to grab a solo win off him if I thought it was possible. Furthermore, I decided that it would best serve my interests to let Rome lead the way once I had at least gained my first three Supply Centres. This was due in part to my assumptions about not being able to dominate the game, but also to help disguise the alliance. Fried Egg, it was therefore never a 'switch' - I'm glad I hid it so well!

If Greece was crushed beneath Rome and Persia, whilst I ‘failed’ to make any headway against Rome, then I believed that at the right time, I could turn Eastwards against Egypt at a time when Persia was too concerned about Rome’s dominance in the North and at least keep within two or three SC’s short of Rome’s total before stabbing him. I was prepared to accept the risk of Rome getting to me first!

So my initial moves were all made in order to disguise an alliance with Rome, bide my time whilst war broke out and everyone else revealed their true colours. Once it became apparent that I wasn’t serious about attacking Rome, and Egypt was having to deal with a Persian incursion, I made a push for Leptis and the rest of Egypt. The stalemate line that ensued in that South-Eastern corner suited me fine – locking the Southern half of the board up meant that Rome didn’t have to worry about a Carthage collapse and could press on through Greece and into Persia from the North.

Undoubtedly, Greece’s diplomacy with Persia was the factor that threw all these grand plans out the window. Rather than the front progressing Eastwards, it turned the other way and meant that my stalemated front was now a hindrance: I couldn’t harass Persia to distract him from Rome.

Greece had tried to persuade me to go against Rome, but I was very reluctant to turn against an ally and didn’t believe I had a justifiable casus belli against him. By the time Rome had been nearly over-run and I had agreed to help Greece against Persia, mith had had enough time to anticipate a stab and get in first. That was great play on his part and probably slightly helped by my being a rather passive ally at that time, due to work pressure, restrictions on emails from work and personal issues. All credit to mith though. Once the knife had gone in it was always going to be difficult to turn it around, and Fried Egg has summed up pretty well how we fared from then.

One side note: Greece’s fight back from near-extinction was pretty impressive. As I said earlier in the thread, the reason I took Egypt’s last unit out was due to the fact that I considered him still dangerous enough (even on one unit) to pose a threat, long-term.

I was pleased that I never had to attack Rome all game. Maybe more communication between us would have helped and I’ll admit I wasn’t pro-active in this regard. The number of emails I sent in Dip 1 outstripped Dip (AM) by a huge amount.

Oh, and Corsica? Well, I don’t analyse positions all that much, and I was in a rush.

Thanks to everyone for playing. I had a lot of fun. Hope no-one got too exasperated by the Space Units! I look forward to some more Diplomacy at a later date.


------------------
_{nec sorte nec fato}

[Fried Egg]

Ferris

[mith]

[mith]

[Fried Egg]

Mith

[Sparhawk]

I was definitely in favor of any 3-2 split. Of course, given that I was the odd man out might have something to do with that opinion.

[Ferris]

Originally posted by Fried Egg:

---

...what I can't understand is why you stuck to that principle...

---

'Cos I got principles!

_{I never said they were wise principles...}

[CrystyB]

XLS

Roman EoG

((starting communications to be added later))

What happened next: Greece had started all East, so i quickly entered Dal, from which i reasoned there is SOME chance of him doublecrossing me (he had offered Epi and Ill as DMZ's) - so i moved to a DMZ with the idea that if i end up in it, i can just fall back to Vin (my target for 02), saying i was just being overly cautious. But he has already attacked, so my move to Ill had proven most inspired - and thus has the Greek-Roman war begun.
I had lost a tempo in 03-04 when i had an enemy fleet in Apu and had to disband it, but otherwise the war was going mostly well. In spring 05 I had mith's promise that he will attack Greek also, getting Byz and Mil (he was to go through AEG and Dac) besides the already persian Crete (leaving the rest of Greece's lands to me). But he turned on me and i was outnumbered. What followed was a kind of a trench warfare, concentrated on Dal and Vin, but the naval push of persian forces was too great to withstand.
By 15 i had been brought to only 3 centers, my home ones, so i lost all hope of anything more than survival. I was constantly pestering mith to stab FriedEgg, and when i gave up on that i asked him to at least let me get an army in Dacia that would've compensate for me getting out of the game - understandably he refused; it all culminated with a letter around the Summer of 16, saying i want to send them both (Persia and Greece) an email that basically asks that i was to be offed that year - 16 is a nice number, and the deed was achievable. Afterwards, mith said it wasn't THE reason why he stabbed, but i am sure it had a lot to do with that decision: his first reply was a rather precipitated "Hold it", and if the plan would've been carried out, Greece was relieved of his sieging forces, winning 3 roman central centers and being able to build a defensive force in his own homeland...
OTOH, by what had mith said above, i take it his "i told FE some good moves, and he didn't listen, instead he did these crappy ones allowing you to play around in Naples" meant he was suspecting a bit of cooperation between Greek and Carthage...
When mith went solo, i just wanted to get my home SCs back, then i thought if FE and Ferris can't hold mith back, they deserve to lose. But i wasn't going to hand the win to mith this late (earlier, i was, in 16-17, if he was worthy enough to find a way), so i didn't attack Sic.

Anyway, i enjoyed playing this. Especially enjoyed the spring 09 "Carthagian A Leptis and Persian F Alexandria Support Egyptian F Gulf of Syrtis - Cyrene" ( i wonder if SparHawk knew of them both! ), or my two consecutive recaptures of Naples through the same unlikely-to-succeed move (Rom S Apu-Nea).

Now please FE tell me if you were to defend Vin or not this last season (fall 19). I want to know if i ended up 3rd or 4th... In fact, i would be grieved to see you have been more successfull than i... But not surprised: i understood from this particular game that playing Dip is a lot like mafia, psycho-skills and sweet-talks go far. So i guess i'm gonna also stop playing Dip's... Have fun y'all.

[This message has been edited by CrystyB (edited 02-04-2003 08:05 PM).]

[Fried Egg]

CrystyB

[Elayne]

Mith wins solo yet again?

You'd think one of these days people will learn mith backstabs. I know I did waaaay back in Mafia 20

[mith]

Hush, you.

[Fried Egg]

CrystyB

And what is the difference between comming 3rd, 4th or even 2nd? Eiher you win the game or you are one of the losers.

Indeed, the more supply centres you have at the end of the game (if you lose) means that you must justify much harder why you were not able to stop the winner from winning.

But, if picking up an undefended supply centre or two at the end of the game from somebody else who is facing an onslaught from another player makes you feel better, so be it!

[This message has been edited by Fried Egg (edited 02-05-2003 07:37 AM).]

[CrystyB]

there is a school of thought which favours Strong second as opposed to winner takes all. Both arguments are valid IMO (although fwiw i don't commit to either). You give the one for the latter. The other is: If i lost but came strong second, that means i lost to a better player than i am. BUT it also means i outdid *five* other players. That is surely better than being first one out. (in particular, this means a 3-way draw is better than a 5-way, or 7-way, even if they're all just draws...)

But in this particular case i'm just interested in the outcome of our little war. I know we both lost the grand war.

[Fried Egg]

CrystyB

[mith]

I was actually going to start a thread about this at some point (after Dip 4, probably).

Just to rant a bit, what really annoyed me about that game was that no one (other than myself and Sparhawk (at least, I assume he was)) was actually playing to win. Russia and Turkey agreed on a two-way draw from the outset, which, while probably sensible in turns of results and building trust, is completely against the spirit of the game (IMO) and makes it incredibly pointless. They pulled this off by first joining with Italy (I believe the way he put it was "Until we take you [France] out") to eliminate AH and push across the stalemate line. Then, when I pointed out to England that we could force a stalemate anyway if he played with us, England decided that he would rather finish third than be part of a 6-way draw (basically, though it probably wouldn't have actually ended like that).

Anyway, while I know he had his reasons (among them, Germany and I attacked him at the beginning), I am of the opinion that you should play for things in the following order:

1. Solo Win
2. 2-way Draw
3. 3-way Draw
.
.
.
8. Second
9. Third
.
.
.

Anyway, yeah, point is that as long as I have a shot at winning, I play for a win. If someone else is close to winning, I will do everything I can to stop that. I think it's more in the spirit of the game. It wouldn't make much sense IRL to "play" a country like that, but it *is* a game.

So, Fried Egg, keep playing like that.

[Sparhawk]

I agree with Mith in that I start every game looking for a solo win. I also don't go into any game with a preset agreement; it doesn't seem right.

However, I am more willing to share a victory later. For example, if I work with someone else to take down the leader I am likely to want to share the victory than stab my partner. The reasons are twofold: 1) I have some reluctance to stabbing someone I am successfully working closely with, and 2) In the meta-game I want to be considered trustworthy since I think that is good for my survival in future games.

[Fried Egg]

Mith

I pretty much agree with you in your order of ranking desireable outcomes in a diplomacy game. However, I wouldn't rank comming 2nd, 3rd, 4th...etc to someone elses solo win attall. They are all as bad as each other. And that's because it creates an incentive for small powers to fight amoung themselves rather than band together in order to stop the solo win (this game being a case in point I think).

Also, any more than a four-way draw is a bit pointless as well if you ask me.

[mith]

[Fried Egg]

Mith

[mith]

Should, yes, which is why I don't know how that game would've ended. But given the way that game went, I don't know that anyone on either side would've trusted anyone from the other side (had England sided with us. which he didn't, because they wooed him better). I'm not saying it's likely, just possible. I wouldn't settle for a large draw unless I had to.

For the record, in this game, I think Rome would've been eliminated had he went against me and you three had succeeded. Either I would've sent all my eastern stuff to sack Rome for the hell of it, or I would've just let Carthage have all that back, and retreated to my 14 SC stalemate line, and said "Ok, you stopped me. Now take out someone, and we'll call it a three-way".

Anyway, part of the reason (I think) Rome didn't go against me right from the start is that I was actually helping him out. I saved him from being eliminated, and since it seemed to him that I was going to win anyway, it made sense to speed that up so he'd survive (if I hadn't stabbed when I did, he was toast). It just happened to last a bit longer due to bad play on my part (not stabbing in the spring of 16, the Ale thing) and good play on the part of you and Carthage. And if he had joined you in 18 when it wasn't quite so clear that I was going to solo, I don't know that if it would've mattered.

This is also another reason I took so long to stab (even though a stab in Spring 16 would've won pretty much immediately). I was worried Rome was just trying to break the alliance we had up, and as soon as I made a move toward you, you three would gang up on me. I did everything I could to make sure that wouldn't happen (made sure CB had ample opportunity to grab SCs from various non-me places, assure him that he'll keep Roma, etc.).

[This message has been edited by mith (edited 02-07-2003 08:12 AM).]

[CrystyB]

FE, losing if i'd've banded together with you meant a risk greater than just ending up 4th. It was elimination, which is REALY REALY low in my ranking system!

ow yeah and now in retrospect, i had absolutely no reason to side with you two (CG) if your negotiations actually started after '15... Greece approached me only after mith attacked, and i wasn't going to help him keep every SC he had. *IF* Carthage would've asked me, i might have started considering what could be done (as you can see i wasn't actually aggressive towards you and even moved near a persian SC), but his coast of the med seemed to be in a complete blackout for the last 10 years or so!

on what mith said, i have just one comment, besides the fact that i agree w/ him:

[Fried Egg]

Mith

[mith]

There is one; not as easy to get to as I would've liked, but...

A Che HOLD, A Sin S A Che HOLD, U Byz HOLD, F BLA S U Byz HOLD, U Mil S U Byz HOLD, F Cre HOLD, F MIN S F Cre HOLD, F EGY S F Cre HOLD, U Ale HOLD, F GOP S U Ale HOLD, U Sin S U Ale HOLD, U The HOLD, F REE S U The HOLD

14 SCs, 13 units.

[CrystyB]

my guess is that FE was looking for a stalemate line that was impossible to break from either side - him being run over was more of a concern than the crappy gains he might have acquired in that corner!

[ChienFou]

what with AhoInu being holed up with FE and us being in Japan (full of AhoInu's by the way, a pretty little spitzy type dog) I'd just like to add that I enjoyed all the sotto voce rumblings sent to the moderator. It makes it a lot more fun - and as for the space units, I spent hours trawling the net for good images Anyway I enjoyed it a lot guys too, thanks for making it a great experience for everyone, and a big thanks again to CB for writing the HTML converter - it saved me man days.

[Fried Egg]

Mith