|
PEACOCK GOBY END-GAME STATEMENTS
GM:
Ally Bain [EGS]
Started: 11th January 2003
Finished: 1st December 2003
Result: France, Germany, Russia & Turkey four-way draw
| Country | Player | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | Result | | Austria | John Fryatt | 5 | 4 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 0 | Eliminated | | England | Robert Dane | 4 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | Eliminated | | France | Claus Jeppesen | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 10 | 13 | 15 | Draw | | Germany | John Mainprize | 5 | 6 | 8 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 9 | Draw | | Italy | Richard Hucknall | 4 | 4 | 5 | 5 | 3 | 0 | 0 | Eliminated | | Russia | David Rule | 6 | 7 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 4 | 4 | Draw | | Turkey | John Doyle | 4 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 6 | 5 | 6 | Draw |
AUSTRIA (John Fryatt) Sheesh, this game was weird. I admit that my mind wasn't fully on it, especially at the start as I had just recently moved house and had a few other things on my mind. No excuse really, but there you go....
It always surprises me how varied different peoples approaches to this game are. To wit:
1) I was regularly accused of lying by another player, who backed up his claim by citing corroborative 'testimony' from other players. When, following a standoff, the accusations flew and I suggested that I could say exactly the same thing this was brushed aside. Either this as a tactic, in which case I am not sure what the objective was, or it was arrogance, which I find mind-boggling. Let's assume it was a tactic, in which case it failed as it made me an enemy basically.
2) Another player basically refused to answer any of my messages, even to say 'go away'. This also seems quite strange, and not really in the spirit of the game. We are playing Diplomacy, yes?
However, both said players lasted longer than me, so maybe they had the right idea?
In the early years I made a pact with Germany to leave each other alone, and to consider an alliance later on. The alliance never materialised as I got clobbered, but Germanay did stick to the non-aggression agreement. He did promise to come to my aid a couple of times, but it never happened as I suspect he was too busy elsewhere.
Italy made a couple of suggestions which I went along with, following which he put the boot in. Sadly, for him, his boots weren't big enough. :-) Following our mutual weakening we made another pact and this time did keep to it, but by then it was too late. Turkey and Russia were on the march by then and everyone seemed to fear a R/T steamroller. This seemed to be on the roll, fuelled by Russia's obfustication and Turkey's silence. Meanwhile Germany and France were dismantling the British Empire and Italy and I were blundering about wondering what the hell was going on, I think.
Finally the R/T machine ran out of juice, for reasons I don't know, and we settled down to the basic end-game scenario.
Basically I think I failed make any good arrangements with anyone and hence my demise was assured. Having weird neighbours didn't help, of course! ;-)
Archduke JohnReturn to Top
ENGLAND (Robert Dane) Not my most enjoyable game of diplomacy. That I'll go into later. This was my first time as playing England and from what I should tell the secret to success as England was to get your armies over on the continent as quickly as possible whilst defending yourself from attack with your navy. I think I was far to vocal about this to the other players. I found myself up against a very strong F/G alliance and didn't really have much chance of survival.
What I think marred the game for me was the tone of interaction between some of the players. I often felt reading the emails as if I was being threatened and it took away from the whole point of this being a game. In all my diplomacy games I do make a point of writing as far as possible but I did find with certain player(s) all I got was a stream of abuse which made me think 'why should I bother writing to them?'
I'm sure there's no prizes for guessing who wrote to me with,
"I thought your press was shit by the way. Gloating about how pisspoor your play has been isn't smart - you know that all the players on the site can see it?"
"Well, maybe it will see you survive to the end of the game. Me, I'm going to get eliminated most likely, but I'll fight to the end, not go out as someone's puppet, a pathetic, bad loser.
It's the worst thing at games. A man who can't hold his head up at the end of play and say he played well and lost fairly. Still, it takes all types. Some games you draw the good ones, and some you don't. It's a pity you haven't been able to be civil about it, but I suppose when a guy's having a tantrum like a small child he'd feel silly writing like an adult."
A hint to players who see my name on the waiting lists and are reading my end game statements to see what sort of player I am. Don't write emails like that to me and I'm sure we'll get on fine. :-)
My believe when I come into a game is I don't actually care if I win, lose or draw. I'm playing the game for the (and this might be hard to understand) for the FUN OF IT! If I'm losing then i'm quite happy to make daft moves, it doesn't matter I'm going to be eliminated. Also please remember that this is 'Diplomacy' about trying to get people to help you by being nice? not shouting at them!
Out of this game I had some interesting discussions about the nature of the Media with Claus and I was quite happy to eliminated by John M after he helped me into StP. After the first few turns i didn't really have much to say to Richard, John D or John F but I'm sure we'll come across each other in a game again one day.
And for David, I'm not disputing your a very good tactical player and you have good knowledge of the mechanics of the game. I think it's you actual diplomacy that lets you down and ultimately made me decide I didn't care about survival and to come for StP. We may come across each other in game again but I won't be bringing this one up and hope this game gets put behind us. I have nothing against you personally because I don't you. You might be the nicest person in the world in real life, but your writing style makes you across as bossy and rude and not someone I would choose to ally with in the long term.
Robert DaneReturn to Top
FRANCE (Claus Jeppesen) First of all I'd like to thank Mr. Tweedy for setting up this site allowing Dip players from all over the world to engage in a battle of wit and skills in a friendly manner.
Also thanks to Ally for GM'ing a opinionate lot like us in this game - it hasn't always been the easiest job with two other GM's playing and the rest of us joining the discussions as well. I disagree with you about your ban on anonymous press, which I personally think is a valuable diplomatic tool - and great fun as well - but otherwise I think you've done a great job.
The game itself has been exciting from day one until the end. I've written or recieved more than 800 mails during the 15 seasons since the game began back in January, so my primary objective - to practice my written English a bit - has been more than achieved, as has my secondary objective to have fun. The fact that no one anarchied and we only had two NMR's of course made for a good game as well.
Of course I would've liked to win as well, but I managed to stay in there until the end and even have a shot at winning, so I can't complain there neither - even though I think David will tell us all about the tactical errors, which might've made the difference, in his EGS.
Spring 1901
I had chosen France as my first priority, and to my astonishment I got what I asked for. The first couple of mails I recieved wasn't to encouraging - especially the one from the original England (does any of you remember the fourth John?), who informed me, that he'd already told Germany and Italy, that he wouldn't be part of a triple alliance.
Not good news that England wrote both Germany and Italy before me, so the EF-alliance was very unlikely, and I decided to concentrate my initial diplomatic effort on getting on terms with Germany - and John M responded well, when I pointed to the fact, that neither of us would be comfortable in the long run with England as a constant threat in our back.
This was good for me in more than one way - Johns M, F & D had all been in a recently finished game together (GM'd by Richard), so I got valuable information on their respective strengths and weaknesses and general attitude towards the game.
At this point the original England left the game, and Robert volunteered to replace him. We immediately got into talks, which faced me with a nice choice of opening ally - especially when Robert agreed to me opening with F ENG and A Pic (supposedly to support him into Bel and deal a surprise blow to Germany).
The plan was interesting, but when Robert told me, he wanted to build armies early and had plans for landing one of them in Denmark, I got worried - I can't see any reason for wanting that, Denmark is for fleets.
That (and the fact, that I was having a pleasant correspondence with John M) made the choice easy - I agreed with Germany, that we'd do a Sealion, and after eliminating England, we would seek out an ally in the south-east - preferably Austria and alternatively Turkey - to help in our respective second campaigns against Russia (Germany) and Italy (me).
Meanwhile Richard had offered me a DMZ in Pie, GoL and WMS - but not in NAf, which made me suspect, that he would sneak a fleet out in the Atlantic, while I was busy around the British Isles. I didn't mention this to Richard, but suggested, that we put a time-limit to the DMZ, and Richard agreed to this.
The omission of NAf meant I had to watch my back - but I decided to do what I could to keep Richard busy in the east, so I told Austria and Turkey where they could find information about Richard's views on playing Italy.
I also had begun a long and detailed correspondence with Russia. David was very eager to know, who my western ally would be, but I tried not to give away too much, as I wasn't sure whether he would demand his share of the spoils - or spill the beans.
The rumour mill suggested, that David had hit trouble getting a good relationship going with both John F in Austria and with Richard, which meant, that there was a good chance the eastern corner would still be undecided, when the invasion of England was completed.
Autumn 1901:
The opening moves went well - and things got even better, when John D of Turkey asked me, whether I could do anything to get him on speaking terms with John F and Richard. I told him, that I expected Austria and Italy to be preparing a Lepanto, and that consequently my best advice was, that he should try getting a deal with David instead despite his opening to Armenia. This he did - and the Sav-incident in aut 01 (John D ordered Arm-Sav - and on David's advice informed Ally, that it was a deliberate misorder, which promptly caused a heated discussion) meant that my initial concern that David and Richard might be smoke-screening - was lessened somewhat.
I also offered John F an Austro-French reassurance treaty against Italy in negotiations before autumn 01 orders were submitted, but he wasn't prepared to commit to it - and when he finally decided to take up the offer after Richard attacked him in that season, I backed out.
Spring 1902-autumn 1903:
The eastern front hardly moved, and Richard warned us all that the big bad Juggernaut was coming to take us. That meant he didn't mind the least about John M and I tearing England apart, since the faster England was elminated, the sooner Germany would be able to apply pressure on Russia in the north. Richard even asked me to let my southern fleet stay in the Med in case he and John F needed back-up against the very slowly advancing Russian and Turkish units.
Meanwhile I kept corresponding with David, as a Franco-Russian alliance against Germany after the demise of England made a lot of sense, as long as no dominant power emerged in the Med.
But my attempts to get into talks with Richard about the longterm Franco-Italian relationship didn't progress well, as he didn't really say anything, so I decided to go for the surprise attack on Italy, while my German ally took on Russia, which happened in autumn 03.
Spring 1904-autumn 1904:
Richard didn't take kindly to my breech of the DMZ. He informed me, that unless I immediately withdrew, he would defend against me with every unit and let Turkey have a free hand in the eastern Med.
David didn't like it either - even though he has been telling me for seasons how badly he would like to see Richard get eliminated.
I started serious negotiations with John D about a split of the Med - and told him, that I was sure, John M would be prepared to ally with him against Russia as well. Unfortunately John D passed his in-coming mails onto David - but fortunately I'd suspected this and told David about it as well. Still it meant, that I would have to change my approach towards John D, as he (maybe - make that probably - urged by David) demanded that I put some pressure on John M as soon as possible.
(The original favoured eastern ally - Austria - was not really an option at this time, as he and Richard had defended against the Juggernaut since 02 after and intial Italian attack on Tri in autumn 01 - this made it far too risky to tell poor John F of my plans against Italy, as he was likely to pass it on to Richard).
Spring 1905-spring 1906
I reached an agreement with John D that I would make specific moves against Germany in sp 05 - and also agreed with John M, that it was necessary to get Turkey on my side to break the stalemate line that was threatening - and then move out again in autumn 05, when the mission was accomplished.
Then three hours before the deadline all plans went down the drain. John M was able to quote my exact wording in my mail to John D - and he told me, he'd gotten it from Richard (who wrote, that although he didn't favour forwarding mails, he would do it this time, as John M probably was the only player left who hadn't read it), who in turn got it from David - who of course had it from John D.
I was aware, that David would get hold of the mail - and I had thought, that once the promised moves were carried out, he would be prepared for a - albight slightly delayed - Franco-Russian attack on Germany. But I didn't tell himself about this, as I didn't think he'd believe after having been left hung out to dry in 03 - I thought the actual moves would be a much better way to convince him, that I was sincere this time.
The solution to the problem was to phone John M. We agreed to a new set of moves, which of course caught Richard completely unaware, and I set about trying to patch things up with John D - and only partly succeeded, as neither of us made the moves, we'd agreed on the next couple of seasons, but I still managed to make progress in Italy.
At this point it looked like a Franco-German draw, and we discussed in detail how to minimize the risk of one of us getting a shot at stabbing each other, and how we could exchange centres, should one of us make fast progress, while the other was temporarily or permanently blocked.
A small intermezzo occured, when John M allowed Robert a new lease of life by moving away from Norway and giving the sole English fleet a retreat from St.P in autumn 05. I should've seen it as well, but I was more focused on the possibility of setting up a grinder in Lon to eliminate one of the three German fleets (one to many for my liking).
Autumn 06:
I only once in this game allowed myself to get paranoid - and promptly I screwed up by stabbing John M. We'd earlier been discussing our respective reasons for wanting a two-way - I was meta-gaming a bit, wanting to show future opponents, that I was capable of keeping a game long alliance going all the way to a 17-17 split if necessary, while John M told me, that he wanted ;to see the bear dead+. This made a lot of sense, as David can be a bit intimidating - but suddenly John M told me, that he wanted the two-way for meta-gaming reasons as well, even though he'd earlier told me, that he was planning on taking a break from Dip after the game.
This was the exact moment, when he'd finished conquering the north - and he had more builds coming up right away in Central Europe, while it would take some time for me to advance from ION - and then I started counting a bit and saw, that with John M's soon-to-be gains, he would have enough units in reserve to make a swift dash for victory, while my last chance to strike first was in 06.
My stab would've been devastating hadn't Robert bounced me in NTH in spring 06, as I would then have been able to enter Den before John M could respond, but it still looked promising.
Spring 07-spring 08
I had hoped, that the long standing animosity between David and John M would have made it impossible for them to cooperate, but I wasn't counting on it - and they duely got a coalition up and running with John D. But John F was still in the game - and had even grabbed back a second center with support from David and me.
But it wasn't until the sp 07 adjudication that he realised, that GRT was out to eliminate him, and agreed to sort of ally with me - and then he promptly NMR'ed instead of taking the long shot at staying in the game in autumn 07.
I'd also overlooked, that a German army could go to Livonia in autumn 07 to cover St.P - I'd been planning to use my extra northern fleet from the 07 builds to either out-number the three German fleets - or force Russia to move north through German-occupied provinces to cover St.P causing either a German-Russian disagreeance - or a German lose of a vital unit. Since Germany held so many northern and central provinces, it would've been very difficult for the Russian armies to plug any gaps in the German defense without causing even more German units to be disbanded.
I might also have overlooked one or two favourable moves, which could've made a big difference in the end - but I'm sure David will tell you about it ;-)
A few words on each player:
John F/Austria:
He who doesn't speak, won't get what he wants. He who doesn't write, will be eliminated. He who doesn't commit and NMR instead, won't get any allies. He who hasn't got any allies, won't prosper in a game like Dip - especially when playing Austria. In short: You didn't communicate enough in this game, which meant, that your destiny was never in your own hands.
Robert/England:
You're a good communicator who's prepared to enter discussions on a broad range of subjects, which made it a pleasure to write with you. But coming into the game as a substitute you were handicapped a bit in the negotiations, and I think you tend to focus on small and sometimes obscure details and lose the over-all perspective on the game. Anyway, your will to continue fighting, even though you were overwhelmed by the Sealion, does you great credit.
John M/Germany:
I owe you one, my friend. I spoiled a perfect two-way by getting paranoid just at the moment when we were on the brink of landing our big catch. Your tactics were a bit rusty at times (and so were mine), but you more than made up for it by being a pleasure to correspond with (about the game, family values, politics, football and a lot of other topics) - and if Ipswich return to the Premiership, which I both hope and believe, the pint before the Chelsea match is on me.
Richard/Italy:
I guess your reputation cost you in this game. It's always easier to sow distrust when the victim has a record. But I also think, that your heart went out of the game a bit, when the Sav-incident happened. I must admit, that you're a bit of an enigma to me - I can't understand your unwillingness to discuss strategy, but on the other hand, when you're playing in so many games, and have been playing for so many years, you must've had these discussion thousands of times. It might've been me, that was wrong, but it made me uneasy about having you as my neighbour.
David/Russia:
You don't give much information about yourself. The only things I know about you outside Dip is, that you're British and that you were accompanied by a three year old, when you visited Copenhagen - I'm beginning to think you might be a psycho-analyst or something being afraid to tell anyone, as it could make others wary of your motives ;-)
It's been a pleasure discussing the game with you - and if things had turned out differently, it would've been you and me fighting for the win. Part of my decision not to activate the FR-alliance in 03 was due to my lack of in-depth communication with Richard, but part of it was also because I realised, that I was likely to lose such a battle due to your superior tactical skills. But I think your way of negotiating wins you more enemies than friends - most players don't like being faced with someone telling them what and how to do things. It works much better, when the opponents - or allies - believe the ideas are of their own making. I have a sneaking suspiscion though, that you think that's what happened, when I stabbed John M - and I can't even say absolutely for sure, that your constant warnings didn't play their part.
John D/Turkey:
If we'd been able to carry out our plans in sp 05, there would've been fewer players in the draw, that's for sure - even though I'm not quite certain whether both of us would have been part of it ;-)
Since it was well known across the board, that you were forwarding mail to David, you're diplomatic options were fairly limited however, as it was hard to trust you - but then the same goes for trusting me or John M in mid-game, after we'd eliminated England. But by passing on mails - instead of just refering to them like most of us did (at least that's what I think) the chance to build trust before actually getting into another alliance than the one you had with David (who would've stabbed as soon as he had a chance to do it) was much smaller than it would otherwise have been."
Once again - thanks for doing a great job.
Cheers
ClausReturn to Top
GERMANY (John Mainprize) The second and probably last dip game that I'll play for a while anyway, mainly due to personal circumstances, but also for reasons I'll discuss later in the statement.
I got Germany in the opening draw and I thought with Austira being familiar to me from Horobin and owing me at least a non aggresion pact after the stab early in that game I felt relatively comfortable.
So with that being the case I then considered my other neighbours. My initial view was to attack France with England, he could have the fleets and I the armies, as we started to plan the English player suddenly dropped out to be replaced with the crucial early negotiating round already well underway. Claus (France) had already been heavily corresponding with me and stepped up to bat and was well in before the new English player got established. I was at this point about 70% decided to side with France. Both the games I have played have involved Northern Europeans picking and playing France extremely well - a point to think about in future games folks! Both Karl from Horobin and Claus in this game corresponded in considerable amounts and in pretty faultless English (please don't take this as condescending! but frank admiration). With Claus as well we had a shared passion for football and would spend half ! or more of a letter discussing the latest happenings in the English and occassionally Danish games. Still I digress. Needless to say Claus convinced me that he was the better ally.
It was also at this time that Robert (England) shot himself in the foot. While still being mostly persuaded to ally with France - part of the old enemy thing was still nagging me to side with good old blighty. But Robert's stance from the outset turned me completely against him. His stated desire was to build armies early and get them on the continent. I found this to be a complete anathma and despite asking him to reconsider he insisted that was what he would do. So I formulated the Sealion with France.
Meanwhile my correspondance with Russia was going well giving me options after the hopeful demise of England or if necessary to help me against an Anglo/French assault. The biggest surprise for me was Richard (Italy). The paucity of his mails belied his obvious diplomacy standing. I expected reams of well reasoned arguments, but the mails I did get were very short (to the point I guess) and usually non commital. But very few in number. Austria and to a certain Turkey were infrequent writers at best.
The first year ended with France and Germany controlling the vital approaches to England and both of us getting 2 builds to his one. It was in the first year that it was clear that Ally wouldn't allow anonymous press which i think is a real shame and can add to the flavour of the game, still the GM's word is final (at least I believe that anyway....)
The second year started with a guessing game, which England very nearly won. A last minute change of mind got me into Edinburgh, instead of going for Yor as originally intended. The Sealion was very much in full swing. One 'slightly' disappointing thing was that Robert had managed to slip a raider into Denmark, but that aside it had been a very succesful opening for the Franco Prussian alliance.
Robert continued to be a thorn in my (and others) sides for some time, indeed a rather obvious oversight on my part gave him an extra year, but as he used it to annoy the bear it wasn't all bad!
One or two things happened in the mid game which I found unpleasent, mostly the spat between Richard and Ally which I thought somewhat uneccessary. Interestingly enough a similar thing happened in Horobin, I said then as I said now that in my view the GM's word is final. If the players dispute decisions or slips etc. that is fine but if the GM gives a 'final' ruling it should stay final and players should just get on with the game. At the end of the day the GM's provide a service, if we don't like the service they provide then one can always decide not to play in one of their games again rather than have a public spat. In my personal view GM's deserve respect as they are giving their time to allow us to play the game. Anyway I found the public row distasteful, enough said.
After this I had pretty much become ambivalent at best toward the game and had determined just to stick it out with Claus for a two way, until he suddenly stabbed me! Well I guess either I said something to make him distrust me or the bear had convinced him that I was up to no good, or simply he thought he could solo. Either way it was a rude awakening as if ever I felt completely trusting in a game of dip this was it. I should know better, but I think my ambivilence had a lot to do with it. I had thought to say to Claus that I would help him get the solo to ensure the game was over quickly, but I felt in retrospect it would be very unfair to everyone else to do such a thing. So I soldiered on and managed to form a triple alliance with the bear and the turk to start putting together a southern stalemate line. The game then eventually petered out to a four way draw.
A note on the players:
Austria: John, you really need to write more as you leave alot of people wondering what your intentions are - which in dip is dangerous to your health.
England: Robert was fun, and took on England after the game had started, he was always going to be on a loser with a start like that and his diplomacy was a trifle uncompromising. But I liked his attitude and the fact that he kept on being difficult even with only 1 unit!
France: Claus was great fun corresponding with and really won me over from my initial preference of an alliance with England. His diplomacy was excellent and his knowledge of English football astounding! An all round nice guy - despite the stab!
Italy: To be frank Richard, I expected a lot more from you on the correspondance front. clearly your tactical skills are excellent but I suspect you expected people to deal with you on an equal footing with other players, but most were very wary of you and that made it all the more necessary to diplome hard.
Russia: David, I don't know if it was just me, I suspect not, who found your style extremely difficult to appreciate. In the end I stopped writing to you because you analysed every little sentance and came back with a question which just made me feel that I was on the defensive with you all the time. An alliance with the bear could have been an interesting prospect, but I just couldn't face the thought of be psycho analysed with every mail. Sorry. I also thought that your vilification of Robert was unnecessary. That said I'm sure you were equally displeased with me but at least we were able to patch an alliance together for the final draw.
Turkey: John, you were the ally of choice for Claus and me, but your dependence on the bear and your willingness to spill the beans on our plans and share mails around meant that we had to look elsewhere. But not bad for your first two games a second and a share of first. So what do I know!
Ally as GM, I felt embarrased that you had to go through a very public unpleasent spat. But generally I enjoyed the game. Thanks for your forbearance.
Best wishes to all for the future, I don't intend to play for awhile but one day you may see me on the lists again. I have just been made redundant from Vesuvius, so after Nov 28th I wont have access to the vesuvius mail address.Return to Top
ITALY (Richard Hucknall) It is not my wish to open up old sores, but in a review of how I look back on 'Peacock Goby' it is necessary to refer to certain events without wishing to open up a new thread of discussion upon them. I hope you will all understand.
Once the game line-up was announced, the first thing I noticed was that the three Johns (Germany, Austria, and Turkey) had just finished playing together in 'Horobin' - a game where I was the GM. Would this have any bearing on 'Peacock Goby' I confess I didn't know, but it was an important factor to bear in mind. Spring 1901 diplomacy for Italy was always interesting. I tried to frighten Austria a little with proposals of moves to Tri or Tyr but eventually opted for a Lepanto opening, which was unfortunate
as John left Tri unguarded. John's Turkey had agreed that he wouldn't send fleets to ION, and various and intricate DMZs were agreed with Claus' France, all of which had time limits, and all of which he was subsequently to break, but that is a subject for much later. Perhaps the most significant aspect of the opening season was that I felt most ill at ease with David's Russia. This is unusual as an I/R alliance is perhaps the best on the board, but there was something, that was hard to define, that put me on the
defensive on all dealings with David Rule. There were few surprises in the south in this opening season, although Turkey did order to Arm which was to lead to serious repercussions in the Autumn.
A1901 communications with David's Russia did nothing to change my mind. His emails did nothing to make me want to work with him, whereas all my senses told me that it was the right thing to do. Nevertheless I ordered to Tri (unsuccessfully) as Austria supported himself to Gre, and Russia supported himself to Rum. The most interesting order of the season was the Turkish order of A(Arm)-Sav (sic) which Ally annotated as a misorder, but whether or not a misorder would fail and have no effect on the positions.
As you all know I challenged Ally over the adjudication as I believe it is very important that the written rules of the game should be followed, and that the order was merely a badly written order that could have only one meaning and should therefore be followed. Ally responded with "no re-adjudication. If you think that sounds odd or rude, no it doesn't. See EGS." Presumably John had requested that the order be treated as a misorder, although I still maintain that for the GM to do so it actually needs to be a misorder, and not an order that would otherwise be acceptable. Once again I objected, this time copying in all the players,
but Ally responded with the catch-all "GMs decision is final", however Austria, Germany, France, and England, wrote to me with their support, and only Russia disagreed, but he later confided privately that he sympathised with my views. Turkey apparently had no opinion, or at least none that he shared with me.
Now around this time my personal life had taken something of a hammering. My mother was taken seriously ill, and within a few days my father-in-law died after a very short illness. This was followed by my mother-in-law suffering a heart attack. During this period it seemed that what little spare time I had for Diplomacy was dominated by this perceived injustice. It was the evening of the S1902 adjudication, when feeling tired, emotional, and probably a little drunk, I went completely over the top accusing Ally of inconsistency. This was wrong of me and I have since apologised to Ally. The dispute had run it's course and the decision had been maintained. There were no winners or losers, although I'm certain that the affair did have a significant effect on the alliance structure,
Spring 1902 saw the first definite signs of a Russian/Turkish alliance with Turkey supporting Russia into Austrian held Ser, and vacating Arm. I was still following an indecisive course of action, and ended up ordering to Tyr and Ven in order to outflank Austria. In the north, France and Germany were working together well against England.
During A1902, Russia put pressure on me to attack Austria by suggesting I support myself to Tri, whilst denying that a Juggernaut was in place. John Doyle as Turkey echoed the fact that the Juggernaut was a myth, and even agreed to support my F(ION)-Gre. Come on fellas - I'm sure you could be a little more subtle than this ! I didn't need any persuasion to help Austria
by supporting him in Gre, and noted that it needed an attack by Austrian A(Tri) on Russian held Ser to cut support for the Turkish attack on Gre, and keep Gre Austrian. Of course there was no Turkish support for an Italian attack on Gre, not that the attack was ordered. It was the final proof thatthe Juggernaut did in fact exist, but the big worry was that Austria and myself could not defend against it indefinitely and that we would need help from elsewhere, or somehow split the alliance.
No explanation, indeed no communication whatsoever, was received from Turkey during S1903. Discussions continued with Germany and Austria on how to stop the Juggernaut although this was clearly impossible if they continued to work together. France assured me that the agreed DMZs in the Med would be respected. Close to the deadline I received an email from Russia admonishing me for not having emailed him during the season, although this was the first I had received from him in S03. This only served to consolidate my opinion about both him, and the R/T alliance. I deliberately sent him a *very* lengthy reply all about communication, Diplomacy, but saying nothing whatsoever about 'Peacock Goby' ! The S1903 moves saw the interesting
spectacle of Russian F(BLA) moving to Con as Turkey expanded into Gre.
A1903 was a most significant season. David/Russia now agreed to stab Turkey by either remaining in Con by design, or misordering, if I would agree to attack Austria in Tri. The situation around Con was interesting ! Russian F(Con) could not leave port (except to Smy or back to BLA) unless the Turkish F(AEG) moved, and as Gre and EMS were occupied, this was almost
impossible. I finally succumbed to Russia's relentless requests that I stab Austria by ordering a supported attack on Tri, whilst also ordering F(Apu) S F(ION) allowing Turkey nowhere to go. The attack on Tri succeeded and it was hilarious to see Turkey ordering F(AEG)-Smy to allow Russian F(Con) to move to AEG, and then disbanding in the winter adjustments. Russia and Turkey were now jumping through hoops in order that their alliance be preserved. Events in the east might have been hilarious, but the sight of two French fleet ordered to GoL and WMS against my express wishes not to do so, and violating agreed DMZs, were of far greater consequence.
And that really was where the Italian game ended. I tried playing off France against Turkey but France was really too strong for me to deal with. Turkey did relent a little as Russia briefly moved against him, but I was fighting an uphill battle, and it was significant that it was Austria who put the final nail in my coffin by regaining Tri with Russian help in A06.
I confess that I paid very little attention to the game once I was eliminated but was not surprised to see it end as a multi-player draw, so congratulations to Claus, David, and the two Johns. I can't say that I enjoyed 'Peacock Goby', not just because of my disagreement with Ally in the early stages. I found John's Turkey to be totally inflexible and there was something about David's diplomacy that worried me. Perhaps John Fryatt and I should have worked harder to create something, but I'm not sure what that could have been. Claus's stab was well timed and well implemented, and to be honest I didn't see it coming. Perhaps I'm just too trusting !
Finally, my thanks to Ally for running the game.Return to Top
RUSSIA (David Rule) Considering I could and should have been eliminated a couple of seasons before the end, I'm happy with a draw. The least deserving players were out of it, and overall no one deserved a win, least of all me.
This is the first time I've ever played Russia and I didn't like it. It seemed too easy for the kind of player who lives on admouthing other players and rumourmongering to set you up as Public Enemy no. 1; I found the tactical problems of having two theatres insurmountable; and I didn't have a plan beyond trying not to be the odd man out.
The other players didn't help much, although of course you have to play the guys you're given. But it was a task beyond my limited abilities. My three potential allies were different and difficult characters: Austria did not write much and when he did he offered unrealistic deals, which he had no intention of keeping (this made him useless as an ally not only for me but for anyone else who might have looked to him for alliance, and consequently led to his being eliminated); Turkey has two problems that hold him back from getting better results - first, his disability means that his grasp of the layout of the board lets him down from time to time, so that occasionally his tactics are poor, and second, more important, he is a centregrabber with no plan beyond scoring a build every year - which he will stab an ally for without compunction. Not rich material, but Turkey was willing, so I allied with him. To no great effect, though. It proved impossible to get him to be active enough. He was always keener on manoeuvring his units into positions where they could stab me than putting them where they could damage Italy.
Italy was a severe disappointment. This guy is supposed to be a legend, but he allowed himself to become riled over a trivial issue and made the game personal. His gameplan boiled down to trying to get me to stab Turkey and Turkey to stab me. Whatever he and Claus discussed, it didn't work, because once England had been carved up, Claus sailed straight into the Med. He wouldn't discuss any strategy beyond the year to come, which inclined me to think he was lying in every specific and allowed me to plan accordingly (if an "ally" won't tell you what they plan to do in the next year or two, even in the vaguest terms, you know that you need to watch your back). In fact, he wasn't keen on talking about his plans at all. The very suggestion made him huffy. Maybe he should have done. He moved poorly and found himself very much up against it quickly. My main enjoyment in the game was to con him with a fake proxy and then stab him not once, but twice to ensure his elimination.
As for the issue of the misorder: for the record, I agree with Richard's position. It should never have been called a misorder and John D's unit should have moved. (I knew I it wouldn't, of course, because I had some inkling of Ally's GMing style.) It was, though, of very little consequence, and Richard made a poor show of himself, I thought, in how he handled it. I accept I did my part to rile him up, but when the devil whispers.
I had hoped early in the game to ally with Germany - an odd idea for Russia, but one that works in the early game (I'm seeing it in another game I'm playing and it's effective). The idea is of course that R and G can fight in one theatre without needing to worry about each other, and cooperate in the other. It didn't work, because, I think, G read the west much better than I did, formed a very strong alliance with France, and simply didn't need to worry about England. I had to learn the hard way how poor a player England is. (Probably the poorest player I've encountered on this site - and I include the guy who anarchied after two seasons in You Oughta Know. He suggests one, and only one, tactical scheme each season, and if you don't say you'll do it, he throws a hissy fit of petulance. He would not consider any alternatives. Given that he didn't actually do what he suggested on any of the first two, three tries, but tried to stab all and sundry instead, he was asking to get beaten, and was. He put out press saying his aim was to be an annoyance. Well, he succeeded admirably. Lord knows how he managed to score a draw in Ram - the players in that game should hang their heads in shame ;-)) Germany was able to attack me long before I was ready to defend myself.
Germany showed the benefit of a strong alliance and also its danger. With England nullified, and France concentrating on the south, Germany was able to push across into Russia easily. With an uncooperative Italy, who simply wouldn't consider standing up to the FG until it was far too late (always trying to play Claus and unable it seemed to see that Claus saw him as target number one). Maybe, like me, he thought it was inevitable that Claus must take his chance and stab John and there would be chances in the aftermath. The lesson, I think, John might have learned, is that no one plays for a two-way, whatever they say (except the famous instance when Tim Sweeney did just that). Your staunch ally is going to stab you, whatever he says. Claus's psychological hold on John was very strong, though.
But Claus didn't win. Why? Well, to my mind, he missed a golden chance. He could've taken John out with one blow, almost. He had the opportunity to stab him very hard and passed it over. It would have been risky, and Claus is not really a risktaker, but I think it was there. Having missed that chance, he then put too much materiel into the south, and found himself overloaded there, and underpowered in the north when it came to the crunch.
When he did stab John, it wasn't strong enough, but he felt he couldn't afford to wait any longer. He miscalculated also in that he felt that the other remaining players would have enough enmity to stab one another once he had put the knife in, but he proved wrong. He believed the press, which given that he enjoys putting out false rumours himself, wasn't too smart! Still, Claus played very well and he's a dangerous opponent.
I want to thank Ally for GMing the game. I appreciate the time and effort he put into it. Philosophically, we don't see eye to eye but that doesn't mean I don't appreciate his contribution. He handled the misorder situation badly, I felt, and his adjudications were very interpretive, suggesting alliance structures and motives in a way that I think made him too much a party to the diplomacy. His ad hoc approach to decision-making is always going to make him unpopular with players such as Richard (and myself) who prefer the game to be played more closely to the written rule. I also want to thank the other players for their contribution, however misguided, to the game.
DavidReturn to Top
TURKEY (John Doyle) Spring 1901
I had full intention to take or at least prevent control of the Black Sea. David was definitely not pleased with this.
Fall 1901
This turn was probably the most perturbing season I have played in my short life as a Diplomacy player. I asked Ally ahead of time if my misorder was legal or not. I truly do not know and I still do not know the rules well enough to do certain things without asking, so I did this. Ally told me that the deception was a go and that there was no problem with this at all. Well, poor Ally, the crap that was sent out by Richard caught me off guard. I like Richard, he was my first GM for Diplomacy, but ouch, the blast was even heard over here in North America! David was alright with the move, but I did not want to let anyone know that Ally had given me the ok. I thought that if it was allowed then that was that. Anyway, I do hope nobody was too offended by the move itself, but all of the other personal stuff that went on afterwards has nothing to do with me. That is why I decided so staunchly not to let anyone know what really went on. It was fun in a sense, but sad at the same time.
Spring 1902
Lots of contact with Russia, but I had been quite ill and was not able to send out many E-mails. I loved the comments from Germany; his Press was lots of fun. So was Claus’ stuff!
Fall 1902
Same as last season, still speaking to Russia a lot, but David tends to get upset very quickly. Richard is not pleased that he cannot get into the Eastern Med.
Spring 1903
This season was difficult for both Russia and I. I would like to let David know here that we just had a misunderstanding between the two of us. I took Serbia, thinking that this was agreed upon, but I made a mistake and he began to think that I was going to stab him again after what had happened at the beginning of the game with the Black Sea. In the end it worked out, but he was not pleased at all! Richard was still being frustrated by my wonderful fleets, it is nice to have some when you are Turkey isn’t it!
Fall 1903
This season was where the trust between Russia and I was solidified. We basically wanted to go with the Juggernaut from the beginning except for my folly of trying to go after Russia. Besides that we worked together quite a bit to make life hard on Richard! It was fun, but I did not write anything nasty at all to him, but I got the impression from David that this may not have been the case with him and Richard.
Spring 1904
I did not do much this season. I had been in contact with Claus, but nothing too serious. I had no contact with Austria at all during the game, but that is understandable. Just a couple of E-mails at the beginning. Russia and I were able to make a couple of moves, but nothing more than that and keeping Richard out of the Eastern Med. We had a DMZ and pretty well kept it throughout the game.
Fall 1904
I cannot remember what happened here, I had been quite ill again so I erased my notes by accident and I actually did not have many.
Spring 1905
I still tried to keep Richard out of my waters which seemed to work now that France was about to beat on him! Many E-mails between me and Claus the past little while, but nothing too serious. David and I started to do a difficult move; it was touch and go at first.
Fall 1905
Not much here of course, still some correspondence with France, Russia and now Germany. It is finally starting to get interesting!
Spring 1906
I decided to move towards Russia, but did not really know what I wanted to do. I knew that I could help David by supporting him at times or I could get into a good position and finish him off. I really did not want to do this, so I decided to help him out any way I could. He had been true to his word with me. I enjoyed E-mailing David; he was the player who did so the most with me this game. I do thank him sincerely for this.
Fall 1906
An interesting season indeed. The demise of both England and Italy were not surprising at all, but I was glad that Italy fell with my fleet already in place against France. My loss of my army in the Ukraine was minor since I did take Trieste. Talks were starting to go between France, Germany and myself. We now knew that we had to stop Claus and his amazing army! It was great that both Robert and Richard toughed it out to their end. I truly appreciate Robert’s sportsmanship; it really made the game that much more fun despite what had been happening during the game.
Spring 1907
Russia and I knew that we had to eliminate Austria; it was just becoming too bothersome for us and could be trouble if Claus could help him out. Discussions were going on between Germany, Russia and I still. Nothing definite yet.
Fall 1907
Ally said it best that by the elimination of Austria here we had a stalemate line against France. The 3 of us did not want to attack one another because we could clearly see that it would be a win for Claus if we did not stick together. John F. did a great job despite being in a very bad position for a long time. Thanks John for keeping in the game as well much like Robert.
All in all guys, I would like to thank you for the game. I would especially like to thank Ally for his help words at times of heated discussions! Ally, just let me know the next time you will be a GM for Dip2000, it would be my pleasure to play with you as a GM. Thanks.
Robert, well I did not speak to you much at all, but I do hope to play with you again and I would like to mention once again that I truly appreciate your commitment to the game by staying in so long and by still being involved. I do think we could all use a dose of your sportsmanship!
John F. Well John, I also appreciate that you stuck it out for so long. This was my second game on the Dip2000 site and the second game we have played together. Let’s hope that we are at opposite sides of the board next time we play!
John M. Well a little discussion at the end, but the same with John F. this is our second game together. I thought you held your own very well and that when I did speak to you it was an absolute pleasure John. Take care and keep well.
Claus, well very little contact in the middle, but you kept the lines of communication open throughout the entire game. Thanks Claus for your words and a job well done on your behalf!
Richard, well you were my first GM, so you knew a little how I worked. I had to try to keep you off balance the entire game. Your reputation precedes you sir! Everybody mentioned to me that you were extremely good with Italy, so I made you my prime target from the beginning. I found it a little too bad about the disagreements between you and Ally, I do hope you both can fix it, you are both great guys and I do appreciate all the help you both gave me. Thanks Richard, do take care and keep well.
Finally David thanks you so much for the game. I found that you were a bit rough at times, but you and I both spoke quite a bit this game. It was great! I thank you so much for this, it made the game for me. I truly appreciate everything and I thought that you played very well. Thanks again so much David, please take care and keep well.
Everyone, I have kept your E-mails, so I do hope that you will to mind too much getting mail from me to see how you are all doing in the future. Thanks again to all of you, it was nice.
Your conspirator and friend,
John Doyle
The SultanReturn to Top
GM (Ally Bain) Needless to say, I've read the players EGS & sadly I've got to set the record straight. Prior to that, well done on France, Germany, Russia & Turkey for the four-way draw.
I'm afraid to say that in the 20 years I've been playing/GMing Diplomacy, this was the worse & in fact I can only remember one other game but that wasn't as bad as this.
Prior to going onto the obvious, a quick comment about Claus' & John Mainprize's remark about press. Due to the fact that the Houserules have been slightly altered & now say about anonymous press, I've allowed those in games I've GMd since it was shown. Mudskipper is an example.
After you had agreed to play on the auto system, the Houserules had changed regarding Proxy. As you know I asked you all about changing it & you all agreed. Some time in the middle of the game the houserules were discussed amongst GMs & the rule was put back to what it was. My logic, regarding this game, was to stick to what we all agreed & therefore when asked for a proxy I asked the players for their reasons. One I agreed & one not. I can't remember the exact reason for not agreeing but he was Ok with that.
Now onto the miss-order.
Before speaking of the miss-order let's go back to questioning the GM. Obviously it's fine to do so & the first e-mail I got from RH wasn't a problem to me. As stated by him, I replied but what got under my skin was the group e-mail to all GMs, including Robert. Sadly a few GMs replied without hearing anything from me but when that was done (without RH & Robert included) some GMs, including the some of those who wrote prior to hearing from me previously, agreed I was right.
If I remember correctly, I sent out a reminder to the players about the deadline & soon got an e-mail from RH about the miss-order. I can't remember what actually happened but GMs & players were sent an e-mail from him. At that time I was thinking of all the other players & was thinking that some of them, if not all, were wondering about carrying on with this game. Thankfully they didn't leave & no anarchies.
One thing to bear in mind is one of the rules in the Houserules, GMs decision is final, so even now I still don't understand the reasons.
Leading onto written rules, where does it state that things like 'A (Arm)-(Sav) .... Note Ally that I have put in a deliberate misorder for (Sav)!' can't be used a a miss-order?
The final sentance in Avalon Hill's rules says; 'A poorly written order that has only one meaning must be followed'. Some of you might say that orders like A(Arm)-Sav must be allowed as Sav isn't far from Sev. I do agree & have seen orders like that & I did sent them. However in this case, the final wording in the orders state that this is a miss-order & obviously Sav not Sev therefore I did miss-order it. In case you wonder, if he sent 'A(Arm)-Sev this is a miss-order', I wouldn't call it a miss-order as Sev was the correct abbreviation.
It's fare to say that not all GMs commented therefore knowing what I do compared to RH recall that some GMs work on my basis & others on RH. If you're trying to create a miss-order & your orders are a bit like the one above, you ought to ask your GM. If you're lost with the problem & can't understand two GMs dis-agreeing with each other, remember that people do have differents views on wording & we all know how much money that lawyers earn from picking aside Countries Laws'.
Sadly the dis-aggrement didn't end there. I can't remember the season but in one of them, ADS is used by Dgmwin as opposed to ADR which is mentioned in the rules. Not sure how many GMs don't use Dgmwin but I think it is only one & think all do. Either way, another silly e-mail was sent to me regarding the ADS & the miss-order.
As for the miss-order it happened in A01 & the adjudication was sent out about 24th Feb with the comments following. So why did the same problem happen again in Hotspur just after S02, shown in Aug '03 with the same player involved?
I can't remember the date but we all got a Weekly Newsletter (I think it was that) in the summer which said that players MUST accept GMs decision is final.
Either way, leaving that alone let me cover a few more points raised in other EGS.
David, as you quite rightly pointed out, we can't get on based on comments said by you to me in this game together with Admiral '03 Gunboat Competition, etc, but how the heck can you say the comments used in your final para? Did I start the problems with the miss-order? No! Did I try to continue discussing it? No! Does my 'so-called' ad-hoc GMing cause a problem? No! I wrote to about 100 players regarding Admiral '03 & just under 75 did say 'yes' to playing.
In closing, I get totally lost with why some players seem to think Diplomacy is so important. Surely this is a game aimed at fun leaving a nasty bits to things that sadly do happen.
AllyReturn to Top
|